You may reproduce this document free of charge for non-commercial purposes in any format or medium, provided that you do so accurately, acknowledging both the source and CCW's copyright, and do not use it in a misleading context.
This is a report of research commissioned by the Countryside Council for Wales. However, the views and recommendations presented in this report are not necessarily those of the Council and should, therefore, not be attributed to the Countryside Council for Wales
1
Report Number: 08/28 Publication Date: April 2009 Contract Number: FC 73‐03‐355 Project Officer: Kirsty Lindenbaum Title: Developing recommendations for the delivery of Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) in the Menai Strait and Conwy Bay. Authors: Alex Midlen and Theresa Redding Restrictions: None Distribution List: Core CCW HQ Library CCW North Region Library, Mold CCW North Region Library, Bangor CCW South East Region Library, Cardiff CCW South East Region Library, Llandrindod CCW West Region Library, Aberystwyth National Library of Wales Welsh Assembly Government Library British Library CCW Kirsty Lindenbaum, HQ Kate Smith, North Region Tim Jones, North Region John Ratcliffe, North Region Neil Smith, North Region Euros Jones, North Region Other Alun Owen, Anglesey Council Barry Davies, Cyngor Gwynedd Council Christian Branch, Anglesey Council Euryn Roberts, Environment Agency Wales Gwynne Morris Jones, CPRW Hugh Knott, Menter Môn Jane Richardson, National Trust Janet Jones, Welsh Assembly Government Jean Baker, Menai Community Heritage Trust Kathryn Beard, Welsh Assembly Government Nia Haf Jones, North Wales Wildlife Trust ‐ Marine Awareness North Wales Rhys Jones, Cyngor Gwynedd Council Tom Gravett, Conwy County Borough Council Virginia Prieto, North Western & North Wales Sea Fisheries Committee
2
CONTENTS
Executive summary
1. Introduction 9
1.1 Scoping study
1.2 Background
1.3 Situation analysis
2. Planning for the future 19
2.1 The necessity of a long term approach
2.2 Understanding uncertainty
3. Methodology 21
3.1 Forward planning in an uncertain world
3.2 Identifying principle uncertainties
3.3 The framework scenarios
3.4 Scenario narratives
4. Using the scenarios 27
4.1 Stakeholder feedback
4.2 Developing the action plan
5. Conclusions and Recommendations 33
5.1 Conclusions
5.2 Recommendations
Annex I. Scoping study tender and CoastNet offer 47
Annex 2. Driver validation and prioritisation 53
Annex 3. Stakeholder responses to scenarios 71
Annex 4. Vision and strategy 84
3
Datblygu argymhellion ar gyfer cyflwyno Rheolaeth Integredig ar Barthau Arfordirol yn Afon Menai a
Bae Conwy.
Alex Midlen a Theresa Redding
Adroddiad Ymchwil Polisi Cyngor Cefn Gwlad Cymru Rhif 08/28
Crynodeb Gweithredol
Comisiynwyd yr astudiaeth gwmpasu hon gan Gyngor Cefn Gwlad Cymru i ddatblygu argymhellion ar
gyfer cyflwyno Rheolaeth Integredig ar Barthau Arfordirol yn Afon Menai a Bae Conwy yng Ngogledd‐
orllewin Cymru. Mae gwaith blaenorol wedi:
• Dangos natur gymhleth polisi arfordirol a morol, ac wedi adnabod yr angen am ddull rheoli
integredig yn y parth arforol (yr arfordir a’r môr)
• Dangos bod rhan‐ddeiliaid yn dymuno cael dull integredig o reoli’r ardal arfordirol
• Dangos nad yw ymwybyddiaeth y cyhoedd o faterion arfordirol a morol wedi’i datblygu ddigon, ond bod gan bobl ddiddordeb cynhenid yn y môr.
O geisio ystyried pa mor ddigonol yw’r fframwaith polisi a rheoli presennol gwelir nad oes unrhyw strwythurau’n bodoli ar hyn o bryd sy’n caniatáu ar gyfer dull rheoli integredig ar draws pob sector allweddol a phob rhan‐ddeiliad allweddol yn ardal yr astudiaeth. At hynny, bydd mesurau polisi newydd a gyflwynir yn y dyfodol agos (e.e. ym maes Cynllunio Morol) yn gwneud y system yn fwy cymhleth. Felly, heb ystyried pa mor ddigonol yw’r fframwaith polisi ar hyn o bryd, mae mwy o angen nag erioed am strwythurau sy’n caniatáu i ni integreiddio polisïau a dulliau rheoli ar draws y rhaniad rhwng y tir a’r môr.
Mae’r dull a ddefnyddir gan CoastNet yn yr astudiaeth hon yn ceisio adnabod a deall y cyd‐destun strategol ar gyfer rheolaeth arfordirol integredig, a thrwy hynny wneud argymhellion sy’n debygol o ychwanegu gwerth at y blaenoriaethau polisi a rheoli sy’n bodoli ar gyfer ardal yr astudiaeth. Felly, mae’r pwyntiau canlynol yn angenrheidiol ar gyfer Rheolaeth Integredig ar Barthau Arfordirol:
1. creu’r strwythurau a fydd yn caniatáu i bolisïau gael eu cydgyfeirio,
2. sicrhau bod y strwythurau hyn yn dod yn rhan o’r systemau prif‐ffrwd, fel bod ganddynt felly'r hirhoedledd i lywio newid dros amser hir,
4
3. adnabod blaenoriaethau ar gyfer gweithredu yn y tymor byr a’r tymor canolig lle mae angen dybryd am newid, a lle mae eisoes yn bosibl integreiddio camau gweithredu.
Mae’r adroddiad hwn yn dadlau mai awdurdodau lleol, Cyngor Cefn Gwlad Cymru a Llywodraeth Cynulliad Cymru yw’r prif ran‐ddeiliaid, gan eu bod yn ‘geidwaid porth’ i fecanweithiau cyflwyno ac adnoddau. Felly, mae’r astudiaeth yn canolbwyntio ar eu rôl a’u cyfrifoldebau yn y parth arforol. Mae gwaith ymchwil cefndirol yn nodi’r prif bethau sy’n sbarduno’r gwaith a chaiff rhan‐ddeiliaid eu cynnwys yn rhan o broses flaenoriaethu.
Disgrifir pedwar senario posibl ond eithafol ar gyfer y dyfodol, er mwyn dangos y cyfeiriadau gwahanol y gallai’r gwaith rheoli fynd iddynt. Mae ymatebion rhan‐ddeiliaid i fanteision ac anfanteision y scenarios hyn yn sail i waith dadansoddi sy’n arwain at argymhellion yr adroddiad.
Gwneir pymtheg o argymhellion. Y prif argymhellion yw’r rhai ynghylch sefydlu gweithgor newydd i weithio gyda chynllun gofodol Gogledd‐orllewin Cymru a menter Môn a Menai i ddod â ffocws arfordirol i’r ffrydiau gwaith hyn. Gwneir argymhellion ynghylch sut y gellir cyflawni hyn ar lefel weithredol, gan gynnwys datblygu proses o brawfesur polisïau o safbwynt eu heffaith ar yr arfordir.
Ar lefel ofodol argymhellir bod gweledigaeth yn cael ei datblygu ar gyfer iseldir arfordirol Gogledd‐orllewin Cymru (gan gynnwys Ynys Môn gyfan). Bydd y weledigaeth hon yn sail ar gyfer integreiddio dulliau rheoli yn erbyn agenda gyffredin. Argymhellir hefyd bod gwell cydlynu’n digwydd er mwyn gwneud mwy o’r dreftadaeth naturiol a diwylliannol a ddiogelir, sy’n un o asedau mwyaf amlwg y rhanbarth.
Gwneir argymhellion ar gyfer menter cynllunio morol hefyd, i gadarnhau gallu a chymhwyster rhan‐ddeiliaid yn y maes hwn cyn cyflwyno deddfwriaeth cynllunio morol a strwythurau trefniadol newydd.
Mae argymhellion eraill mwy ymarferol yn cynnwys mesurau i sicrhau bod awdurdodau’n cyflawni eu cyfrifoldebau dan y Rheoliadau Cynefinoedd mewn perthynas ag Ardal Gadwraeth Arbennig forol Afon Menai a Bae Conwy.
Crynodeb o’r argymhellion
Cynigir bod camau gweithredu strategol yn cael eu cymryd i gydgyfeirio polisïau a phrif‐ffrydio materion arfordirol a’r atebion iddynt. Felly:
O safbwynt daearyddol y bwriad yw y bydd y fenter yn cynnwys Ynys Môn gyfan, iseldir arfordirol Bwrdeistref Sirol Conwy, a’r rhan honno o iseldir arfordirol Gwynedd sydd gerllaw Bae Conwy ac Afon Menai.
Dylid sefydlu gweithgor polisi arfordirol a morol ar gyfer yr ardal hon, a fydd yn cynnwys cynrychiolwyr o ran‐ddeiliaid statudol a rhai rhan‐ddeiliaid anstatudol. Dylai’r gweithgor geisio cael cydnabyddiaeth ffurfiol gan:
a. grŵp llywio strategol Môn a Menai (a fydd yn canolbwyntio ar weithredu)
5
b. cynllun gofodol Gogledd‐orllewin Cymru (a fydd yn canolbwyntio ar bolisïau)
c. yr awdurdodau sy’n rhan o’r gweithgor.
Dylai’r gweithgor a’r cyrff sy’n rhan ohono bwyso i gael rôl ffurfiol yn y gwaith Cynllunio Morol, pan fydd yn cael ei gyflwyno.
Dylai’r gweithgor geisio sicrhau bod y llywodraeth a’i hasiantaethau a llywodraeth leol yn cyflwyno ac yn defnyddio dangosyddion arfordirol a morol.
Dylai aelodau’r gweithgor drefnu cynhadledd sefydlog, a gynhelir yn flynyddol ac sy’n agored i bawb, i ystyried materion a blaenoriaethau.
Cynigir camau gweithredu â blaenoriaeth i sicrhau gwell integreiddio yn y fframwaith polisi presennol, a gwerth ychwanegol i’r dull hwn o weithredu. Felly:
Dylai aelodau’r gweithgor ddatblygu gweledigaeth ar gyfer ‘parc’ arfordirol, ac ystyried y potensial o ymestyn y weledigaeth hon i greu brand rhanbarthol,
“Lle ysbrydoledig ac arbennig i fyw a gweithio ynddo………”
Dylent ddatblygu fframwaith o brawfesur polisïau o safbwynt eu heffaith ar yr amgylchedd er mwyn sicrhau bod y parth arforol yn cael ei ystyried yn ddigonol mewn polisïau rhanbarthol. Dylent ddatblygu menter cynllunio morol, i helpu i fynd i’r afael â gwrthdaro presennol, sefydlu blaenoriaethau polisi ar gyfer cynllunio morol, ac arddangos sut y gallai’r gweithgor chwarae rôl ffurfiol mewn gwaith cynllunio morol. Dylent hybu a datblygu dull o gydweithio i hyrwyddo safleoedd treftadaeth naturiol a safleoedd treftadaeth ddiwylliannol dynodedig.
Dylent gymryd camau gweithredu ynghylch cydymffurfio â deddfwriaeth gwarchod bywyd gwyllt, yn enwedig y Rheoliadau Cynefinoedd a’r Safle Morol Ewropeaidd.
Dylent gomisiynu Strategaeth a Chynllun Gweithredu ar gyfer Ennyn Diddordeb y Cyhoedd a Gwaith Dehongli, gan gynnwys argymhellion ar gyfer darparu gwybodaeth i’r cyhoedd, cynnal digwyddiadau a buddsoddi mewn atyniadau i ymwelwyr a chanolfannau treftadaeth.
Dylent gomisiynu astudiaeth ddichonoldeb sy’n edrych ar y diwydiant ynni adnewyddadwy.
6
Executive Summary
This scoping study has been commissioned by CCW to develop recommendations for the delivery of
Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) in the Menai Strait and Conwy Bay in North West Wales.
Previous work has:
• Established the complexity of coastal and marine policy, and identified the need for an
integrated approach to management in the maritime domain (coast and sea)
• Established the desirability amongst stakeholders for an integrated approach to management of the coastal area, and
• Shown that public awareness of coastal and marine issues is poorly developed, but that there is an inherent interest in the sea.
A consideration of the adequacy of the existing policy and management framework points out that there are no existing structures to allow for an integrated approach across all key sectors and key stakeholders in the study area. Furthermore, new policy measures in the foreseeable future (e.g. Marine Planning) will add complexity to the system. Thus, irrespective of the adequacy of the policy framework at present, the need is greater than ever for governance structures that enable integration of policy and management across the land/sea divide.
CoastNet’s approach in this study sets out to identify and understand the strategic context for integrated coastal management, and so make recommendations that are likely to add value to current policy and management priorities for the study area. The imperatives for ICZM therefore are:
4. to create the structures that will enable convergence of policy,
5. to ensure that these structures are embedded within the mainstream systems and so have the longevity to guide change over long timescales, and
6. to identify priorities for short and medium term action where change is urgently needed, and where it is already possible to integrate implementation.
This report argues that local authorities, CCW and WAG are the principle stakeholders, being ‘gatekeepers’ to delivery mechanisms and resources. The study therefore focuses on their roles and responsibilities in the maritime domain. Key drivers are identified through background research and stakeholders are engaged in a process of prioritisation.
Four potential but extreme future scenarios are described to illustrate possible directions of travel in management. Stakeholder responses to the pros and cons of these scenarios provide the basis for an analysis which gives rise to the report’s recommendations.
Fifteen recommendations are made. Foremost amongst these are recommendations for a new working group to work with the North West Wales spatial plan and the Mon a Menai initiative to bring a coastal
7
focus to these workstreams. Recommendations are made as to how this might be achieved at an operational level, including the development of a process of ‘coastal‐proofing’.
At a spatial level it is recommended that a vision be developed for the NW Wales coastal lowland (including all of Anglesey), to provide the basis for integration against a common agenda. It is also recommended that greater coordination takes place to make more of the combined protected natural and cultural heritage, which is one of the most prominent assets of the region.
Recommendations are also made for a marine planning initiative, to establish stakeholders credentials in this field before the introduction of new marine planning legislation and organisational structures.
Other more practical recommendations include measures to ensure that authorities are meeting their responsibilities under the Habitats Regulations in relation to the Menai Strait and Conwy Bay marine Special Area of Conservation.
Summary of recommendations
Strategic actions are proposed to achieve convergence of policy and to mainstream coastal issues and their solutions. Thus:
The proposed geographic scale of the initiative is to encompass all of Anglesey, the coastal lowland of Conwy County Borough, and that part of the coastal lowland of Gwynned which is adjacent to Conwy Bay and the Menai Strait.
For this area a coastal and marine policy working group should be established, comprising representatives from statutory and selected non‐statutory stakeholders. The working group should seek its formal recognition by:
d. Mon a Menai strategic steering group (having a focus on implementation)
e. North West Wales spatial plan (having a focus on policy)
f. The constituent authorities of the working group.
The working group and its constituent bodies should lobby for it to have a formal role in Marine Planning, when introduced.
The working group should seek the introduction and use of coastal and marine indicators by government and its agencies and by local government.
It members should convene a standing conference, held annually and open to all to consider issues and priorities.
Priority actions are proposed to achieve improved integration within the existing policy framework and added value from this approach. Thus:
8
The working group members should develop a coastal ‘park’ vision and consider the potential of extending it to a regional brand,
“An inspirational and exceptional place to live and work..........”
Develop a coastal proofing framework to ensure that the maritime zone is adequately considered in regional policy. Develop a marine planning initiative, to help address existing conflicts, to establish policy priorities for marine planning, and to demonstrate how the working group could play a formal role in marine planning.
Promote and develop a joint approach to the promotion of designated natural and cultural heritage sites.
Implement actions regarding compliance with wildlife protection legislation, in particular the Habitats Regulations and the European Marine Site.
Commission a Public Engagement and Interpretation Strategy and Action Plan, including recommendations for public information, for events, and for investment in visitor attractions and heritage centres.
Commission a renewable energy industry feasibility study.
9
1.0 Introduction
In the invitation to tender for this scoping study, CCW describe the context of this work as follows:
“’Making the Most of the Coast’ is a partnership initiative exploring the practical application of Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) in the maritime1 area of the Menai Strait and Conwy Bay . The natural resources of the study area, which comprises high quality landscapes, biodiversity and cultural history, support a wide diversity of commercial, recreational and other activities. The area is recognised as being socially and economically deprived due to its remoteness, high unemployment rates, and reliance on a narrow economic base, however there are numerous economic regeneration initiatives currently being developed regionally and locally.
The Wales Spatial Plan recognises the need to ensure that economic decisions consider wider environmental issues, by increasing the awareness that the marine and coastal environment is a high quality, high value resource that must be managed in a sensitive and sustainable way in order to bring economic benefits to the area.
Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) can be described as a process that involves all interests and disciplines (e.g. economics, biology, spatial planning, environmental management) to promote the sustainable management of the coastal zone, including the integration of social, economic and environmental interests. The Welsh Assembly Government’s (WAG’s) ICZM strategy ‘Making the Most of Wales’ Coast’ aims to promote the ICZM approach, however there is a lack of understanding of how to apply the concept in practice.
The ‘Making the Most of the Coast’ initiative aims to explore how ICZM could add value to existing management of the project area by investigating how different sectors can work together to balance the growing diversity of interests to ensure the area is managed in a way that is beneficial to local people, natural and cultural heritage, the local economy, and social and cultural well‐being.”
1.1 Scoping study
CoastNet has been appointed by CCW to undertake a scoping study for ‘Making the Most of the Coast’ (MMoTC), and to report with guidance on how to proceed with an ICZM initiative. The Scope set out in the tender and the accepted proposal from CoastNet are included in Annex I. CoastNet intends that this guidance will work at two levels:
• Set out practical steps that stakeholders can take to deliver ICZM in the study area, and
• Set out how an ICZM initiative for the Menai Strait and Conwy Bay area can best be positioned in relation to other strategically important initiatives in NW Wales.
1 Within the context of this project scope, the term ‘maritime’ is used to broadly encompass coastal and adjacent sea areas
10
Coastal initiatives are often beset with uncertainties; regarding longevity, funding, strategic focus, relationship with other initiatives and statutory programmes, and so on (e.g. ICZM in the UK: a stocktake). We have applied a tried and tested approach, variously known as Futures Research, Foresight etc. and widely used in policy analysis. See the following links for more information:
UK Government Foresight Programme: http://www.foresight.gov.uk/index.asp
We recognise that there are many competing demands on stakeholder time and resources. The more that an ICZM initiative for NW Wales can be integrated with other workstreams, therefore, the more secure it will be, the better it will help to add value, and the more easily will stakeholders find the resources to support it.
Understanding this uncertainty, and integrating ‘Making the Most of the Coast’ with other programmes is, we believe, the key to a successful and sustainable initiative.
The rationale for our approach is set out in section 2, and the methodology is applied in section 3. Section 4 provides an analysis of the results of the research, and section 5 the conclusions and recommendations. Background material is contained in the Annexes.
1.2 Background
The genesis of this work lies with two initiatives:
• The Wales ICZM Strategy, which promotes an integrated approach to management in coastal areas, in recognition of their administrative and environmental complexity
• The statutory designation of the Menai Strait and Conwy Bay as a Marine SAC (special area of conservation), according to the provisions of the Habitats Regulations 1994.
CCW has taken the lead in establishing a loose partnership, the Making the Most of the Coast working group. Early discussions amongst key partners and interested stakeholders identified a desire for a wider‐based integrated policy and management initiative, rather than a narrow focus on the management of the marine SAC.
A number of pieces of work have previously been commissioned by CCW specifically in relation to the mSAC and the MMoTC ICZM initiative:
• mSAC consultation events – four in February 2004, in Bangor, Beaumaris, Menai Bridge and Conwy
The main findings of each is summarised briefly below:
Menai Strait and Conwy Bay cSAC, Public consultation, February 2004 Four workshops, to answer questions about the designation and the management process, and to gather views and information from stakeholders. A variety of concerns were raised, as would be expected, regarding the process and its outcomes especially in relation to the potential for greater restriction on activities. However, the events and summary report also drew out useful information on attitudes and issues. The issue of transparency was prominent, with stakeholders making a clear call for involvement in decision‐making.
A review of pressures and management measures in the locality of the Menai Strait and Conwy Bay: current status linkages and gaps. Roberts, R., Bigham, P., Pritchard, T., & Marston, P. CCW Policy Research Report No. 06/4 This review served to highlight the policy complexity in coastal areas. A key perspective in CoastNet’s opinion is the ‘policy matrix’ presented. What does one do with this table? The intention is to identify policy gaps or conflicts that must be resolved, but it is clear that this is too complex a task. Each cell in the matrix does not exist in isolation, and any change to one will have implications for others. The authors rightly do not use the table in this way, and instead recommend the instigation of a process of ICZM. In CoastNet’s view it is only by agreeing common objectives amongst stakeholders that an integrated policy framework can be achieved – it cannot be retrofitted to a disjointed framework.
MMoTC Workshop Report, Jan 07. Dialogue Matters.
Participants at the workshop agreed with the concept of an integrated approach to working and proposed a participative process to develop an integrated strategy. This report provides a useful overview of stakeholder perspectives about what is important to them in the area as a precursor to defining priorities. They largely reinforce similar views represented in the SAC consultation events in 2004. A variety of ideas were also aired regarding the geographic extent of the initiative. Trends were identified, which have been used as background information for this study.
Importantly, this workshop established the support amongst stakeholders for an ICZM initiative.
Public Attitudes towards the Menai Strait & Conwy Bay. March 2008 The report found a low awareness amongst the public regarding the marine environment (with a few exceptions), and a poor perception (e.g. ‘dirty’) was common. However, landscape and scenery and the ‘environment’ were positive associations for most people and there was in inherent interest in knowing more and in preservation.
Summary.
The need for an integrated approach to management in the study area is well established amongst many stakeholders, but some question the added value of ICZM.
A need to raise the profile of the marine environment has been identified. The public and stakeholders have a broadly consistent vision in support of landscape and nature protection, on‐going and improved recreational use of the coastal environment (with some caveats), and regarding the development of ‘sustainable’ tourism.
Tensions are apparent with regard to the infrastructure needs related to some of these aspects, and generally between ‘protection’ and ‘development’. These are reflected in a number of actual cases concerning, for example, recreational boating infrastructure v. fisheries, urban regeneration v. landscape.
No work has been undertaken with respect to assessing the impact of future external pressures on management, such as the introduction of new legislation or changing economic conditions.
A note on Habitats Regulations (1994).
Whilst it is not the central focus of this initiative, the mSAC designation is nevertheless an important factor as it confers certain duties upon ‘Relevant’ Authorities (those with relevant statutory powers that can be used for management of the site). Thus, specified approaches must be taken with respect to the assessment and issuance of consents for activities within the site, and outside it if there is potential for impact on the designated nature conservation features of the site.
In many cases these duties are easily discharged, with the onus upon the developer to provide sufficient information to enable the rules to be applied. A precautionary approach applies where this is not the case. However, there will be certain cases which are more difficult for Relevant Authorities to assess or to manage. In particular, the issue of in‐combination and cumulative impacts call for a more strategic approach which requires authorities to be pro‐active and to work together. This may apply to both large projects and to small‐scale development activity. Certain on‐going activities do not require consents and similarly require a pro‐active approach to management upon the part of Authorities.
The Vision for NW Wales “recognises that North West Wales is highly unique in both a Welsh and UK context due to its exceptional natural environment, built heritage and strong cultural identity. The area’s towns and villages are home to generations of Welsh speaking communities that attach a strong importance to place ‐ intricately linked with its dramatic landscape and coastline. The economy has been restructuring for some time and faces some immediate challenges, most notably the decommissioning of Wylfa Power Station on Anglesey. People from the UK and beyond have moved into the area to take advantage of both the new opportunities and the high quality of life the area has to offer. The Vision seeks to ensure that these opportunities continue to be realised and are able to benefit those living in the area, whether it be access to jobs, homes, leisure activities or services. In realising the Vision, the Spatial Plan recognises the importance of the cluster of larger towns located either side of the Menai Strait (referred to as the Menai Hub) as a strong focal point for economic activity. The area is also characterised by a diverse network of coastal, rural, slate mining and tourism centres that need to be considered in the wider context of North West Wales. Collaboration is therefore seen as essential to deliver the vision and agreed objectives for the area:
• “A strong Menai area, the network of linked settlements on both sides of the Menai Strait extending to Llangefni. This is the area with the greatest potential as the key regional economic driver. Economic success in the Menai area will spread prosperity to the wider area including Holyhead, North Anglesey/Amlwch, Porthmadog and the slate mining communities.
• The development of an outward‐looking and confident knowledge economy, possibly linked to the maritime and marine energy sector, recognising the key role the University of Wales Bangor has in supporting this.
• Maximising the opportunities of the international gateway and a key transportation corridor. • Capitalise on the region’s outstanding environment, including the coast, ecological and historic
heritage, and strong cultural identity to build higher‐value sustainable tourism. This includes the development of the area as a quality destination, incorporating higher quality accommodation and water‐based activities.
• Move from a reliance on low‐tech manufacturing, towards the development of indigenous, high‐tech industries, which can offer a sustainable future for the land‐based economy.”
Community Strategies are the principle vehicle for implementing Government Policy at local level. They are produced by a range of organisations working together as a Local Strategic Partnership. In practice, Community Strategies can be either very focussed, or take a more holistic approach in elaborating a general set of priorities. In the former case, they can be effective at galvanising the members of Local Strategic Partnerships to deliver flagship schemes. In the latter case, they often deliver little more than would have been achieved by individual partners before the advent of Community Strategies, but perhaps do it in a more coordinated fashion.
14
Gwynedd Together (http://www.gwyneddarycyd.org.uk/) focuses on Affordable Housing, Childrens Health, Sustainable Development (principally by promoting examples of good practice, and local food links), a Futures project (Gwynedd Tomorrow), and a street‐scene management programme for urban areas.
Conwy Community Strategy takes a broader approach, with five themes: A healthy Place, a quality environment, a prosperous Conwy, encouraging learning and creativity, and strong and safe communities. (http://www.conwycommunitystrategy.org.uk/doc2.asp?cat=2347&doc=2747&Language=1 )
Anglesey Life 2007 provides a general restatement of the core policies of Anglesey County Council and the Anglesey Health Board, but integrated across four key implementation mechanisms: the Local Development Plan; AONB Management Plan; Health, Social care, and Well‐being Strategy; and the Children and Young People’s Plan. However, the Isle of Anglesey County Council’s political priorities, as identified in its 2007‐8 improvement plan arguably give a better indication of key issues for the area. They are:
• Economic regeneration and jobs. • Tackling crime and disorder. • Affordable housing in communities. • Performance management arrangements to improve service delivery.
The three Unitary Councils in the study area appear to have a quite different outlook and set of priorities, at first sight the relative strengths of the economy being the principle factor (2004 GVA per head for Anglesey being about £9,000, compared to Gwynedd’s £12,000+. GVA for Cardiff is £20,000+). Uniting them around a common theme, which also delivers the broader sustainable development objectives of the Welsh ICZM strategy will be one of the main challenges.
Clearly, the project area is strategically located, linking the Menai Hub with the Conwy/LLandudno area, the location of principle settlements and economic centres. However, having the marine SAC at its centre, an ICZM initiative for the area could be labelled as a local, sectoral (i.e. nature conservation) matter. A similar situation exists in Essex, of which CoastNet has direct and in‐depth experience. The Essex Estuaries European Marine Site is large, but has no high profile threats to its conservation status. As such it proved difficult to secure much interest amongst local authorities regarding a management scheme. A wider approach was tried, and the Essex Estuaries Initiative was launched as a broader sustainable development vehicle, albeit with a strong environmental focus. However, it was eclipsed by competing sub‐regional socio‐economic priorities: the housing and economic growth areas of Thames Gateway to the south and Haven Gateway to the north .
Review of the existing policy framework:
The project specification for this study asked for :
“Analysis of the projects and policy framework in the area, which will include:
• Projects, plans and initiatives - identifying duplication and/or opportunities for collaboration and joint working between national, regional and local projects, plans and initiatives.
• Strategies and policies – Summarising the effectiveness of national, regional and local strategies and policies at addressing maritime issues, and identifying opportunities for including coastal and marine issues. (Note: this should include looking at Local Authority strategies such as the Community Strategy, the Local Development Plan (LDP) and documents relating to health and social care etc., and the WAG’s Wales Spatial Plan).”
This is a huge task and an extremely difficult one. In fact, as we have argued earlier, analysing existing policy with the implicit notion of making it more integrated, is the wrong approach. The coastal policy system is too complex and too cumbersome to tinker with ‘after the fact’. Thus the issue is not really about existing policy, but about governance ‐ about how those decisions that establish the policy framework are made.
Much research attention has been focussed on coastal governance and the almost universal consensus is that an integrated approach to management is essential. Through a substantial demonstration programme the European Commission tested the ICZM approach to coastal management and in 2000 produced a Communication and a Recommendation on ICZM, the latter being agreed by all member states. The UK agreed to produce a strategy for ICZM, and now all 4 administrations have produced one.
The Wales ICZM Strategy starts with the statement:
“Integrated coastal zone management (ICZM) is essentially a management process which aims to facilitate more integrated working or partnership working on the coast by the different interests, including local communities.”
In looking at the policy framework for the study area the simplest test of the “effectiveness of national, regional and local strategies and policies at addressing [coastal] and maritime issues” is to look for governance structures and other arrangements that enable an integrated approach. We know that the few that exist are sectoral and limited in geographical scope and membership. For example, joint arrangements between Gwynedd and Conwy regarding wildlife site management on Lavan Sands. This is not to criticize them – they are designed for specific purposes, not to take forward a broad ICZM agenda.
Furthermore, the UK is progressing towards a comprehensive system of territorial planning over land and sea. In this context it is difficult to argue that new systems of governance are not necessary in the light of this change. The Marine and Coastal Access Bill, for all it says about reducing complexity (mainly in relation to consents), will make provision for new designations (Marine Conservation Zones) and a new policy system (Marine Planning) with its own organisational structures. However, the Bill does not make legal provision for integration between marine and terrestrial planning, which must be consistent in their policies. How will the two systems be ‘zipped up’? The ‘ICZM process’, i.e. that of integrated
16
management across the land sea divide, is tailor made to this task and its need is greater now than ever as we move to increasing complexity of governance.
What other significant regional initiatives are there?
The principle regional initiatives relevant to coastal management are:
• WAG’s Mon a Menai initiative • Anglesey Council’s Mon Menai action plan, for marine leisure • Menai Strait and Conwy Bay SAC management • River Basin District Management • Shoreline Management Plan • AONB Management • Wales Coastal Access Improvement Programme • Significant individual development sites (including Hirael Bay, Bangor; Caernarfon Harbour and
What are the principle agents of change in the foreseeable future?
The following could have a significant impact on the future development and management of NW Wales
• Closure of Wylfa nuclear power plant and associated plant and services • The UK Marine and Coastal Access Bill and WAG response, introducing a new statutory planning
regime for the marine environment • Development of NW Wales spatial plan • UK Energy policy • Implementation of EU convergence funding • Current economic downturn ‐ especially in relation to the housing market, but also in relation to
tourism.
Which organisations are the principle actors?
One of the principles of ICZM promotes a high level of stakeholder participation. This is important because:
1. Users, particularly of the sea, are difficult to manage for many reasons and their self‐regulation is a cost effective and desirable aim
2. Government, even at local level, is increasingly engaged with more strategic issues, of globalisation, managing the direction of society, and coordinating the different aspects of government. The task of delivering local priorities will fall more and more to the community and voluntary sector. ICZM initiatives should facilitate and enable them to do this.
Whilst an open and inclusive process for ICZM is important, a totally open process can fail through lack of leadership. As coastal management has so many other hurdles it is wise to ensure that there is strong
17
leadership, and for this reason it is imperative to understand the roles and motivations of those organisations which might provide that leadership.
Key statutory stakeholders have been involved as a priority in the process of producing this scoping study, since without their commitment a strategic ICZM initiative will not be possible and any ICZM initiative could well fail. These key stakeholders are WAG, Environment Agency, CCW, and the three unitary councils of Anglesey, Gwynedd and Conwy. Considering the scope of powers held and ability to deliver change across a broad range of activity, CCW and the three councils are the most important and have been the focus of most attention. Others will also be important to the process in the longer term, such as the North Wales and North West Sea Fisheries Committee, and local Harbour Authorities, but they are not the ‘gatekeepers’ to success. Wider stakeholder and community engagement should take place when an ICZM initiative is underway.
What are the priorities of principle stakeholders?
CoastNet’s analysis concludes that amongst local government there are three principle drivers:
1. WAG priorities, expressed in the publication ‘One Wales’, published in 2007 and set within the context of overall policy, including the Wales Spatial Plan, Wales Coastal Tourism Strategy, and so on.
2. Local political priorities
3. Performance management targets, set and assessed by Government.
The Community Strategy sets out each Local Strategic Partnership response to the former two drivers, and each Council’s Improvement Plan details their response to the third. Revealingly, the Isle of Anglesey County Council’s political priorities, as identified in its 2007‐8 improvement plan give a better indication of key issues for the area than the broad based community strategies. They are:
• Economic regeneration and jobs. • Tackling crime and disorder. • Affordable housing in communities. • Performance management arrangements to improve service delivery.
The three Unitary Councils in the project area appear to have a quite different outlook and set of priorities, the relative strengths of the economy appearing to be the principle factor.
A new ICZM initiative for NW Wales will be potentially in competition with these priorities for resources. Any initiative must enable authorities to deliver core priorities, rather than detract resources from that task. That requires an approach that is pitched at a strategic level, rather than one focussed on detailed concerns. For example, awareness of the coastal and marine environment generally is an issue, often leading to poor appreciation amongst the public and politicians of the need for certain actions. Rather
18
than simply plan a publicity campaign, the strategic approach would ask what economic or community development opportunities are there in tackling this issue.
19
2.0 Planning for the future
2.1 The necessity of a long‐term approach
Whilst it is important to ensure that the local policy framework ‘joins up’ it is very difficult to do this by stitching together a system that is inherently disjointed. That is, retrofitting an ICZM strategy to existing policies is very hard to do.
In part, this is because there is considerable inertia in the system:
• Statutory plans go through lengthy and rigorous consultation processes (some of which are defined in law), and once agreed are hard to change.
• Furthermore, strategies comprise a coherent set of objectives upon which is built a framework of interlinked policies. Taking out anyone of these building blocks and replacing it with something different may unbalance the whole policy structure.
However, there is often considerable scope for integration in relation to policy implementation as long as there already exists broad compatibility in relation to policy objectives.
The clear implications of these observations are that we have to accept that building an integrated strategic framework takes a long time, at least two or more plan‐making cycles to allow strategies and their objectives to converge. Thus, at the beginning of an ICZM process we need both strategic actions that enable policy convergence, and priority actions that in the meantime build upon existing synergies to provide for a more integrated implementation of existing policy. The imperatives for ICZM therefore are:
1. to create the structures that will enable convergence of policy,
2. to ensure that these structures are embedded within the mainstream systems and so have the longevity to guide change over long timescales, and
3. to identify priorities for short and medium term action where change is urgently needed, and where it is already possible to integrate implementation.
A significant difficulty with forward planning is that strategic goals and priorities can change significantly over plan timescales. Two good illustrations are:
• UK nuclear energy policy. Just five years ago a new generation of nuclear power stations was inconceivable to most. Now it seems inevitable.
• Ten years ago the growing need for millions more homes in the UK was not recognised and not planned for. Now it is recognised and planned for, but in recent months the means of delivery (private sector‐led) looks very uncertain.
20
Again by way of illustration, these both have big implications for NW Wales which would have been dismissed as highly unlikely just two years ago. A new nuclear plant at Wylfa is now a possibility, probably reversing some of the dire projections for the Anglesey economy. Whilst the national housing need may remain, how will some of the major regeneration initiatives in the region be delivered? Assuming that they are significantly delayed, and that consumer confidence remains low what will this mean for planned recreational infrastructure (marinas, promenades etc)?
2.2 Understanding uncertainty
In recognising the long timescales inherent in realising integrated management in coastal areas, and the inherent uncertainty of policy and its context over these long timeframes CoastNet favours the application of Futures Thinking. Working with trends information we build contrasting scenarios which represent a variety of possible futures. In analysing their good and bad aspects we can both identify what is preferred and develop strategies to achieve that goal, and also develop contingencies to guard against the unexpected.
We believe that this approach will lead to the implementation of much more robust ICZM mechanisms, ones that stand the test of time and therefore deliver integration more effectively over the long term.
At the same time the extensive situation analysis undertaken as a prelude to scenario‐building and the in‐depth stakeholder dialogue enables the identification of priorities for more urgent action.
In this study we have not presupposed that the outcome will be a continuation of the MMoTC working group. So no further reference will be made to it, and instead we refer to ‘an ICZM initiative for NW Wales’.
21
3.0 Methodology
3.1 Forward planning in an uncertain world
The analytical approach adopted was designed to understand important issues and to gain an insight into levels of uncertainty as regards future issues and policy. This is so that we can understand the variables in decision‐making and the scope of possible outcomes from decisions made today.
Why focus on uncertainty? When trends and progress is predictable we can make decisions with much more certainty. We have a good understanding of internal and external factors and we can predict outcomes of various options. However, the less predictable things become then the more possible outcomes there are and the more uncertain we are about the likelihood of any one of them becoming reality.
This is obviously a problem for decision‐making. Faced with high levels of uncertainty (about future issues and policy), how can we be sure which is the right decision to take? In relation to an ICZM initiative for NW Wales it is important to understand what are the most influential uncertainties so that we can test the resilience of decisions made now about the initiative. In doing this we can judge which approach is most likely to deliver the priorities of partners.
Hence, we have worked with stakeholders and undertaken research to identify principle uncertainties. We have developed a scenario framework based on the specific issues and uncertainties for the study area.
3.2 Identifying principle uncertainties
A list of representative drivers was drawn up based on our background research into the study area and on CoastNet’s expert knowledge of coastal management.
Representatives of four key stakeholders helped to review and prioritise the drivers. The results of this exercise are presented in Annex 2.
The principle uncertainties have been clustered into two opposing axes, to create four scenario spaces which reflect different sets of outcomes. Each axis is a continuum and each scenario space (i.e. each quadrant) also represents a range of different but related outcomes. The scenarios reflect the possible development paths for an ICZM initiative for NW Wales given different combinations of trends and other drivers of future change. Across the scenarios, different aspects or drivers of change are amplified or become critical issues, depending largely on external factors and the manner in which the issues are managed by key partners and communities in the study area. We have purposely taken extreme positions in the characterization of each scenario, to amplify the differences between them, and to accentuate the importance of certain factors.
The core set of drivers below (a ‘driver’ being an internal or external factor that requires a response) were identified by stakeholders in face to face interviews.
Important drivers: rated medium or high impact and uncertainty by stakeholders
• Introduction of Marine Planning alters perceptions of the relation between terrestrial and marine resources
• Lifestyle changes and continued rise in living standards creates ever increasing explosion in volume and scale of development proposals for port capacity, marinas, leisure facilities and waterside housing
• Proliferation of initiatives and designations creates confusion regarding policy and management priorities
• Fisheries policy continues to fail in taking the necessary action to tackle long‐term stock declines and the need to establish sustainable levels of harvesting natural resources.
• Environmental disaster – large scale coastal flood, big pollution incident, large scale coastal landslide – creates fundamental changes in public and political opinion
• Increasing environmental conflicts emerge for important industrial sectors such as ports, leading to hard choices between economic development and the need for environmentally sustainable policies.
• Geo‐political and security situation in the Middle‐East deteriorates, increasing political and economic pressure to accelerate renewable energy development and in turn sacrifice environmental ideals.
• UK Coastal holiday industry continues to decline, increasing unemployment and driving social deprivation
• Farming in coastal areas faces massive change as a result of CAP reforms: less societal willingness to pay for coastal defence; and tighter pollution control in coastal waters. This drives major changes in the landscape of the coastal/estuarine margin
• Government continues with traditional ‘growth’ policies that increasingly conflict with ‘sustainable development’.
• ‘Mon a Menai’ initiative successfully revitalises the North West Wales economy, creating high demand for development land.
• Toxic algal blooms causes closure of mussel fishery and bathing beaches in Conwy Bay for a full summer season
• Increased level and diversity of recreational use of the coast and inshore waters creates a need for improved management powers.
• Marine SAC designation drives authorities towards more integrated approach to landscape and nature protection
• Increasing disparity between access legislation in England and Wales creates management problems
• Proposals to extend Britannia Bridge to improve congestion problems
• Management of sea level rise between Llanfairfechan and Bangor to enhance environment. Also associated development of visitor facilities/infrastructure
22
23
The two principal axes of uncertainty that we have identified are:
Axis x: Policy priorities – UK Government policy dominates activity or locally driven policy dominates activity.
This axis is a reflection of the practical manifestations of government policy, some of which enables local decision‐making, and some of which is top‐down, either because decisions are taken centrally with little local input or because local decisions have to be taken against a context of strong central guidance. This axis incorporates drivers relating to the UK response to global influences (such as energy security), the proposed Marine Bill (new duties, powers and tools for marine management), EU Directives (especially Water Framework Directive and Habitats Directive) and the dynamics between a range of regional and local management measures and their impact on the environment.
Axis y: Management objectives – For economic development or for environment protection.
This axis relates to the apparent trade off between economy and environment (many people still think this way), with economic development at one extreme and environmental protection at the other. It incorporates drivers that recognise the potential tensions between environment and development, the need to find balance and the unintended environmental consequences of legitimate quality of life aspirations.
3.3 The framework scenarios
By defining these axes to incorporate the most important and most uncertain factors we are able to develop different scenarios as to some possible futures which could arise for the study area. It is useful to take these scenarios to extremes to allow clear differentiation between them and to accentuate directions of travel (i.e. the unfolding of events over time) . The four scenarios thus derived are illustrated below. Each has been given a title which is reflective of their general character.
UK Policy dominates
Economic growth
Environment protection
Local Policy dominates
3.4 Scenario narratives
The scenario narratives are set out on the following pages. The content of each is based on the range of factors identified as relevant to coastal management in the study area and validated in face‐to‐face meetings with key authorities. They are written from a perspective of the year 2020.
Narratives for each scenario were developed by assigning key drivers to one or other of each quadrant. These then form the building blocks of the narrative. The individual weight of influence of each driver is proportional to their distance from the centre of the matrix, based on the stakeholder scoring and comments (see Annex 2). Each narrative is checked for balance according to categories of environment/economy/society and positive/negative aspect.
24
25
NW Wales Protection Zone
The UK Marine Policy, introduced in conjunction with the Marine Bill, has retained a strong environmental protection focus, having a presumption against development in many inshore waters (so as to meet international obligations for Marine Protected Areas). In 2009 Wales adopted the English approach to coastal access, designating coastal access corridors. The NW Wales spatial plan at this time further strengthened protection through robust AONB, National Park, and Ancient Monument policies. Similarly the Water Framework Directive introduced measures which aimed to clean up coastal waters through further controls on water discharges (sewage, surface drains) and on agricultural use of fertilisers and agrochemicals. By 2010 the combined force of environmental protection powers was becoming fully apparent.
The general public mood was in favour of greater protection for the environment, and these policies ensured that government and its agencies met their responsibilities under EU Legislation and Government environmental targets. Consequently, 10 years on, there are now measurable improvements in environmental quality, especially in the Menai Strait, and in biodiversity. Furthermore, the public awareness regarding these issues has increased significantly, not only in general but specifically in relation to coastal processes and to marine biodiversity.
However, these policies also curtailed small‐scale residential and holiday developments (which together threatened a significant cumulative impact) and also forced a rethink on some strategic projects. Consequently, lifestyle aspirations cannot now be fully met within the region leading to a leakage of consumer spend from the economy and difficulty in attracting and keeping middle and high income staff.
Over the years there have been some significant conflicts between local interests and central government regarding energy and growth policy. For example, early proposals for tidal energy projects failed to proceed, so damaging confidence in the prospects for the Menai Hub.
Whilst the policy line remains that ’the environment is our greatest asset’, it is the opinion of many that it is an asset that cannot be exploited, and that the economy that relies upon it (mainly tourism) is being constrained by poor and outdated facilities and support services.
Overall the policy has led to an increasing divide in opinion locally regarding priorities towards growth and the economy versus environment and wildlife.
Energy Hub North West
North West Wales has for a decade been recognised nationally in the UK as an important energy hub. It was prioritised in 2009 as a location for wind and tidal power generation and further nuclear installations. It benefited from good grid connections through the existing power infrastructure. It has huge tidal resources in the Menai Strait and around northern Anglesey which are now exploited with a variety of test and operational turbines (many developed at the Dept of Energy Policy and Science at Bangor University which was established in response to the designation) and wave power devices are tested and deployed on the north and west coast of Anglesey. The offshore wind farms which were still a novelty of 2008 have been greatly extended and now encroach into Conwy Bay.
In 2010 strong pressure for onshore windfarms came from both Government and Industry, keen to meet climate change emission reduction targets and to expand this sector, but met with stiff local opposition. Even today local campaign groups continue to fight proposals strenuously and their focus of attention has grown to the whole energy sector. Early on, forces were joined with marine environmental protection groups aiming to fight, on principle, the development of the sea – the ecologically rich Menai Strait becoming their cause celebre and proving an effective rallying call for public dissent.
The continued need for nuclear energy finally overcame objections to the building of a new reactor at Wylfa and, as concerns increased regarding safety at the more vulnerable sites on the south and east coast of the UK, the proposal for a second generator at Wylfa was approved in Westminster. Welsh Assembly Government aspirations for a centre of excellence in nuclear technology were realised well before this (on the strength of expertise in decommissioning) and plans are now well advanced for an associated Energy Research and Innovation Park, in partnership with the Menai Hub. Such has been the success of these hubs that Anglesey and Gwynedd Councils have made additional housing allocations in their local development plans. The prospect of a large, well‐educated and well‐paid workforce has generated numerous development proposals for housing and for leisure facilities in response to rising boat ownership and watersports participation.
The new centralised approach to consents for activities offshore introduced under the Marine Bill and set against the UK Government Marine Policy, gives local stakeholders little say in developments. Fears that ‘industrialisation’ of the coast on this scale could damage tourism, conflict with the views of others who point to the positive benefits of retained employment and creation of new high quality jobs in research and engineering.
26
Micro‐management prevails
The strength of the environmental assets of North West Wales is a common feature to all three administrative areas: the coastal landscape, habitats and wildlife, against the backdrop of Snowdonia, is second to none. By 2008 there were a number of ad hoc examples of cooperation between authorities in relation to management of sites and sectors. This was built upon through the MMoTC partnership aiming to both develop new opportunities for growth but also to ensure that unintended consequences of activities were minimised through improved management. At its core was a detailed management plan and process for the Marine SAC, which identified issues and management solutions in relation to activities that threatened the site’s integrity.
The plan, issued in 2010, provided clear guidance on how to resolve issues and the management group have formed an effective partnership which has successfully safeguarded the Menai Strait and Conwy Bay SAC for over a decade. Most significantly, some major development proposals have been favourably altered (or indeed, dropped) in response to a coordinated effort by the Management Group to communicate its concerns to developer and Relevant Authority. The process has not been without conflict, however, and some Relevant Authorities reluctantly have had to make unpopular decisions, particularly regarding water sports and public access to sensitive areas for wildlife.
In its early days MMoTC initiated some well‐received promotional activities regarding public awareness and innovative tourism opportunities.
There has been less success, however, with the wider aims of MMoTC vision to promote sustainable economic development of coastal and marine resources. A review in 2019 identified the reasons for this: ‘competition’ from better resourced and statutory processes which overlapped in jurisdiction with the Marine SAC. These activities demanded more attention, were frequently central to the legal duties of the authorities and therefore gained higher priority. They also were not coastal focussed and so a different perspective on priorities prevailed. Even the advent of Marine Planning had not overcome the poor integration across the land‐sea interface of policies and activities, due largely to the different geographical scales involved. The report concluded, “The focus on conflict resolution, whilst necessary and valuable, did not provide sufficient added value to participating organisations. Without the essential foundations of vision and strategy, MMoTC had an uphill struggle from the start.”
Each to their own
As economic decline took a grip during the ‘Credit Crunch’ period of 2008‐10 the three councils in the North West Wales adopted their individual responses. Each made the most of the key assets of each local authority area. Given that they are all in North West Wales the strategies were surprisingly different. Conwy focussed on the regeneration of Colwyn Bay in connection with the coastal defence scheme and maximising its wider benefits for tourism and the local community. Anglesey focussed on minimising the impacts of any Wylfa closure and on promoting the Mon Menai action plan for coastal economic development. Gwynedd took a more diverse approach, but one in which the development of the Menai Hub through a knowledge economy was central.
In this way the Counties took increasingly divergent directions. Their focussed efforts helped each authority to meet its direct delivery targets and commitments. Nevertheless, as time passed it became apparent to some that significant opportunities to work together for common gain had been lost.
For example, the Menai Strait and Conwy Bay area features in all their strategies, and the councils’ divergent approaches became manifest in increasing tensions regarding detailed actions, in particular, regarding the wider environmental impacts of their strategies. This was notably the case in the management of the European marine site. The duties imposed by the Habitat’s Regulations on each authority exposed the failings of this uncoordinated policy approach through disagreements over the impacts on others of key developments and concerns generally regarding cumulative impacts. The impacts of developments of harbours and other structures on shellfisheries has remained a particularly contentious issue, as has the cumulative effects of increased leisure activity on maritime safety and on disturbance to wildlife.
The development of the energy industry is another case where the authorities now feel that a coordinated approach amongst them would have generated greater local benefit. Liverpool Port lobbied hard for support service contracts for offshore wind farms and won out over Holyhead and Bangor. Furthermore, insufficient resources were devoted to the promotion of the proposal for an Energy Research and Innovation Centre at Bangor University, which failed to gain sufficient financial support.
A recent planning investigation has raised the prospect of the Councils being fined for breach of their duties under the Habitat’s Regulations.
27
4.0 Using the scenarios
All four scenarios have certain advantages and disadvantages – they are presented as extremes. Stakeholders have given their views on the scenarios according to the format below, which are included in Annex 3.
1. Assumptions and facts
Does the scenario strike you as completely impossible, lacking any relation to reality?
Or do you see elements which are within the bounds of possibility, and if so, which?
Please explain your answers.
2. Pros and cons
For each scenario, think about the positive aspects and the negative aspects. Prioritise up to three of each and briefly explain why you have chosen them and what would be their likely impacts.
4.1 Stakeholder feedback
The summaries below reflect Local Authority, CCW and WAG feedback (though each group does not necessarily agree with all the views presented here).
Scenario 1 – Energy hub North West
Aspects of the scenario are considered to be within the bounds of possibility, in particular the region’s increasing importance as a location for wind and tidal power generation. Added to this is the increasing political pressure to secure a new generation of nuclear power station on Anglesey. Past conflicts over the marine environment could well resurface. Testing of tidal and wave generating plant is seen as quite likely, but offshore wind seen as increasingly unlikely within sight of coast. Expansion of onshore wind generation may however, be expected. The concept of a ‘strategic energy hub’ would be difficult to sell to the public.
Pros
• Increased employment opportunities linked to retained employment and the creation of new, high quality jobs.
• The scenario outlines opportunities to support significant economic growth on Anglesey and in association with Bangor University in Gwynedd
• The identified renewable technologies provide opportunities for a regional contribution to the challenges associated with tackling climate change.
• Development of tidal resources for economic gain • Development of associated educational opportunities to upskill workforce and thus create economic
benefits • Branding of North West Wales as a ‘green energy hub’ could be good for tourism (although nuclear
aspect may be negative).
Cons
• Danger of over‐development of sensitive areas – Industrialisation • Possible loss of tourism incomes due to decreased appeal of industrial area, and infrastructure
associated with ‘green generation’ isn’t necessarily ‘green’. There are potential negative impacts of energy based activities on the landscape and biodiversity and the marine ecosystem.
• The issues associated with the safety of nuclear power generation and the storage of nuclear waste. • Potential environmental degradation from further urban development and associated demand for
ecosystem services, such as for waste disposal (eg sewage) and recreation. • The limited input local stakeholders would have in issues which could (potentially) impact upon them
directly.
Scenario 2 – NW Wales protection zone
Many elements of this scenario were considered to be unrealistic and improbable – with any increased environmental protection only likely for existing environmental designations, rather than a new drive to promote NW Wales as an environmental ‘protection zone’. The Economy is still likely to be more powerful/wealthier than the Environment and 180° turn‐around is unlikely by 2020. It was felt that the economy will still be the main driver for the area, but that increased awareness of environmental issues was likely to be a reality by the year 2020.
28
Pros • Significant improvements in the quality of the local maritime environment and possibly increased
public awareness and ‘buy‐in’ leading to more involvement in management. • Improved opportunities for people to access the coastal zone for recreation purposes, which would
also allow opportunities to promote and develop eco‐tourism in the region. • A holistic approach to marine management which includes strong policies and management of the
marine environment in addition to landscapes, river basins and cultural and heritage interests. If all these different policies are linked together and implemented effectively there is a greater chance of increased overall efficiency in relation to the management of the natural resources of the area.
• Environmental Policy line ‘held’ with the environment seen as an asset
Cons
• Would impact significantly upon proposed developments in the Anglesey/Menai coastal zone. • Would increase the pressures/ divide between economic growth and protection of the environment,
and could have detrimental impacts upon resident’s lifestyles and quality of life. • Could create a backlash against environment protection or improvement and so lead to less
sustainable development
Scenario 3 – Each to their own
There was agreement amongst all respondents that this scenario reflects, albeit in extreme terms, the current and recent situation in NW Wales, in particular with regard to different operational priorities and the emerging concerns regarding the mSAC (e.g. the increase in recreational activity and the conflict between aquaculture and marina developments).
However, whether this scenario would still be relevant in 2020 was questioned given the increasing emphasis on regional collaborative working ( e.g. WAG, ‘Making the Connections’) and spatial planning. Nevertheless, local authorities working alone is felt to be a cultural issue and therefore hard to change. Local Authorities tend to be protective about their own ‘patch’ which is natural and what their resident Council tax payers would expect. Collaboration is difficult in this environment.
29
Pros • Provides a focus for local issues, challenges and opportunities. • Maintains Councils’ “identity” in terms of local decision making • In the short term would deliver for each Local Authority • the use of a fine for breach of Habitat Regulations could have a positive consequence for the
environment
Cons
• Environmentally negative as a holistic, large scale approach is needed for sustainable development of the marine and coastal area
• Piecemeal and non‐strategic economic development • This approach is likely to lead to operational conflict and the wasting of resources, and different
organisational priorities and activities could impact upon the quality of the local environment. • The approach may not adequately reflect national and regional priorities. • The quality of the environment increasingly degrades due to impacts from the various development
projects. This is due to lack of coordination between authorities with regard to their duties imposed by the Habitats Regulations. This could lead to unfavourable conservation status for most of the mSAC’s features and associated fines from Europe.
• May lead to missed opportunities for reducing duplication and effort, saving money and overall improvement to the social, economic and environmental status of the area.
• Conflicts between different sectoral interests. This has been made worse by the lack of integrated thinking with regard to the impact assessments of different activities and developments. This leads to bad feeling between different sectors, and even small issues may be difficult to resolve. The increase in recreational use of the area has been allowed to carry on without regard to the safety and protection of wildlife and the surrounding environment.
Scenario 4 – Micro‐management prevails
This scenario was considered difficult to achieve by some given the lack of agreement presented in the scenario regarding the role and purpose of the Making the Most of the Coast Partnership, in particular the lack of a clear and defined Vision and Strategy.
The activities of the Partnership are not statutory; therefore it will be almost impossible to allocate resources when there will be conflicting priorities, interests and strategic drivers. The concept of ‘competition’ with better resourced and statutory processes is considered possible as is the poor integration across the land‐sea interface.
It is not very likely that the MMoTC initiative would continue without taking account of the socio‐economic aspects. It is more likely that nothing would happen and the project would fold.
30
The Relevant Authority group of the mSAC have already agreed that they don’t want a traditional SAC management plan and therefore this assumption is unrealistic.
Pros • Local voice is heard • There is local buy‐in • There is cooperation and collaboration between organisations • Could encourage better partnership working. • Would encourage improved consideration of wider, more holistic issues. • Would place greater strategic importance on the local environment. • Favourable management of the mSAC.
• An increase in awareness of marine environmental assets and how important they are to the local economy.
• An efficient partnership based around the mSAC which has the ability to influence developers and local authorities.
Cons
• Focussed too sharply on the environment to the detriment of the economic and social elements which are intrinsic to the success of ICZM
• Making the Most of the Coast has no ‘existence’ as it is not a regulatory body and thus can be side‐stepped and ridden roughshod over
• Is dependent upon the allocation of sufficient resources to maintain the activities of the Partnership. • The lack of agreement with regard to a common Vision. • How would this scenario deal with conflicting demands and differing political views etc? • Lack of sectoral integration. • The maritime environment is a low priority on most organisations’ agendas. • Lack of land‐sea integration.
Commentary
Of particular note in the summary above are the following:
• The strong agreement that the ‘each to their own’ scenario is closest to present‐day reality, and the overwhelmingly negative response to it by respondents.
• The list of cons for ‘micro‐management prevails’ accurately reflects experience of many integrated coastal management initiatives that have failed.
31
32
• There is clearly a commonly held view that energy will be an important element in the future of the region
• The widely expressed view that no one scenario presented a best option, but that all contained some desirable aspects.
4.2 Developing the action plan
The analysis of these responses against the scenario narratives led to the identification of a variety of policy and management proposals, which are contained in the recommendations.
For brevity and clarity this intermediate stage has not been included within this report.
33
5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations
5.1 Conclusions
Past work, at EU, UK and Welsh scales have shown that there are good reasons to take a more integrated approach to policy and action in coastal regions. The ICZM strategy for Wales exemplifies this body of work.
But what does this mean at a local level?
In the Menai Strait and Conwy Bay area CoastNet’s analysis has identified the following particular issues of interest:
• Energy infrastructure
• Tourism
• Economic development
• Improving town centres
• Coastal erosion and flood risk
• Shell‐fishery management and exploitation
• Watersports activity and infrastructure
• Development of waterfront brownfield sites.
There are already mechanisms for managing these activities, although it is recognised that some are less effective than others. (ref. Stakeholder interviews).
How could an ICZM initiative add value to work that is already on‐going?
CoastNet has learned from this research that:
1. The mSAC has virtually no profile, when compared to other protected areas such as AONB, Heritage Coast and National Park.
2. There is a constant case load of development activity which falls within the scope of the Habitats Regulations 1994 and therefore requires coordinated action on the part of a number of relevant authorities.
3. The spatial planning system is not integrated across the land/sea divide, and the likelihood of new systems for marine planning could lead to additional policy conflicts.
4. Mon a Menai has an important role to play as an agent of change, and to mobilise resources. 5. The NW Wales spatial plan is now at an appropriate stage to develop specific policy in response
to the needs of the coast and inshore waters 6. There are localised small‐scale conflicts, principally concerning marine leisure and recreational
uses.
Given strong competition for resources it is important that a new ICZM initiative for North West Wales:
34
• Is resilient to unforeseen and foreseeable change
• Adds value to implementation of existing policy.
These are critical tests for any action plan, and especially important for a process (ICZM) which does not have a statutory footing.
How are the proposed actions resilient to uncertainty? First a working group is proposed that has a mainstream role, especially in relation to the NW Wales spatial plan, but also with Mon a Menai during its lifetime as an initiative. Thus, as the spatial plan responds to change, the working group is able to assert coastal needs and issues and so ensure that they are adequately reflected in policy.
Second, the working group comprises of practitioners who are involved in everyday management and policy formulation and is well placed to spot unexpected trends and to provide an ‘early warning’ system. Given a formal status with planning and other bodies it can advise accordingly.
Third, a vision (if introduced as an integrative tool as proposed) helps authorities to be more in the driving seat of change and so resist unexpected change. An initiative such as the Coastal Park proposed , if gathering sufficient support and momentum can in some ways influence its own destiny, even in the face of powerful external factors.
Finally, the detailed actions proposed in the action plan are aimed at some of the factors that can unbalance the system, such as public opinion or cumulative impacts, and to contain and manage them before they become a destabilising force.
5.2 Recommendations
The imperatives for ICZM, identified in section 2.1, are:
• to create the structures that will enable convergence,
• ensure that these structures are embedded within mainstream systems and so have the longevity to guide change over long timescales, and
• to identify priorities for short and medium term action where change is urgently needed, and where it is already possible to integrate implementation.
The following recommendations are organised according to this structure.
35
Structures for convergence
Recommendation 1
Establish a coastal and marine policy working group, comprising representatives from statutory and selected non‐statutory stakeholders. The working group should respond to requests from recognised bodies (see Recommendations 3 and 4), and take a pro‐active role in identifying and promoting initiatives that are aimed at coordinating coastal and marine policy and activities (especially, but not restricted to, issues concerning the mSAC). These will include awareness‐raising initiatives.
The purpose of the working group will be to:
• advise organisations on coastal and marine policy and management, especially regarding integration between sectors and instruments
• raise awareness regarding coastal and marine issues
• provide a mechanism to coordinate coastal policy and its implementation at regional and local level.
Added value: an expert body, bringing additional resources to strategic planning.
Recommendation 2
Convene a standing conference, held annually and open to all. This is to enable stakeholders and the general public to debate issues and priorities. There would be an expectation upon the working group to take action where appropriate and report back. An example is Morecambe Bay Partnership annual conference http://www.morecambebay.org.uk/what_we_do/AGM_&_conference_2009.html
The purpose of the Standing Conference will be to enable better communication amongst stakeholders regarding what is happening now, and what should happen in the future.
Added value: a better understanding amongst the public regarding management and policy. Information for policy‐makers and managers regarding priorities
Recommendation 3
The proposed geographic scale of the initiative is to encompass all of Anglesey, the coastal lowland of Conwy County Borough, and that part of the coastal lowland of Gwynned which is adjacent to Conwy Bay and the Menai Strait. The Llyn Peninsula already has a strong identity and its inclusion would be optional.
The working group should seek its formal recognition by:
g. Mon a Menai strategic steering group (having a focus on implementation)
h. North West Wales spatial plan (having a focus on policy)
i. The constituent authorities of the working group.
The added value of this working group to these bodies is to bring additional coastal and marine expertise to bear on their work. The added value of formal recognition is to ensure that appropriate information flows to and from the working group and other bodies.
Recommendation 6
The working group and its constituent bodies should lobby for it to have a formal role in Marine Planning, when introduced. The added value of this objective is to maximise local influence over Marine Planning decisions.
Recommendation 7
The working group should seek the introduction and use of coastal and marine indicators by government and its agencies and by local government, so that progress towards sustainability can be measured.
The remaining recommendations are action focussed and are set out in tabular form, which enables the presentation of additional relevant information.
37
Priority actions
Recommendation 8 – Develop an implementation plan
Tasks Purpose Evidence/example
Develop a costed and prioritised implementation plan
There are some big ideas here, and there will need to be careful consideration regarding priorities and deliverability given resource constraints.
However, if the big ideas are taken up, then there is scope to develop and implement the more detailed tasks under their umbrella – bringing in additional resources to do so.
The ‘SAIL’ ICZM project took a regional park approach and developed an ‘Agenda for Action’. This provided a strategic framework for lots of more localised activity.
http://www.sailcoast.eu/story1.shtml
Recommendation 9 ‐ Develop an ‘integrative vision’
Tasks Purpose Evidence/example
Develop a coastal ‘park’ vision and consider the potential of extending it to a regional brand:
“An inspirational and exceptional place to live and work..........”
WG to lead, liaising closely with NWWSP and Mon a Menai
Mon a Menai is demonstrating the value of strategic initiatives as agents of change: galvanising activity and mobilising resources through improved prioritisation and targeting.
The concept of Regional Park is much the same – a strategic spatial initiative that provides a framework for common objectives and coordinated activity at sub‐regional level. It is proposed that this ‘Park’ includes a big chunk of sea (the SAC, Menai Strait, inshore waters around Anglesey).
The coastal strip of NW Wales and the isle of Anglesey has a common ‘coastal lowland’ identity, geographically delineated by the mountains to the south and the sea to the north and west. The Llyn Peninsula could also be included, but already has a strong identity.
Phil Robinson, Chief Executive of North West Regional Assembly, said:
“With careful management Regional Parks offer a unique win‐win of environmental improvement married with economic regeneration and at the same time offer a quality of life dividend for North West people. We
Added value: Possibly to give Mon a Menai a more tangible identity, and a lasting spatial context. To provide a focused policy framework for the NW Wales spatial plan that integrates land and sea, and provides the basis for integrated terrestrial and marine planning.
Through branding the ‘coastal park’ as an inspirational and exceptional place to live and work, achieve coordinated environmental improvements, retain workforce and young people, attract inward investment, stave off competition from competing regions
are working together as regional partners to provide access to environmental gems close to where people live, improve the image of the region as a spur to regeneration and significantly increase employment and business activity in leisure, sport and recreation.”
Recommendation 10 ‐ ‘coastal‐proof’ the NW Wales spatial plan and Mon a Menai programme.
Tasks Purpose Evidence/example
Develop a coastal proofing framework
NWW SP to lead, with expert input from WG
Coastal and marine policy working group acts as a sounding board for policies, projects and plans. This may be in a formal scoping role for EIA, SEA, and HRA.
Irrespective of the formal role, the WG (being broad‐based) will be able to highlight issues and concerns in regard to integration.
An assessment framework will be required for coastal‐proofing, e.g. http://www.defra.gov.uk/rural/proofing/index.htm and developing this should be the first task (led by NW Wales Spatial Plan sustainable development group with input where appropriate from WG).
Added value: Expert knowledge, improved integration of policy and implementation. More efficient resource use
Similar in concept to the rural proofing framework introduced after foot and mouth epidemic. http://www.defra.gov.uk/rural/proofing/index.htm
Recommendation 11 ‐ Develop a marine planning initiative, to help address existing conflicts, to establish policy priorities for marine planning, and to demonstrate how the working group could play a formal role in marine planning.
Tasks Purpose Evidence/example
1. Develop a locally‐led marine planning initiative, to incorporate sustainable development principles and locally relevant objectives. Ensure consistency with Local Development Plans and designated area management plans. A progressive implementation might focus on the management of marine recreational use impacts (to include review of byelaws, and creation of a marine recreation working group) as a priority. WG to lead
Marine planning is one of the principle uncertainties that this scoping study has identified, and its introduction will change how people work, and how activities on both land and sea are planned. Marine and terrestrial policies will have to be integrated.
The mSAC, or the wider Coastal Park herein proposed, provides an excellent opportunity to undertake a pilot and so influence the shape of any future marine plan. Authorities involved in the Coastal and marine policy WG have the opportunity to ‘stake their claim’ over the future management of the marine resource.
There are good reasons for a focussed effort with regard to marine leisure. As well as the planning issues extending into the sea, there are operational concerns regarding the growth in marine leisure. The proposed initiative would examine in detail the efficacy of byelaws and other management arrangements, relationships between management authorities and so on, and recommend zones and related policies in relation to leisure use. See related action below.
Added value: reducing uncertainty over future management of the marine resource. Understanding the difficulties and opportunities of marine planning well in advance. Stakeholders have a more direct input to marine planning than might otherwise be the case.
Shetland has shown the way in marine planning http://www.nafc.ac.uk/SSMEI.aspx
For recreational management see Milford Haven water recreation plan
2. Undertake a capacity study on Anglesey/Gwynedd Mon Menai boating infrastructure proposals and related developments (taking particular account of possible cumulative and in‐combination
There are numerous proposals for boating infrastructure within the mSAC. The danger is that they will be introduced formally in a sequential manner, so making the task of assessing their cumulative impact on the mSAC difficult. Given that the proposals are known, it should be a priority to undertake a strategic study (it
An example (but there is a variety of methodologies):
effects) WG to lead. Set up a sub‐group to draw up specification and report back to WG for approval.
might be an SEA, or at least something following those principles).
The study should aim to identify a package of developments which together are acceptable in relation to their environmental impacts, thus providing a mechanism for Relevant Authorities to consider in‐combination and cumulative impacts.
Added value: potential cumulative and in‐combination impacts of watersports infrastructure and related activity better known. Barriers to implementation of individual projects better known in advance, resulting in resource efficiencies. A strategic approach may enable better use of existing resources and external funding.
CoastNet also have an example of a multicriterion assessment methodology which can be used in this context.
Recommendation 12 ‐ Promote and develop a joint approach to the promotion of designated natural and cultural heritage sites. This should be supported by specific spatial policy to ensure that the protection and the development of these assets is adequately coordinated (led by NW Wales Spatial Plan sustainable development group with input where appropriate from WG).
Tasks Purpose Evidence/example
a. Coordinating management and promotion of linked natural and cultural heritage sites,
The mSAC connects the Heritage Coast and AONB (and almost the National Parkand World Heritage Site). Establish a forum for liaison and strategy development, perhaps as a subgroup of the coastal and marine policy WG having a tourism remit, or under the aegis of Mon a Menai Tourism group
Added value: see previous
b. Develop NW Wales Spatial Plan policies that position the mSAC as a designated site alongside National Park, AONB and Heritage Coast, and SSSI’s/local nature reserves
This is an example of how the coastal and marine policy WG can bring the coastal dimension to the NW Wales Spatial Plan, by considering how to promote the mSAC alongside other designations and frame appropriate policies that recognise the mSAC as an asset for tourism, leisure, and local business.
41
Attempts have been made elsewhere to link assets in a ‘String of Pearls’ or ‘Regional Park’ approach, with the objective of securing mutual benefits (the whole being more than the sum of its parts).
Added value: bringing a better appreciation of the strategic value of each individual protected site. Enabling even the smallest site to benefit from the profile of the NP and AONB. Stimulating coordination and liaison amongst the authorities responsible for protected sites.
a. Organise a workshop for training of staff so that responsibilities are well understood
WG to lead
Are the duties of Relevant Authorities understood in relation to the mSAC, and do individuals understand how to implement them?
In all likelihood, the response to this question will be mixed. If there is not to be a Management Scheme, then it is vital that a network of officers exists who understand the rules and can communicate well with each other, as information sharing regarding current proposals for plans and projects is essential for compliance.
Added value: enhancing compliance with the law. Improving institutional capacity amongst Relevant Authorities
Summary of duties: http://www.biodiversitywales.org.uk/content/uploads/documents/Guidance%20Legislation/Enforcement%20of%20Habs%20Regs_Biodiversity_Duty.pdf
b. Audit systems and procedures in relation to Habitats Regulations and other duties and make recommendations regarding the sharing of information (e.g. in‐
See above.
Particular issues arise in relation to Habitats Regulations duties concerning in‐combination and cumulative impacts. Also, co‐ordination is often an issue
The Corepoint project provided guidance on information sharing for local and regional management. click here for the
WG to lead. Establish a subgroup from representative authorities (Local authority leisure/countryside, Sea Fisheries, Harbour, CCW, EA)
between different consenting authorities in relation to a single plan or project.
Consideration should be given to local information systems (anything from a list of contacts and phone numbers to an advanced web‐enabled GIS system)
Added value: enhancing compliance with the law.
guide
More information and contacts available through CoastNet.
c. Audit activities in the mSAC against management powers, to establish gaps that might require a Management Scheme.
WG to lead. Establish a subgroup from representative authorities (Local authority leisure/countryside, Sea Fisheries, Harbour, CCW, EA)
Due diligence would suggest that an audit of development proposals/case work/common issues etc. is undertaken.
This is to ensure, for example, that issues relating to the management of the mSAC and which require the input of more than one organisation are adequately provided for with existing systems.
In other cases some on‐going activities take place without the need for consents. However, if their nature or scale is or could be having an adverse impact on designated features then action should be taken. It is in these instances that a management scheme is recommended.
Added value: ensure compliance with the law. Ensure that mSAC management actions are fit for purpose and proportionate
Recommendation 14 ‐ Commission a Public Engagement and Interpretation Strategy and Action Plan, including recommendations for public information, for events, and for investment in visitor attractions and heritage centres.
Tasks Purpose Evidence/example
1. Commission a Public Engagement and Interpretation Strategy and Action Plan, including recommendations for public information, for events, and for
To promote an understanding and appreciation of the sea and coast amongst the general public.
The mSAC and its wildlife has a poor local profile.
investment in visitor attractions and heritage centres
WG to lead. A sub group to develop specification and report back to main Working group for approval. Consider likely costs and funding machanisms
Promote interpretation and displays at existing and proposed heritage centres: eg Sea Zoo, Hirael Bay, Caernarfon Heritage Centre, Llandudno Pier, which attract large numbers of visitors.
Focus on:
• Unique Tidal Environment and reefs of Menai Strait and potential of tidal energy;
• Sea Caves of Gt Orme and link to geology and pre‐historic mining (is there one?);
• Mussel beds, fishery and seafood, (and the wider environment of Conwy Bay)
Such options should be promoted to the Mon a Menai Tourism working group and considered for convergence funding.
Added value: Engender a greater ownership and sense of responsibility for marine life amongst the public. Enable greater enjoyment of the marine and coastal resource by many. Add to the tourism offer for the region.
tm
http://www.europeangeoparks.org/
http://thepenncovemusselfestival.com/events.htm
2. Raise awareness amongst those who already appreciate the coast and sea through targeted action (e.g. promote the Green Blue initiative for marine leisure).
WG to lead. Establish an industry‐led subgroup to develop support and implement
Another approach to raising awareness of the importance of the coastal and marine environment with direct users ‐ this one with an economic development angle as well (promoting ‘green’ consumerism)
http://www.thegreenblue.org.uk/
Recommendation 15 – Commission a Renewable energy industry feasibility study
Commission a Renewable Energy Feasibility Study (including targeted SEA)
Mon a Menai Strategic Steering group to lead, consulting WG on specification
There are very strong divers for progress in development and implementation of renewable energy facilities. NW Wales will be a focus of attention because of the resources present. A pro‐active approach will ensure that any proposals are considered within a strategic context, and their benefits maximised for the region. Attention should focus on tidal energy in Menai Strait (perhaps to full SEA level), and wave power on west and north coast of Anglesey (as an R&D facility). Supplementary to this is to assess the likelihood of proposals for wind farms in Conwy Bay or extensions to existing onshore farms, and to consider appropriate actions in relation to gauging public attitudes, and landscape and wildlife impacts.
Added value: maximise value of renewable energy R&D and generation market for the region. Ensure impacts are considered well in advanced and are minimised and appropriately mitigated.
Some exciting initiatives have arisen out of strategic actions regarding renewables:
Orkney European Marine Energy Centre http://www.emec.org.uk/
The aim of this work is to deliver a concise report, accompanied by a series of practical recommendations for taking forward ICZM in the project area in a way that adds value to existing planning and management.
This will be achieved through an analysis of the current level of integration of planning and management around the Menai Strait and Conwy Bay in terms of plans and initiatives, policies, stakeholders and groups at local and regional level. Results from the public attitudes study will be incorporated into this study to inform how best to engage with local communities in relation to developing the initiative in the study area. Results from CCW’s work to identify the main ‘issues’ and problems for the nature conservation interest of the area will help inform practical recommendations and identify potential ‘remedies’.
Recommended actions will be used to inform further work in the delivery of ICZM with partner organisations in the project area. Specific future work may include a wider stakeholder dialogue process and the development of funding bids to support ICZM work.
2.2 Scope
The maritime boundary of study area can be delineated using the Menai Strait & Conwy Bay Special Area of Conservation (SAC) with a landward boundary of 2km from around the coast covered by the SAC. The study should take into account maritime issues and any land-based issues that are either directly related to, or impact upon, the maritime area. Significant issues affecting the maritime area which fall outside the 2km inland boundary should also be considered.
We consider there are 4 key areas that will need to be reviewed and analysed in order to develop recommendations required in the context of this study:
A. Stakeholders – Update of existing stakeholder analysis in the project area which will include:
48
• the range of organisations (statutory authorities, competent authorities, non-governmental organisations, and commercial), interest and user groups, community groups, and individuals that have an interest in the area.)
• Summarising the main sectors and identifying those with a significant impact/interest in the project area.
• Identifying shared interests and potential for collaboration in addition to potential barriers to integrated working.
• Collating key messages coming from public consultations related to the local coastal and marine environment that have taken place in the project area over the last 5 years.
B. Projects and Policies: Analysis of the projects and policy framework in the area, which
will include: • Projects, plans and initiatives - identifying duplication and/or opportunities for
collaboration and joint working between national, regional and local projects, plans and initiatives.
• Strategies and policies – Summarising the effectiveness of national, regional and local strategies and policies at addressing maritime issues, and identifying opportunities for including coastal and marine issues. (Note: this should include looking at Local Authority strategies such as the Community Strategy, the Local Development Plan (LDP) and documents relating to health and social care etc., and the WAG’s Wales Spatial Plan)
N.B. Sections A and B will provide an update of the following existing work:
• CCW’s Menai Strait and Conwy Bay SAC stakeholder database (600+ contacts) • Menai Strait and Conwy Bay SAC Public consultation report. February 2004.
• CCW’s North West Wales projects, plans, and groups audit carried out in April 2007.
• Cynefin Consultants ‘Review of Pressure and management measures in the locality of the Menai Strait and Conwy Bay’ carried out in 2006.
• ‘Making the Most of the Coast’ workshop report. December 2006.
NOTE: All above sources of information will be made available by CCW on request.
C. Issues for features of nature conservation interest: Analysis of problems and ‘issues’ within the Menai Strait and Conwy Bay which might be in conflict with or threaten the features of nature conservation interest in the area. These issues might include;
The conclusions of this piece of work being undertaken by CCW should be used and analysed in the context of delivery of ICZM.
D. Public Attitudes Study - of the maritime environment in the Menai Strait & Conwy Bay.
49
• A qualitative research study will be carried out in parallel with this study and will be completed by the end of April 2008. The findings should be used and analysed in the context of delivery of ICZM.
Analysis (of current situation) & recommendations The main body of this work will therefore be a detailed analysis of the current situation (based on A-D above) followed by a suite of recommendations for practical actions that could be taken to add value to existing planning and management at the coast. It is proposed that the analysis is carried out using recognised ICZM progress indicators (such as those set out by the EU ICZM Indicators Working Group) and taking into consideration the 8 ICZM principles set out by the EU Recommendation on ICZM 2002, in addition to the ICZM Strategy for Wales. Recommendations should also take into account successful ICZM case studies from the UK, the EU and beyond as appropriate.
2.3 Project report
This study should be presented in the form of a report, to include:
• An introduction chapter that summarises information about stakeholders, projects and policies in an accessible manner. Since much of this information has already been compiled and exists elsewhere, that this should form a relatively small part of the report, and project work, as a whole.
• A more detailed analysis of the current management situation against ICZM indicators and ICZM principles and, and recommendations on actions required to take forward ICZM in the project area, presented in a clear and concise manner. It is envisaged that this would provide an ‘action plan’ for the Making the most of the Coast Project team to take forward this initiative.
3. OUTPUTS
The following outputs will be required:
3.1 Project delivery plan – A short project delivery plan should be provided, by email, within one week of the first Steering Group meeting.
3.2 Draft report – The draft report will be received both in an electronic format for detailed comment, and also in the form of a verbal presentation (supported by PowerPoint) to the working group. This will ensure a group discussion of the work and help to steer the production of the final report.
50
3.3 Final report – 50 hard copies of the final report and three digital copies on CD-ROM of archiveable quality that will be in both Microsoft Word 2000 and an Adobe Portable Document Format (*.pdf). The report will include an executive summary not exceeding 2 sides of A4 in Welsh and English (a list of approved translators can be supplied but the cost of translation must be included within the bid). The Project Officer will provide distribution covers for the report bearing the appropriate logos.
3.4 Additional requirements - Contractors will be expected to provide a PowerPoint presentation of no more than 15 slides, summarising the report findings as well as a poster for use by CCW at subsequent events.
CoastNet’s offer, which was accepted was:
Methodology and rationale
CoastNet believes that a scenario‐based approach will provide the most effective way to reach consensus on a way forward for ‘Making the most of the coast’, and to secure commitment to start that process. It is strategic, and being able to attract the attention of strategic managers is vital to the longevity of any approach. Furthermore, it is an approach which embraces uncertainty, and therefore equips managers with the flexibility to adapt ‘Making the most of the coast’ as future events unfold. Finally, it is an approach increasingly used by Government and thus having currency and credibility.
The approach proposed for the scoping study will enable strategic managers from those gatekeeper organisations to better appreciate what possible futures lie before them, and how ‘Making the most of the coast’ could help to deliver strategic responses. These might be in relation to improved governance in general, or practical initiatives related to marine industries, coastal and watersports tourism, and urban regeneration, for example. ‘Making the most of the coast’ should enable the three councils and other partners to work together in a positive new way, and perhaps draw in new resources to achieve common goals.
The process involves the following tasks:
1. Baseline review, to update and validate the stakeholder analysis, and to identify significant policy initiatives. We do not consider that further work to update the policy audit undertaken by Roberts et al (2006) is necessary at this stage. Nevertheless, we will provide analysis of the current level of integration of planning and management around the Menai Strait and Conwy Bay in terms of plans and initiatives, policies, stakeholders and groups at local and regional level. However, this will be a strategic, rather than detailed, analysis, sufficient to inform stage 2 below. Consideration will be given to framing the analysis in the context of the EU ICZM principles, but it is not possible to say at this stage what practical value that will add.
2. Identifying principle drivers of change (using Environmental scanning and structured interviews). CCW’s analysis of issues of nature conservation importance in and around the SAC will inform this process, as will the public attitudes study (both dependant on being available in time).
2.1 Environmental scanning is usually used at the start of a futures project. It aims at broad exploration of all major trends, issues, advancements, events and ideas across a wide range of activities. Its purpose is to gain an understanding of the broader context for the study. It will be conducted as a desk‐based study, alongside task 2.2.
2.2 Structured interviews with key actors and experts. These interviews will provide an opportunity to promote the initiative and to secure commitment to the scenario process. Interviews will also help to gain an understanding of the perspectives of key people. About 20 interviews are anticipated. The principle output will be prioritised lists of drivers.
3. Constructing plausible, contrasting scenarios, based on sound information.
3.1 Develop framework scenarios, based on principle drivers and uncertainties. 3.2 Circulate the framework scenarios amongst the working group and other relevant stakeholders
to develop into full scenarios. 3.3 Further desk‐based research to develop the detailed content of each scenario, so that the
driving forces in each are well‐enough understood to undertake the impact analysis.
4. Assessing the potential impact and added value of ‘Making the most of the coast’
4.1 Impact analysis will be undertaken on each scenario, within a common framework. This is to elaborate the possible consequences in the context of the strategic priorities for NW Wales and individual organisations.
4.2 Assessment of added value of ‘Making the most of the coast’. Using the information from previous tasks, options will be prepared for different approaches to ‘Making the most of the coast’, and in each case an assessment made as to how each approach would add value to existing initiatives and policies. This task will rely to a large part of CoastNet expertise. CoastNet Board Members, who comprise some of the leading thinkers in ICZM in Europe, will comprise an expert review panel.
5. Recommending a plan of action to implement ‘Making the most of the coast’, as a mechanism of governance and an action plan of tasks.
52
CoastNet also considered the following approaches to the study, but rejected them:
Option Reason for rejection
CoastNet undertakes a comprehensive research study, and recommends a focussed strategy and action plan
This approach would not fully incorporate local and regional perspectives, would have little stakeholder involvement, and would therefore be unlikely to secure commitment
CoastNet undertakes further community‐led work to develop a bottom up strategy and action plan
Community‐based approaches to date have not delivered a strategic approach. Furthermore, such processes tend to deliver locally‐focussed solutions, and do not integrate well with strategic policy.
CoastNet updates policy audit, analyses policy frameworks, and recommends a new governance structure
This approach would not fully incorporate local and regional perspectives, would have little stakeholder involvement, and would therefore be unlikely to secure commitment
CoastNet calculates indicators, based on EU ICZM set, and makes recommendations accordingly
Indicators are useful but have their limitations. They just provide a snapshot of the current situation, and a basis for discussion and further investigation. CoastNet feels that their best use in the project area will be at a later stage, when there is strong institutional commitment.
53
Annex 2
Driver validation and prioritisation
CoastNet met with the groups of officers from the four key stakeholder organisations to consider the validity of drivers selected by CoastNet and to prioritise them from the individual perspective of each organisation. The results of this exercise are presented in the following tables.
54
55
Code Driver
Impact /Uncertain
ty
Low = 1
High = 5
Anglesey 1
Anglesey 2
Conwy GWYN CCW Comments
A1 Introduction of Marine Planning alters perceptions of the relation between terrestrial and marine resources
Impact
3 3 N/R 2 4
Could be positive, could increase difference between land and sea
Had Marine Bill debate‐must engage. Could be a threat if
conservation the priority. Could things be simpler?
Not: Don’t know much about the Marine Bill or how it would
affect the area.
Will be consulted – not an issue (Biodiv)
Who will do it – HWM barrier.
More info needed; Menai Bridge – Caernarvon in division of
responsibility. A seamless process would be good.
More focused thinking about marine, more work initially in raising awareness, help link up marine and terrestrial for the better
56
Uncertainty
4 4 N/R 5 2
Don’t know what the system will be
Lack of clarity as yet an issue. Threats to planned activity
If a seamless process‐ good have a bigger impact. Where would
the power lie – local or National Assembly?
Don’t know much about the Marine Bill or how it will affect this area
Something will happen, don’t know what. To what degree will it help link land and sea?
A2 Climate change disrupts coastal defences, distribution of wildlife, and increases the cost of ‘hard engineering
Impact
2 4 5 5 4
Realignment only if it threatens homes
Doing defences. Review of SMP. Flooding on a day to day basis
have m ore impact
Long term issue, but if sea level rises a high impact across the whole length of our coastline
Coastal path disappearing in places, ability to make big investments (cycle paths)
Warmer water = more tourists, negative impact on biodiversity. More realignment = opportunity more demand for defence in east
57
Uncertainty
3 2 2 2 2
Know it will happen but don’t know what scale
Trathan and Beaumaris – some property affected by retreat.
East coast more affluent.
Don’t know when, Don’t know where, don’t know by how
much.
What would be the impacts in this area? More aliens, dune impacts
58
B1 Lifestyle changes and continued rise in living standards creates ever increasing explosion in volume and scale of development proposals for port capacity, marinas, leisure facilities and waterside housing Impact
4 4 2/3 3 3
Cruise terminal, (Holyhead), Marinas in Beaumaris, lots of renovation of coastal housing. Adrenalin Centre – watersports – proposed. Golf course. Negative perceived effects of piecemeal development
Coastal locations do experience this trend.
Beaumaris/Holyhead. Coast can deliver more value ‐ economic
priorities
Development proposals controlled by planning process
This is the biggest issue – potential for increased recreational boating e.g. land based facilities. Want a Marina’s route – Strait is daunting
Same as Mon a Menai (L1)
Uncertainty
3 3 3 4 4
Deliverability, credit crunch, world trends
We know where developments can take place. Fuel costs affecting boating. Development slowing. Red diesel VAT – could reverse power boating trend.
59
B2 Proliferation of initiatives and designations creates confusion regarding policy and management priorities
Impact
2 2 2
No score
4/5
e.g. paths in SSSI – consents – harder, waste time/strategy‐fatigue. Negative impact conflicts between conservation and access
Makes it difficult to prioritise – conflicts. Clarity on meaning.
Impact of designations with regard to what can be done. Coast
Action plan put together with SD principles
Time consuming and unnecessary duplication
Particularly confusing for the public. Not a big day to day impact. Raising awareness project opportunity. Uncertainty and conflict arising, difficult to resolve. For policy makers to resolve.
Could get HPMWR’s
Uncertainty
1 2 1 3 1
Already happening
How to resolve competing priorities. ‘No confusion’.
Already happening
HPA’s for SAC’s – another confusion. New stuff always comes along e.g. HPA’s. Marine Bill – confusion etc here already
Lots already
60
C1 Fisheries policy continues to fail to take necessary action to tackle long‐term stock declines and the need to establish sustainable levels of harvesting natural resources.
Impact
N/R N/R N/R 4 4
Lavan Sands cockle fishery – boom and bust scenario – impacts on the local population. Wildlife impacts if unsustainable fishing. Area fills with vans and cockling gangs/itinerants camping. Mussel fishery not such an issue and no whitefish
Impact high now. Creates lots of work
Uncertainty
N/R N/R N/R 4 4
Know immediate problems. Future uncertain about SFC ‐WAG
Welsh fishery strategy being developed. If no SFC = no byelaws
C2 Environmental disaster – a big coastal flood, big pollution event, big coastal landslide – creates fundamental changes in public and political opinion
Impact
4 – oil spill
3 –flood
5 ‐ Wylfa
4/5 5 N/R 5
Oil spill – short term significance, Coastal flooding – localised and low population, Wylfa blows up/leaks
Tanker incident – shipping lanes to Liverpool. Nuclear. Any
event affects people’s perceptions. Local and visitor
perceptions.
Impact diminishes with time after the event
Pollution MAJOR event. In Strait – no clear boundary of responsibility for emergency planning
Uncertainty
5 4 4 N/R 5
Never know when it will happen, tanker, Wylfa blows up. Low risk of landslides, Trathan Bay, Beaumaris Marsh
Something may happen at some point.
Who knows what or when local uncertainty
61
D1 Increasing environmental conflicts emerge for important industrial sectors such as ports leading to hard choices between economic development and the need for environmentally sustainable policies.
Impact
1 3 N/R 5 4
No problems with existing facilities
e.g. Coastal Action Plan – process reduced impacts
Dredging to Victoria Dock. Impacts on coastal processes for tidal
power? Gallows Point and Hireal Bay – big maintenance
dredging issue – dredging strategy. In combination effects –
disposal issues.
Resurrection of Pentyn???etc marinas, Hireal Bay Marina
Uncertainty
4 2 N/R 4 1
Another Wylfa? Cruise terminals?
Conflicts will arise – things will come up outside the strategy.
Everyone has opinion on the coast.
Hinges on these development sites? Gallows Point under
appeal. Housing market.
Likely to be m ore conflict as Straits get busier
62
D2 Geo‐political and security situation in the Middle‐east deteriorates, increasing political and economic pressure to accelerate renewable energy development and in turn sacrifice environmental idelas.
Impact
3 4 N/R 2 3
Tidal flow NW Anglesey – impact naalysis – feeding sites for cetaceans. More windfarms? Lots of energy – 50% for Island from tidal turbines?
Nuclear. Windfarm being built now. Big tidal resource
Menai Barrage? Marine site would create constraints
Major engineering in heart of a protected site, potential long‐term changes, shoreside infrastructure.
Uncertainty
3 4 N/R 4 5
How much could there be? In what form? Can we keep turbines out of AONB.
Technology not yet resolved. Unstable world events.
Pressure is there, technology changes, depends on the nature of the development
E1, E2 Not used
F1 UK Coastal holiday industry continues to decline, increasing unemployment and driving social deprivation
Impact
N/R 4 N/R See F2 N/R
Big push to offer additional trips, tourism as world events give people less opportunity. If it happened impact would be high.
Uncertainty
N/R 3 N/R See F2 N/R
Group challenged the statement
63
F2 Cost of travel and changing lifestyles leads to a boom in eco‐tourism – more local/national tourism and less international tourism
Impact
3 4 4 3 3
Trying to encourage this with coastal Path but small impact!.Different types eco‐tourism – good and bad. Good natural assets – sits well with eco‐tourism, +ve impact on economy/environment
Aim to capitalise on this. Popular watersports towns.
Coastal tourism development strategies habitats may change and people go abroad less. Menai is hub for bad weather activity for outdoor activity. Direct and indirect effects (different model of growth towards more environmental)
Uncertainty
2 2 1/2 3 2
See a positive trend in this direction
Can see the trend – an ‘Activity Island’
Unsure of definition of eco‐tourism‐ think of it as green tourism
Can see this happening. Anglesey tourism development strategy is bad
64
I1 Farming in coastal areas faces massive change as a result of CAP reforms: less societal willingness to pay for coastal defence; and tighter pollution control in coastal waters. This drives major changes in the landscape of the coastal/estuarine margin.
Impact
4 2 2 1 4
Good impact on landscape
Can see the shift back to emphasis on food production. Anglesey
used to be ESA in total. Could be a conservation cost. But the
island has an Agricultural history.
Limited length of coastline affected. Llanfairfechan, Bangor and sea level rises
Some land loss in Lavan Sands. Food security issues could intensify i.e. farming in saltmarsh lamb etc. Can’t see farming land protected in the future. Straits in an urban environment on shoreside. SW Anglesey has Grade 1 Agric. Land
Could lead to water quality improvements. Whole of Conwy catchment. Could have biofuel crops planted all over the valley
Uncertainty
2 3 4 4 4
Don’t think CAP will change pollution, cleaned up already
Farming – a boom could come again. Water Quality – ‘Heavily Modified Water Body designation. Undesignated bathing beaches e.g. Plas Menai and another – regular failures. Fish farming facility on shore booted out on landscape issues.
CAP reform under review
65
I2 Government continues with traditional ‘growth’ policies that increasingly conflict with ‘sustainable development’.
Impact
N/R 3 4 N/R 3
Depends to what extent SD is compromised (high level policies)
Growth policies will continue, especially now, lots of
government activity on this already.
e.g. Mon a Menai
Uncertainty
N/R 3 2 N/R 3
Some policies/guidance already in place to discourage inappropriate development
Political priorities change, what will happen
L1 ‘Mon a Menai’ initiative successfully revitalises the North West Wales economy, creating high demand for development land.
Impact
N/R N/R 4 4 3
Relatively unaware of details of the study
Impact on culture, language, new people pushing out locals. If it produced more affordable housing, language policies in Gwynedd (in schools as well). Wylva – high skilled workforce – but call centre type industry coming in.
Cumulative and in‐combination impacts a danger. Localised impacts on particular development sites. Can be good or bad. Extending development into the marine area is common. Insensitive landscape because of development.
Uncertainty
N/R N/R 5 4 4
Effect on Conwy only if demand spreads out from Anglesey/Gwynedd
Has some control through planning. Government have to be reactive. Whole development process is very uncertain
66
L2 Closure of Wylfa power station causes serious economic downturn in North west Wales
Impact
N/R 5 1 NR N/R
v. low impact on Conwy
Decommissioning as different sort of nuclear activity. Lots of accommodation needed? Alternative supply of power for aluminium plant
Uncertainty
N/R 1 1 NR N/R
In progress
Its happening
M1 Toxic algal blooms causes closure of mussel fishery and bathing beaches in Conwy Bay for a full summer season
Impact
4 4 2 N/R 1
If occurs in summer high – lots of v. good beaches July/August. Caravans in this area
High impact on East coast beaches. The ‘Golden Circle’
Comment: Bay gets flushed out regularly – so bloom not likely
Low impact for CCW as is EA and CA responsibility
Uncertainty
4 4 4/5 N/R 3
It happens but if year after year bigger impact.
Trend towards more likelihood (2 shellfish beds already downgraded – e coli)
67
M2 Waterfront developments and access restrictions on safety grounds dislocate the public from the sea and shore, and interest in caring for the coast declines.
Impact
2 4 N/R NR 3
Exceptional cases on individual sites, e.g. Redwharf Bay
People have turned their back on the sea – participation is key
to sustainability of small communities. Creating employment to
keep people working and living there. – Net out‐migration of
working age group. Population ageing. Trend is more access.
Comment: Coastal path, assumption wrong. Strong cultural
connection to sea and Menai, Raise awareness a concern if
people lease something. Menai deficient is target area for
improvement.
Could reduce support for conservation measures (‐ve). Reduce impact on nature (+ve)
Uncertainty
1 2 N/R 1
The trend is the other way. Group challenged this statement
Making strategy for access to the coast
Ang A Lack of integration between departments and no common vision leads
Impact
4
No one coordinates or leads discussion with other agencies; securing resources hampers action
68
to policy conflicts Uncertainty
1
Can jobs and wealth be delivered with conservation and protection
Ang 2 Increasing disparity between access legislation in England and Wales creates management problems
Impact
3/4
Teaching all the English about Welsh law (regarding whatever coastal access approach Wales adopts)
Uncertainty
4/5
Don’t know if the situation will change
Ang 2 A
Continuing demand and changing nature of holiday accommodation in sensitive coastal locations
Proposals to extend Britannia Bridge to improve congestion problems
Impact 3 Environmental, social and economic concerns about options. High Political priority. Essential background infrastructure enabling.
Uncertainty 4 Don’t know what option, if any.
Conwy A
Capital investment required to build new coastal defences within Colwyn Bay in order to reduce the risk of flooding and protect land and infrastructure from coastal erosion
Impact
5
No capital investment would allow the defences to deteriorate further. Risk of structural collapse and flooding will increase
Uncertainty
3
Need to bid for convergence funding against other local authorities and organisations. Limited amount of funding within Wales
69
Conwy B
Existing designations (SAC’s, SSSI’s etc) and topographical features restrict growth options. Capacity may be reached and growth pushed elsewhere.
Impact
3
Development would be directed away from coastal areas if capacity was reached
Uncertainty
1/2
for Conwy generally
Conwy C
Management of sea level rise between Llanfairfechan and Bangor to enhance environment. Also associated development of visitor facilities/infrastructure
Impact
3
Limited to specific geographic area
Uncertainty
3
Dependent upon external funding (Convergence)
Gwyn A
Increased level and diversity of recreational use of the coast and inshore waters creates a need for improved management powers.
Impact 5
Authorities can do things that others have to spend money to deal with. Speed limits and enforcement, competency of sailors/registration/insurance. A duty would need to be funded – management benefits
Uncertainty 5
Would ask for powers now.
NOTE: Maritime liaison – twice yearly meeting, 3 councils. Conwy and Gwynedd meet regularly about Lafan Sands.
70
CCW A Lack of public awareness about the marine environment leading to lack of support for conservation measures
Impact
5
Public perception of Menai as an ‘open sewer’
Overlooking the importance of the marine environment. Visibility of the landscape above and below the waves.
Uncertainty 1 Encounter this frequently
CCW B Lack of resources to deliver CCW aspirations for this area
Impact 5 Cannot deliver, need the help of others e.g. SFC to make byelaws
Uncertainty 1 Know we haven’t the resources, working in partnership is necessary
CCW C Marine SAC designation drives authorities towards more integrated approach to landscape and nature protection
Impact
4
Visual envelope of Menai ‘valley’ pulls in other designations
‘Reasons not being dealt with through existing processes – 3 of 5 features are in ‘unfavourable states’
LDP – needs to bring the 2 sides together
LDP Landscape area for Menai Strait
Uncertainty 5 Don’t know how it will work. ‘Landscape unit’ should be the unit of integration
CCW D ISSUE: Conflict between different users and public opinion regarding ‘just’ outcomes and sense of public ownership
e.g. Cockling – people come from far away.
e.g. walkers vs. jet ski’s – leisure users
Public opinion – what are you doing about this? – turn this to a desire to get involved
71
Annex 3
Stakeholder responses to scenarios
Stakeholders were asked to meet in groups to respond to the scenarios as follows:
“We need your views on the four scenarios presented so that we can validate and refine them.
We want your opinion, as local and regional experts, on the following:
1. Assumptions and facts
Does the scenario strike you as completely impossible, lacking any relation to reality?
Or do you see elements which are within the bounds of possibility, and if so which?
Please explain your answers.
2. Pros and cons
For each scenario, think about the positive aspects and the negative aspects. Prioritise up to three of each and briefly explain why you have chosen them and what would be their likely impacts.
We recommend that you undertake this task in a meeting with colleagues from your own organisation. We expect that a meeting of 1.5 to 2 hours would be sufficient, and that 1 to 2 hours writing up by one person should provide us with adequate detail.”
The responses are included below. Not all organisations responded in detail, but apologies were received.
72
Comments from Anglesey Council
Making the Most of the Coast Scoping Study – Draft Scenarios
Comments from Officers of the Isle of Anglesey County Council
The Isle of Anglesey County Council welcomes the opportunity to consider and respond to the information prepared by CoastNet as part of the Making the Most of the Coast initiative. This response is submitted in a constructive manner with the sole intention of improving the content and impact of the final version of the Scoping Study.
The following response summarises the comments of Officers on the Draft scenarios. The Officers who prepared these comments were:
• Rosie Frankland ‐ Coastal Path Project Officer, Highways and Transportation • Efan Milner – AONB Project Officer, Planning Service • Dave Cowley – Biodiversity Officer, Planning Service • Christian Branch – Development Officer, Economic Development Unit
These Officers will also be completing and returning directly to CoastNet proformas from their individual perspectives regarding current maritime initiatives of relevance in the local / regional area.
IMPORTANT DRIVERS
The impact of each of the Important Drivers should be clearly outlined in the Scoping Study, with drivers of a similar impact/ priority subsequently grouped together.
SCENARIO NARRATIVES
Energy Hub North West
Aspects of the scenario are considered to be within the bounds of possibility, in particular Anglesey’s increasing importance as a location for wind and tidal power generation. Added to this is the increasing political pressure to secure a new generation of nuclear power station on the island.
Pros
73
• Increased employment opportunities linked to retained employment and the creation of new, high quality jobs.
• The scenario outlines opportunities to support significant economic growth on Anglesey. • The identified renewable technologies provide opportunities to contribute to the challenges
associated with tackling climate change.
Cons
• Potential negative impacts of energy based activities on the landscape and biodiversity. • The issues associated with the safety of nuclear power generation and the storage of
nuclear waste. • The limited input local stakeholders would have in issues which could (potentially) impact
upon them directly.
NW Wales Protection Zone
Many elements of this scenario were considered to be unrealistic and improbable – with any increased environmental protection only likely for existing environmental designations, rather than a new drive to promote NW Wales as an environmental ‘protection zone’.
It was felt however that increased awareness of environmental issues was likely to be a reality by the year 2020.
Pros
• Significant improvements in the quality of the local maritime environment. • Improved opportunities for people to access the coastal zone for recreation purposes. • Would allow opportunities to promote and develop eco‐tourism on Anglesey.
Cons
• Would impact significantly upon planned developments in the Anglesey coastal zone. • Would increase the pressures/ divide between economic growth and protection of the
environment. • Could have detrimental impacts upon resident’s lifestyles and quality of life.
Each to their Own
74
This scenario was considered to reflect the current situation in NW Wales, in particular with regard to different operational priorities. However, whether this scenario would still be relevant in 2020 was questioned given the increasing emphasis on regional collaborative working and spatial planning.
Pros
• Provides a focus for local issues, challenges and opportunities. • Maintains Anglesey’s “identity” in terms of local decision making • Would enable the County Council to capitalise upon the significant economic potential of
the spectacular and diverse coastline.
Cons
• This approach is likely to lead to operational conflict and the wasting of resources. • Different organisational priorities and activities could impact upon the quality of the local
environment. • The approach may not adequately reflect national and regional priorities.
Micro‐Management Prevails
This scenario was considered difficult to achieve given the lack of agreement regarding the role and purpose of the Making the Most of the Coast Partnership, in particular the lack of a clear and defined Vision and Strategy.
The activities of the Partnership are not statutory; therefore it will be almost impossible to allocate resources when there will be conflicting priorities, interests and strategic drivers.
Pros
• Could encourage better partnership working. • Would encourage improved consideration of wider, more holistic issues. • Would place greater strategic importance to the local environment.
Cons
• Is dependant upon the allocation of sufficient resources to maintain the activities of the Partnership.
• The lack of agreement with regard to a common Vision. • How would this scenario deal with conflicting demands and differing political views etc?
75
76
Comments from WAG ‐ DE&T North Region
1. Energy Hub North West
The scenario is plausible.
The exploitation of tidal and wave resources seems particularly likely, especially the testing element. Offshore wind farms perhaps less likely due to the high visual impact in an area which will still presumably have its various designations of Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, SAC, Heritage Coast etc.
The expansion of onshore wind farms also seems likely although opposition to these (and all other energy developments) will certainly be strenuous as suggested. Increasing energy prices and security of supply may ‘trump’ environmental considerations and make the decision to build a new reactor at Wylfa likely.
The Hub would certainly be a challenge in both environmental and sustainable development terms and in order to happen would certainly require substantial community engagement.
Positives
• Development of tidal resources • Development of associated educational opportunities to upskill workforce and thus create economic
benefits • Branding of North West Wales as a ‘green energy hub’ could be good for tourism (although nuclear
aspect may be negative). Negatives
• Nuclear power • Danger of over‐development of sensitive areas – Industrialisation • Detachment from local control/aspirations • Possible loss of tourism incomes due to decreased appeal of industrial area • Infrastructure associated with ‘green generation’ isn’t necessarily ‘green’.
2. North West Wales Protection Zone
Less plausible than Energy Hub because the Economy is still likely to be more powerful/wealthier than the Environment and 180° turn around is unlikely by 2020. It is felt that the economy will still be the main driver for the area.
77
Positives
• Environmental Protection • Public buy‐in • Strengthened protection welcome • Environmental Policy line ‘held’ with environment seen as asset
Negatives
• Conflict • The idea that the economy is based on exploitation of the environment • Depressed economy
3. Each to their own
This scenario is considered to be very plausible. Elements which are particularly likely are that the Local Authorities will be working alone – this is felt to be a cultural issue and therefore hard to change. Local Authorities tend to be protective about their own ‘patch’ which is natural and what their resident Council tax payers would expect. Collaboration is not generally encouraged.
Positives
• In the short term would deliver for each Local Authority • Positive consequence for the environment is the use of a fine for breach of Habitat Regulations
Negatives
• Environmentally disastrous as a holistic, large scale approach is needed for sustainable development of the marine and coastal area
• Piecemeal and non‐strategic economic development • Short term view
4. Micro‐management prevails
Generally not considered to be very plausible although some elements, such as the ad hoc cooperation over sites and sectors are within the bounds of possibility. The management plan and process for the SAC is likely. The concept of ‘competition’ with better resourced and statutory processes is considered possible as is the poor integration across the land‐sea interface.
78
Positives
• Local voice is heard • There is local buy‐in • There is cooperation and collaboration between organisations
Negatives
• Focussed too sharply on the environment to the detriment of the economic and social elements which are intrinsic to the success of ICZM
• Making the Most of the Coast has no ‘existence’ as it is not a regulatory body and thus can be side‐stepped and ridden roughshod over
79
Comments from CCW
Scenario 1. Energy Hub
Scenario 1 is certainly a possible outcome especially in relation to:
• Historical conflicts between activities and users in the marine environment exist in the area and are likely to happen again.
However there are a few incorrect assumptions:
• The existing power infrastructure is not currently sufficient to support such large renewable energy developments.
• Public attitudes towards marine renewables may change with increased development of taller and larger wind farms. With increased occurrence of marine renewable developments around the coast, concerns regarding marine safety are likely to be raised and the existence of such developments opposed by the general public.
PROS
1. A prosperous economy will lead to an increase in jobs and quality of life in the area. An increase in leisure facilities and opportunities to enjoy the marine environment may lead to a greater appreciation and an interest by the general public in being involved in management and protection of the area.
2. Prosperous university department specialising in energy policy and science as well as an Energy Research and Innovation park. This would be beneficial to the university and the surrounding area by attracting high value businesses into the area and creating well paid jobs for local people and attracting others into the area to live.
CONS
1. Degradation of environment in favour of renewable energy developments. The proliferation of tidal and wind generation developments may affect the marine ecosystems and the habitats and species of European importance in the area. Tourism could also be affected due to impacts on the landscape.
80
2. An increase in housing and leisure developments will also affect the landscape character of the area and there will be an increase in pressure upon infrastructure such as roads, water and sewage systems which in turn could indirectly impact the marine environment. An increase in recreational activity will also affect the marine environment due to increased disturbance to wildlife and the associated impacts that recreational boating and marinas have on the marine environment e.g. introduction of non‐natives.
3. A top down approach to offshore consents will mean there will be little stakeholder involvement in decisions regarding new renewable energy developments. This may lead to increased public and stakeholder opposition to any developments in relation to the marine environment, including any management plans.
Scenario 2. Protection Zone
This scenario wasn’t thought to be very realistic because:
• Marine Spatial Planning isn’t going to mean that every activity will be prohibited. • The Marine Bill will be slightly different in Wales than in England. There will be less and much
smaller HPMRs in Wales. • Not likely that this would happen at the expense of economic growth as it is such a high priority • The WFD is going to take longer to reach the stage described in this scenario. • Water quality improvements are unlikely in the current economic climate • There aren’t actually many jobs available here, not to mention middle and high income ones. • The word “exploited” may be too strong when talking about developments and the
environment.
PROS
1. Rigorous and integrated environmental protection leads to increase in the quality of the environment and its resilience to impacts of climate change and other stresses. Such high protection means that the statutory agencies fulfil their responsibilities and targets with regard to conservation and biodiversity. With such stringent protection in place the management of potentially harmful activities will be much easier and less resource intensive.
2. Increased public awareness of the marine environment, and especially an understanding of coastal processes and biodiversity means that there is greater interest in getting involved with management and decision making processes in the area. This leads to a greater buy‐in towards projects and an increased success of effective implementation and enforcement.
81
3. A holistic approach to marine management which includes strong policies and management of the marine environment in addition to landscapes, river basins and cultural and heritage interests. If all these different policies are linked together and implemented effectively there is a greater chance of increased overall efficiency in relation to the management of the natural resources of the area.
CONS
1. The protection of the environment is at the expense of local communities and the local economy. Constraints on tourism and the associated leakage of spending means the local economy suffers and there is a lack of opportunities for local people to improve their economic situation.
2. This extreme situation may eventually lead to overkill and a change in public support for environmental protection in the future. This could lead to a switch to a majority support for economic development projects without any regard for the surrounding environment.
Scenario 3. Each to their own
This is an extreme version of what has gone on in the past and is still currently happening to some extent.
Scenario 3 is certainly a possible outcome especially in relation to:
• The different issues that each Council focuses upon is realistic. • The issues with regard to the EMS are ones that are emerging now and could potentially
continue / re‐emerge in the future too i.e. the increase in recreational activity and the conflict between aquaculture and marina developments.
However there are a few incorrect assumptions:
• The WAG probably wouldn’t allow the councils to diverge in such an extreme way, especially with the drive for ‘Making the Connections’.
• There is no mention of the North West Wales Spatial Plan. • There is also no mention of the issue of an ageing population and increase in the demand on
services.
PROS
From CCW’s point of view it was difficult to find many pros with this scenario however we came up with two:
82
1. Councils each working to their own strengths and being able to put all their effort and resources into delivering their individual targets
2. Promotion of local diversity!
CONS
1. The quality of the environment increasingly degrades due to impacts from the various development projects. This is due to lack of coordination between authorities with regard to their duties imposed by the Habitats Regulations. This could cause increased pressure on CCW’s limited resources and lead to unfavourable conservation status for most of the EMS’s features and the associated fines from Europe.
2. Lack of integration between administrative boundaries. This was chosen as a priority due to the potential loss of opportunities that may occur when organisations don’t communicate with each other and work on similar issues and projects together. This may lead to missed opportunities for reducing duplication and effort, saving money and overall improvement to the social, economic and environmental status of the area.
3. Conflicts between different sectoral interests. This has been made worse by the lack of integrated thinking with regard to the impact assessments of different activities and developments. This leads to bad feeling between different sectors, and even small issues may be difficult to resolve. The increase in recreational use of the area has been allowed to carry on without regard to the safety and protection of wildlife and the surrounding environment.
Scenario 4. Micro‐management
This scenario was seen as unlikely and unrealistic because:
• It is not very likely that the MtMoC initiative would continue without taking account of the socio‐economic aspects. It is more likely that nothing would happen and the project would fold.
• The Relevant Authority group of the Menai SAC have already agreed that they don’t want a traditional SAC management plan therefore this assumption is unrealistic.
PROS
1. Favourable management of the Menai SAC. This is important to CCW and would lead to an increase in the quality of the marine environment, a more resilient ecosystem when countering the impacts of climate change and for providing goods and services for local people.
83
2. An increase in awareness of marine environmental assets and how important they are to the local economy. This is important to CCW as the impact of this could lead to increased knowledge and involvement in management of the area by the general public as well as by different sectors and within different departments of statutory organisations. This could lead to traditionally more terrestrial‐based plans and projects also addressing maritime issues and concerns.
3. An efficient partnership based around the SAC which has the ability to influence developers and local authorities. This has the potential to have positive impacts with respect to providing a base for addressing maritime issues and activities in the area.
CONS
1. Lack of sectoral integration. Lack of coordination between different sectoral groups and between social, economic and environmental interests could lead to ad hoc developments and no real gains for any sector. When management is too micro there is potential to miss out on opportunities for sharing resources and making the most of different expertise and ideas.
2. The maritime environment is a low priority on most organisations’ agendas. When the coastal and marine areas are not included in local policies and plans, any impacts from developments and activities won’t be taken into account and development of the economy takes precedent over the need to protect the environment.
3. Lack of land‐sea integration. If the link between the land and the maritime area is not recognised the marine environment will potentially suffer from activities that occur in the river catchments or from developments in the coastal zone.
84
Annex 4
Vision and strategy
The issue of vision and strategy is raised in one of the scenarios. It is an important one and should be addressed in this report.
It is common for strategies to express a ‘vision’ as the basis for strategic goals or objectives. These visions are expressed in narrative form, rather like the scenarios presented in this report. A concern in coastal regions is that a proliferation of visions may be counter‐productive, creating confusion and even conflict in management. For example, there may be a national vision for coastal access, a regional vision for spatial development, a local vision for regeneration, a national vision for the marine environment. To take two examples, the UK vision for the marine environment is fundamentally an environmental protection vision that nevertheless allows human use. Spatial and economic development strategies tend to be more people‐centric, and whilst enshrining environmental protection it is to retain the value of assets for human development. Thus, visions which are developed for different specific contexts, although overlapping or adjacent spatially, can appear similar superficially but be diametrically opposed in principle. The consequences for policy implementation could be serious.
Despite these potential pitfalls a vision is a powerful tool in policy development and integration. It can play an important role as a focus for integration if it is appropriately formulated. What is needed is a form of vision which is integrative and tangible enough (unlike a process‐based vision) to capture the imagination and meet the needs for practical delivery that drive public service targets.
In this study CoastNet is of the opinion that the Regional Park concept may provide such a tool, and one that is sufficiently compatible with existing strategy that it could provide a powerful approach to integrated implementation and for convergence in policy.
The Regional Park concept is being widely applied, for example in the North West of England (http://www.nwda.co.uk/news‐‐events/press‐releases/200701/regional‐parks‐put‐at‐the‐top.aspx) and there is scope to introduce it to the NW Wales coastal lowland (including Anglesey) as a coherent geographic unit. A further benefit of such an approach, and a highly significant one, is to provide a vision for the study area which sits comfortably within the two key strategic initiatives of NW Wales spatial plan and Mon a Menai. An outline sketch of such a vision is provided below. Note that it works both as a vision to aspire to and as a brand to market the region.
NW Wales coastal [regional] park – ‘an inspirational and exceptional place to live and work’.
The coast of NW Wales has long been a source of inspiration and innovation:
• Celtic sites
• Castles and Town Walls of King Edward
• Thomas Telford and Menai Bridge
• Charles Tunnicliffe – wildlife artist
• Mostyn family, developers of Llandudno
• Bangor University marine science
• Shellfisheries and Conwy shellfish research laboratory
• Plas Menai watersports centre
• Etc
This could form the basis of a vision and brand for the sub‐region, expressing:
• innovation through the inspiration drawn from the landscape and culture by generations of artists, engineers, scientists and others, and
• exceptional quality of life, enjoyed through the exceptionally high quality natural environment and outdoor activities, the quality of towns and villages, the opportunity provided for skilled people to excel.
This outline is no more than a sketch of a vision and brand that should be developed further with specialist support.
Practical implications of such a vision
A vision based on this sketch could lead to the promotion of:
• Development of a brand for inward investment, targeting both companies and skilled workers
• Joint marketing the natural assets of protected sites (based on robust management strategies and improved coordination) as a resource for local residents and for the development of new tourism products in the outdoor recreation sector. (Note however, that this latter is a niche product – the real value is the power of the natural assets of the area to attract and retain a well‐educated workforce and new companies)
• A more focussed effort to develop the region’s R&D base in renewable energy (in addition to planned investments in nuclear expertise)
85
86
• Further support to local produce initiatives, perhaps bringing a seafood strand to these
• The development of a new creative industries initiative, capitalising on the inspirational qualities of the natural environment and landscape for design and art (further building upon the brand image)
• Helping to guide the character of regeneration, especially waterfront developments that are highly visible.
• Environmental improvements in coastal settlements, and more sensitive design
• Rationalisation of leisure infrastructure and management through more joint working and integration of powers (such as byelaws) and resources (for management of facilities, or enforcement for example)
• Coordinated strategic planning of infrastructure between key authorities.
On the other hand, the vision would tend to negate the promotion of:
• Poorly styled waterfront developments which impinge upon the wider landscape quality
• Business and industrial facilities planned without consideration of landscape impacts
• Intensive exploitation of natural assets, such as fishery resources, which would be protected by robust regulation and effective enforcement
• Strategic or site‐based plans or development proposals that risk altering the unique character (sense of place) of North West Wales.
Many of these outcomes are provided for in existing policy. However, there are unique aspects proposed which have the potential to add considerable value.
