The edge

The ma g azine of CoastNet Summer 2007

Coastal governance

Head to head – debating Pirate fishing and Governance around

coastal access governance the world
 Contents
3 Editorial

4 News
6

6 Head to head: 'Should there be a legal right of

access on foot to England and Wales’ coastal
CoastNet – breathing new
areas, to open up more of the coast for the
life into coastal matters
public to enjoy?'
Summer 2007 David Fursdon, President of the Country Land
Coastal goverance and Business Association and Kate Ashbrook,
Chair of the Ramblers’ Association go head to
head on the issue.
The edge is a quarterly magazine,
sent out to all CoastNet members.

CoastNet is an international 8 To catch a thief

networking organisation that There’s no issue more complicated than that of
works with all coastal interests to pirate fishing to test governance to the full.
promote the exchange of ideas, 10
Lesley Smeardon takes a look at the issues
information and expertise to find
long term solutions to coastal and talks to Cliff Morrison about the role of
problems that benefit all. Our fish processors in the fight against illegal,
mission is to safeguard the world’s unreported and unregulated fishing.
coast and those communities of
people and wildlife that depend
upon it for their future.
11 Governance around the world
Editor: Lesley Smeardon International readers give their views on the
Lesley.smeardon@coastnet.org.uk
Designed by: Cottier & Sidaway major coastal governance issues in their
Printed by: Swan Print
country and how, if at all, they are being
tackled.
Submissions
To submit an article for publication, please
email to the editor saving your submission
as a word document. Alternatively, send to
the address below. Letters can be sent to the 12 Jamaica
editor but we are unable to acknowledge 14
receipt. The editor reserves the right to edit
submissions.

13 Belgium
CoastNet: The Gatehouse,
Rowhedge Wharf, High St,
Rowhedge, Essex, CO5 7ET.
Tel/Fax: 01206 728644 14 South Africa
Email: admin@coastnet.org.uk
Web: www.coastnet.org.uk
15 Hong Kong, China; Karnataka State, India;
CoastNet is governed by an independent British Columbia, Canada
Board of Management and serviced by a
Secretariat.
Registered charity no 1055763
Registered as a company limited by
guarantee, company no 3204452

The opinions expressed in the magazine are

not necessarily those of CoastNet.
© CoastNet, 2007

2 The edge Summer 2007

Editorial
Coastal governance
In this issue on governance, we hear of the issues, regulations and
procedures from around the world.
I am not surprised that the issues
are so familiar – good coastal
management is universally difficult,
whatever the status and capacity of
the State. We hear of the lack of
public involvement, of poor
enforcement undermining good
legislation. We hear of a lack of
political interest hampering
progress, and of the insidious
pressure of urbanisation and
industrialisation on coastal systems.
This highlights for me a long-held
belief – that good coastal
governance is as dependant upon
individuals as it is upon good
legislation. I say this because I
think that legislation can only go
so far in resolving any issue. It
provides a framework, it enables
things to be done, it even requires
things to be done.
However, whether things are done,
or whether they are done well or
badly, is entirely down to
individuals: the decision-maker,
whether politician or civil servant,
who decides a course of action;
the technocrat making an
assessment of a proposal; the user,
abiding or not by the conditions
of a licence.
To what extent do these people
understand the system of which
they are a part? Do they work in
sectoral confines, or do they have
a broader perspective that allows
them to take an integrated
approach? Do they make that
extra effort to talk to a colleague
or another organisation to fill in
that final piece of the information
jigsaw that will form the basis of
their decision, or do they just
make do with what they have to
hand at the time? Do they
encourage others to make that
extra effort, or just shrug their
shoulders and accept second best?
It is for these reasons that CoastNet
is committed to networking. We
believe that our work in
connecting people, our work in
improving the flow of information
(through the web and
publications, and at events), our
work in enabling people to
understand the ‘big picture’, is as
important to the realisation of
good governance as are the legal
measures that provide the basis of
it. So, my message to you is to take
a personal responsibility for
integration and to carry on
networking to discover new
friends, colleagues and
perspectives.
Alex Midlen,
Strategic Director
The edge Summer 2007 3
News
CoastNet Board of Management 2007
CoastNet has recently made new appointments to its Board of Management, completing the line up to provide a
hugely experienced, qualified and varied team to steer CoastNet. CoastNet warmly welcomes all new appointees as
well as thanking existing members for their continued commitment to the aims of the organisation.
Peter Burbridge
CoastNet Chair
Professor Peter
Burbridge holds the
Research
Development Chair
in Coastal
Management at the University of
Newcastle upon Tyne. Details of
Peter’s work was featured in last
issue’s news pages (p4)
Martin Budd
Director of
Peterborough
Advice Group,
Environment
Division, Royal
Haskoning
Martin has over 10 years of research
and commercial experience of coastal
and marine impact assessment. He is
an experienced Project Manager of
EIAs and SEAs, and has a background
in Coastal and Offshore Resource and
Environmental Management.
Currently, Martin is group manager
for 25+ environmental scientists in
Peterborough and is providing the
technical lead on two dredging and
reclamation EIAs in Dubai and
Bahrain, and is also working on a
major port EIA in Wales.
Rhoda Ballinger
Senior Lecturer in
the School of Earth
Ocean and
Planetary Sciences,
University of
Cardiff
Rhoda lectures in coastal and
environmental management and
policy at Cardiff University. Over the
past decade she has undertaken
4 The edge Summer 2007
research on various aspects of
coastal and marine policy for a
variety of clients, including UK
government departments, agencies,
WWF and others. Recently, she has
been involved with several
European INTERREG projects on
Integrated Coastal Management
(ICM) including COCONET and
COREPOINT.
Steven Fletcher
Senior Lecturer
in Coastal and
Marine Affairs,
University of
Bournemouth
Steve contributes
through research and teaching to
the MSc Coastal and Marine
Management course. He has
interests in all aspects of coastal
and marine policy, but in recent
years has been particularly involved
with partnership approaches to
ICZM both from an academic
perspective and as a practitioner,
through chairing both the Hamble
Estuary Partnership and the Solent
European Marine Site Stakeholder
Group. At the national level, he
chairs the Coastal and Marine
Working Group of the Royal
Geographical Society which
facilitates the production and
dissemination of coastal and marine
research. Steve has also conducted
consultancy work for a variety of UK
institutions including the Crown
Estate, RSPB, coastal partnerships
and Defra and has conducted
research widely in Europe, plus
Russia, Turkey, Cuba, United States,
Japan and Australia.
Caroline Salthouse
Regional Coastal
Project Officer,
North West
Regional Assembly
(NWRA)
As well as coastal
policy work for the NWRA (the
Regional Planning Body), a major part
of Caroline’s role is providing the
Secretariat for the North West Coastal
Forum, a multi-sector partnership
working together to promote and
deliver ICZM in the North West of
England. Caroline has extensive
experience of coastal issues in the
North West at both local and strategic
levels. In addition to sub-regional
experience gained previously while
working as Manager of the Mersey
Basin Campaign's Mersey Strategy,
she has taken an active part in
steering several European-funded
projects including the Interreg IIIC
West CoPraNet (Coastal Practice
Network) project, where she led the
work on beach management and
coastal erosion, and the Interreg IIC
Sustainable Port Cities project.
Tim Chapple
CoastNet Company Secretary
A qualified architect, designer and
planner, Tim has worked in the not for
profit sector for 20 years. He is
currently self-employed working with
a range of clients including the Lea
Rivers Trust, CABE and UNESCO.
Anthony (Tony) Clayton
Anthony retired from the University
of Greenwich at the end of 2002, after
holding the post of Dean of Faculty
before being appointed to direct the
University’s Natural Resources

Institute (NRI). The NRI has been
providing sustainable solutions to
alleviate poverty in the developing
world, particularly in Africa and Asia,
for over 100 years.
Since retirement he has taken on a
number of voluntary appointments
including Chair of the Medway Swale
Estuary Partnership, Chair of the
Board of Directors of a Performing
Arts College and is a Trustee of the
Chatham Maritime Trust.
Cliff Morrison
Chartered Scientist CSci, Fellow
Inst. Food Science and
Technology FIFST
Cliff is currently the Technical Adviser
to Young's Bluecrest Seafoods Ltd
and is also the Chair of the Food and
Drink Federation Seafood Group,
which represents most of UK
processor.In addition to this he is:
– Vice president of the European
Seafood Processors Association
– A member of the EU DG Fish
Aquaculture and Fisheries Advisory
Committee
– A member of the NW and NSea
RACs, either on executive or general
assembly
– A Representitive on various
Defra/FSA stakeholder and/or
advisory
committees, including Codex Fish
- Member of the Marine Stewardship
Council’s Technical Advisory Board
An interview with Cliff on the subject
of pirate fishing can be found on p8
of this issue.
EU Maritime Policy
With the consultation process
finally ended on the EU Maritime
Policy Green Paper, we asked
those who contributed their views
what they consider the key issues
to be. To see the responses, please
log on to our website at
www.coastnet.org.uk.
News
I love this beach...
CoastNet member, Fiona-Fraser Smith
The only way you can get to my favourite beach is to walk along a wild and
relatively remote stretch of the North Devon coastline not too far from
Hartland. It’s not a beach with miles of golden sand and dune grass waving
in the onshore breeze but one exposed to the storms of the Atlantic Ocean,
covered in round grey pebbles, wobbly stones and large angular boulders that
have fallen from the cliffs above. The cliffs are a geologist’s paradise, high and
rugged, curving wildly with anticlines and synclines. The rocky shoreline is
heaven for a rock hopper like me as I explore the hidden sea life in pools and
crevices. At low tide the remains of a wreck are revealed, massive chunks of
the ship including its boiler, anchor and drive shaft lie welded to the rocks. It’s
a permanent reminder of man’s presence on this remote and rocky coastline
where smugglers used to abound.
Fiona receives a copy of the BBC book Coast:
t h e j o u r n e y c o n t i n u e s. Tell us about your
favourite beach and receive your own copy.
Send to lesley.smeardon@coastnet.org.uk
Partnership Forum 2007
The 5th Annual Partnership Forum, organised by CoastNet and supported by
Defra, took place in April this year. Working with objectives set by Defra
regarding the Marine Bill and the role of partnerships in this process and the
business case for financial support for coastal partnerships.
A lot of information was gathered (see picture 1) and a lot of discussion took
place (pic 2) which led to recommendations on the role of partnerships in
developing Marine Spatial Plans put together in a report by CoastNet and
submitted to Defra. The report will be publicly available shortly but for further
information, please contact Theresa Redding: theresa.redding@coastnet.org.uk
Climate Change conference a huge success
The June CoastNet/Corepoint
conference on climate change at the
coast was one of the most
successful ever run with
presentations really encouraging
delegates to consider the knock-on
effects of climate change on coastal
systems and to think ‘outside of the
box’. All presentations can now be
found on our website Photo (from left to right): Professor Dianne
Edwards, Head of the School of Earth Ocean
(www.coastnet.org.uk) and a full
and Planetary Sciences; The Right Honourable,
report will be available shortly.
The Lord Mayor of Cardiff, Councillor Gill Bird;
The Minister for Sustainability and Rural
Development, Jane Davidson; and Alex
Midlen, Strategic Director, CoastNet.
The edge Summer 2007 5
 ‘Should there be a legal right of
access on foot to England and Wales’
coastal areas, to open up more of the
coast for the public to enjoy?’

David Fursdon Kate Ashbrook

As an organisation that represents rural businesses,
We cannot assume everyone who visits the coast wants
encouraging more visitors to the countryside or the coast
exactly the same experience. Some people may just want a
can be a good thing. However, when most people visit the
short walk from the car park and a cup of tea as David
coast, in a similar way as to when they visit the
suggests, while others will want longer walks linked with
countryside, they like somewhere to park, a cup of tea and
public transport, and yet others may just want to wander
a simple route that takes them back to where they started.
freely in a coastal location. They all need to know what their
That is why the CLA has always questioned the need for a
rights and responsibilities are, and a legal right of access with
blanket approach to coastal access provision by introducing
a clear code of conduct will provide that certainty. And it’s
a legal right of access. It will not necessarily increase visits
not necessarily the numbers visiting the coast, but the
to the coast, as we have seen from the implementation of
quality of those visits which matter. An access corridor, with
the legal right of access to access land – the ‘right to roam’
clear rights to walk combined with protected and enhanced
–≠and it certainly won’t make it easier for people to get
landscapes, will provide an unforgettable experience.
there which is quite often half the problem.

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

6 The edge Summer 2007

David Fursdon, President of the Country
Land and Business Association and Kate
Ashbrook, Chair of the Ramblers’
Association go head to head on the issue.
Any walk in the countryside,
DF even if it involves walking down
a footpath can be an unforgettable
experience and that’s something we
would agree with. Our experience
however is that people are keen to
follow defined routes rather than
wander freely as Kate suggests. These
routes can be provided in a way that
does not interfere with the other
legitimate activities that take place on
coastal land if they are provided as a
result of negotiation. Otherwise, in a
free society, the owners of land and
businesses would need to be
compensated for that interference and
the financial impact that results. So
why don’t we take the common sense
approach which is to create local
solutions to local access problems,
rather than simply creating a right
which is impossible to implement
sensibly on the ground and where
people have no desire to go?
People vary in their
KA requirements and desires.
While some may want to follow a route,
others like the psychological and
physical freedom of knowing that they
can step off the path at their whim. This
was one of the great benefits brought by
opening land under the Countryside
and Rights of Way Act. A dedicated
public highway around the coast would
be too expensive and complex to create.
A permissive path can be withdrawn or
blocked at any time, and no one has a
duty to maintain it. And any route
would be likely to fall into the sea as the
coast is eroded, which is likely to
accelerate with climate change.
David Fursdon
In contrast a coastal corridor, created by
legislation, within which there is a
public right to walk, provides a cheaper,
more certain and long-term solution,
with the additional benefits of
landscape restoration. It could be
created a set distance from the cliff edge
or shoreline so that it is flexible against
erosion. A responsible right of access
would also benefit landowners by
bringing more visitors to rural
businesses, as well as increased funding
for signage and management. Sensible
restrictions and the code of conduct will
ensure people do not interfere with
landowners’ legitimate activities.
We would be in agreement that
DF any way forward must be good
value for money but we are also keen
that the implementation and the
management of any new access must be
adequately allowed for in budgets. As
we saw from the ‘right to roam’ the lack
of money available for access
management was not good enough and
it was obviously an add-on expense
rather than something that had been
taken into account during the project
planning process.
Inevitably, in any argument put forward
for increased access, the focus is on the
responsible user. For the land manger or
business owner it can only take a few
irresponsible users to cause significant
loss or lasting damage. In any debate
about access, there has to be a balance
between the desires of users, the wider
public good and the legitimate
expectations and needs of existing
businesses and owners. Now we have
Kate Ashbrook
seen the public consultation document
from DEFRA and have noted their
‘presumption against paying
compensation’ we will continue to push
the point that not paying compensation
for new rights going across private land
is a dangerous precedent to set for all
householders in England. What’s to
stop this being extended to the building
of new roads or airport runways? We
want more people to enjoy our coast but
we fear that this consultation will end
up being about taking rights without
compensation and nothing more.
There is a huge difference
KA between creating a public right
to walk on someone's land, and building
a new development there. The latter
removes the landowner's ability to use
his land as he pleases, and so there is a
reasonable case for compensation. But
public access on foot will not conflict
with the owner's ability to manage his
land, he loses nothing and therefore
there is no case for compensation.
Indeed, if he has any entrepreneurial
flair, he stands to gain financially by
giving the public a warm welcome. As
the Secretary of State for Environment,
David Miliband said, at the launch of
the coastal access consultation on 19
June: 'this is about what we think of
British people. If you think people will
exercise rights responsibly, you'll like
this. It's about trusting people.' The
Ramblers' Association trusts the British
people, and visitors to our island, to
behave-it's disappointing that the
Country Land and Business Association
has such a short-sighted view.
The edge Summer 2007 7
 To catch a thief
To find an issue that tests governance to the full, you need look no further than to pirate fishing says
Lesley Smeardon. Cast the net wide and discover the complexities of governance-related measures in
attempts to stamp out the trade of illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing.
P
irate fishing is big business.
According to UK Fisheries
Minister, Ben Bradshaw, the
trade of illegal, unreported and
unregulated (IUU) fishing is “….driven
by sophisticated criminal gangs who
don’t care what or who they damage in
the pursuit of easy cash.”
Estimates put its value at around $9
billion a year, often largely at the
expense of developing countries. The
African countries of Liberia, Sierra
Leone and Guinea for example are
estimated to lose $150 million between
them every year through pirate fishing.
What makes this ‘industry’ all the
more difficult to govern is that it
doesn’t respect national boundaries
nor international attempts to manage
high sea resources. At just about every
step in the process, once the boat is
licensed and in the water, to getting
the fish on our plates, loopholes and
stealth tactics are successfully
employed to maintain the plunder of
fish stocks and evade apprehension.
With proposed new EU regulations to
combat this illegal trade, due for
consultation soon, what are the
priorities for preventing IUU fish
entering the EU?
CoastNet board member and
Chairman of the UK Food and Drink
Federation (FDF) Seafood Group, Cliff
Morrison says “One of the big issues
for the EU is that 58% of all fish
consumed in the EU comes from third
countries. For white fish it’s nearly
8 The edge Summer 2007
90%. Add to this the fact that illegally
and legally caught fish may be mixed
at any stage in the supply chain, and it
becomes hugely complex to identify
illegally caught fish in the market
place. Regulations need to look at how
to certify fish coming in to the EU
from the original vessel. This would
involve a system to develop full chain
traceability back to the boats wherever
possible.”
Perhaps one of the best documented
cases of illegal fishing is that of Barents
Sea cod (the largest cod fishery in the
world). According to estimates by the
Norwegian Coastguard, between
100,000 and 166,000 tonnes of cod is
fished illegally here, representing up to
40% of the Russian catch. “Cod is
transhipped onto reefer (transport)
vessels and shipped in Europe and
onwards to China,” adds Morrison.
“As imports from third countries have
increased, exporters have wanted to
maximise the value of their fish and
now undertake a degree of semi-
processing themselves or send the fish
for semi-processing to countries
independent of both fishing nation
and EU importer, eg China. If a
company buys from China, then
without full traceability, there is often
a good chance that an element of it
could be IUU cod. This is an area for
concern and chain of custody
information is essential.” (See page 9,
Chain of Custody).
As Chairman of the UK FDF Seafood
Group which is also the UK
representative body at AIPCE, the
European Seafood Processors
Association, Morrison is all too
familiar with the need to have in place
effective monitoring processes. He was
involved in the development and
implementation of the industry’s
traceability system to responsibly
source cod which is now informing
new proposed EU regulations to adopt
a tracing system. But these proposals
are full of challenges and the scale of
the regulations simply mind boggling.
“Take the developing nations for
instance,” says Morrison. “If fish is
coming from one of these countries,
they may not have the infrastructure
or resources to monitor and trace from
boat. So they’ll lose even more
business unless the EU commits to
helping them out. That’s why the
recent announcement from DFID of a
£15 million scheme in Sierra Leonne
to help fishermen stamp out illegal
fishing is a positive step forward.”
Of course traceability is just one
element of the IUU fishing problem.
The issues begin even before a single
fish has been taken from the sea. A
hotchpotch of binding and non-
binding agreements with different
geographical and legal reaches
provides many a loophole to exploit
(see box, Governing the seas). Take the
issue of flags of convenience, for
example which allow vessels to license
to any country rather than the
country of ownership. This enables
that ship to fish according to the rules
Continued on Page 10
 The chain of custody
Fish stocks
IUU fishermen do not abide by rules
designed to protect the wider marine
ecosystem. As a result, seabirds,
marine mammals and sea turtles are all
adversely affected by the trade.
Ship and crew
As WWF points out, IUU fishing is truly
global. A vessel may be owned by a company
in the Caribbean, that is itself owned by
someone in Spain, with a Russian captain and
a crew from the Philippines and flagged to
Transhipping
One of the main ways in which IUU fishing can
remain undetected is by vessels transhipping
their catch at sea. By transferring catches onto
transport ships (reefers) IUU vessels never
need enter ports. The AIPCE has recently
announced that it will no longer buy products that
have been transhipped at sea.
Monitoring of vessels
The lack of a single global database providing
information on fishing vessels helps perpetuate IUU
fishing. The UNFAO proposed database aims to
share information across national and regional waters.
Similarly the proposed database under new EU
regulations will use and share existing information
on blacklisted vessels from and across RFMOs.
Secondary processing
With an increasing amount of secondary processing
occurring in third countries, such as China, it is
difficult to ensure legitimate catches are not mixed
with IUU fish.
Consumers and labelling
Labelling schemes such as that set up by the
Marine Stewardship Council give consumers
confidence that the fish they are buying
comes from a sustainable source. The MSC
scheme is an UN FAO compliant certification
scheme for sustainable fisheries, which is
also linked to chain of custody from catch
to final sale with an ecolabel. Currently
more than 6% of the world’s catch is
MSC certified.
NEAFC = North East Atlantic Fisheries Comission
RFMOs = Regional Fisheries Management Organisations
IUU = Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated
Aid to developing countries
IUU fishing is estimated to be
worth around $9 billion a year,
often at the expense of
developing countries. Proposed
EU regulations aimed at full
traceability of fish could impact
developing countries further due
to a lack of resources to enforce. That’s why
international support for developing countries
such as. DFID’s £15 million scheme to help
Sierra Leonne stamp out illegal fishing is vital.
Flags of convenience (FOC)
Approximately 15% of the world’s large scale
fishing fleet is either flying FOC or the identity of
the flag is unknown. (WWF). Many international
organisations including the Environmental Justice
Foundation are now calling for the elimination of
flags of convenience.
Port authority controls
Transhipping aside, regulating access to port
facilities can be an effective way of controlling IUU
fishing. New procedures that came into force in
May this year by the NEAFC, tighten up port
authorisations, forcing flag states to confirm that
the vessel was authorised to fish, and verifying
information provided in a declaration from the
master of the vessel. Without such information, no
landing can be made.
Processors
Fish processors are now joining forces in
attempts to stamp out IUU fishing. The
FDF Seafood Group for example has set
up tracing schemes for cod and committed to
support a fish monitoring system in new European
legislation currently being drafted.
Supermarkets
Support for traceability, monitoring
and ecolabelling schemes help keep IUU fish
out of the food chain. Sainsbury’s, for example,
along with the FDF and Seafish were part of a EU
funded Tracefish project which developed a
European standard for traceability from
boat to final sale. Tesco and Marks and
Spencer‘s have also given their
support for a fish monitoring system
in new European legislation
currently being drafted.
The edge Summer 2007 9

of the flag country rather than the
country of origin. Flag licenses can
even be bought via the internet for
just a few hundred dollars making it
easy for vessels to re-flag (‘flag-
hopping’) several times in one season
to confuse monitoring authorities.
Then there is the issue of regulating
port facilities to control IUU fishing
and clamping down hard on so-called
‘ports of convenience’ such as Las
Palmas in the Canary Islands that
provide services to IUU fleets. Add to
that transhipping (transferring
catches onto transport ships,
(reefers)) to avoid the need to enter
ports, effective communication of
blacklisted vessels across the world,
and two tier markets that can be
created between legal and illegal fish,
and the subject becomes so insanely
complex that it’s little wonder IUU
fishing continues in almost pandemic
proportions.
But there is progress being made. As
Morrison explains: “IUU fishing is all
about profit. If you can make the
operations unprofitable you can stop
it in its tracks. Recently, eight IUU
trawlers were found fishing just
outside Icelandic waters. All were
putting fish on a mother reefer vessel
10 The edge Summer 2007
which was being followed by EU
officials. When it tried to land in an EU
port, it was rejected. It then went off
the European coast, headed to
Morocco, went west through Panama
and tried various ports but nobody
would take it in. Eventually the fish
was offloaded in Hong Kong as there
was no agreement in place there to
stop it. But, the cost to offload was so
much that ultimately it was not worth
doing. The great news is that some of
these eight trawlers are now actually
being scrapped.”
Ben Bradshaw, UK Fisheries Minister,
in a recent statement said: “We all have
a responsibility and a duty to make
sure there is adequate governance and
enforcement in place to stop illegal
fishing and to block illegal produce
entering the food chain.”
This governance that Bradshaw speaks
of must be the responsibility of all
those legitimately involved at each
step in the ‘chain of custody’ to ensure
illegally-caught fish has nowhere to go;
no country to license to, no port to
unload at, no processors to sell to, and
ultimately – no trade.
Governing the seas
The present system of high seas
governance has been built on the
foundation established by the UN
Convention of the Sea, 1992. What has
resulted is a complex mix of binding and
non-binding instruments with different
geographical and legal reaches and
different levels of participation.
UN FISH STOCKS AGREEMENT –
2001
Sets out principles for conservation and
management of fish stocks. Only about
third parties to Law of Sea ratified it.
UN FOOD AND AGRICULTURE
ORGANISATION FAO
In 2001 adopted Int ern a t i o n a l p l a n o f
a c t i on o n I U U f i sh i n g, a voluntary
instrument endorsed by 110 countries to
prevent, deter and eliminate IUU fishing.
Along with Australia, New Zealand and the
UK it proposed a g l o b a l d a t a b a s e o f f i s h i n g
vessels to give importers and processors
help in identifying vessels likely to have
fished illegally.
EU
Proposed EU regulations are likely to
include a c o m m u n i t y register of vessels
e n g a g i n g i n I U U f i s h i n g which would
include vessels on regional fisheries
management organisations (RFMOS)
blacklists and a p ro p o s a l o n e c o - l a b e l l i n g .
REGIONAL FISHERIES MANAGEMENT
ORGANISATIONS
These are affiliations of nations which
coordinate efforts to manage fisheries in a
particular region and make up for the
absence of a binding supranational
authority. T h e N o r th-Ea st A tlant ic Fisher ies
C ommission (NE AFC) launched procedures
for new port state controls in May 2007.
HIGH SEAS TASK FORCE
Set up in 2003, the Task Force is a small
group of fisheries ministers and NGO
leaders that promote practical solutions
to the challenge of IUU fishing on the
high seas.
NATIONAL GOVERNANCE
Under the International Plan of Action on
IUU Fishing, all parties were required to set
up and implement National Plans of Action
on IUU fishing. The The UK Action Plan
came into force in 2005.
FISH PROCESSORS
The AIPCE (European Seafood Processors
Association) is based in Brussels and has
membership across most of the original 15
EU member states with fishing interests
and now also includes Poland.
NGOs
Some NGOs, notably WWF, Greenpeace
and the Environmental Justice Foundation
have been very vocal on IUU fishing. They
are able to provide political pressure on
governments, fish processors and retailers.
PORTS
Strengthening port state controls may
deter IUU fishing and improve
enforcement. Necessary domestic
legislation must be in place as well as
cooperative mechanisms.
 Coastal governance
around the world
Canada Belgium

China
Jamaica

Hong kong
British Colombia
India

South Africa

What are the main coastal governance issues around the world? Our
international readers give us their views on the major coastal governance*
issues in their country and how, if at all, they are being tackled.

*Coastal governance here is interpreted as policy and legal processes by which our coasts and seas are managed by public
authorities and the arrangements in place for participation by communities, NGOs, and other stakeholders.
Please note all contributions in this article are the professional opinions of the individual authors and do not necessarily
represent the views of those organisations they are affiliated to.

The edge Summer 2007 11

Jamaica
By Dr David Smith (Director), Christopher Daly,. (Civil Engineer)
of Smith Warner International Limited (Kingston, Jamaica)
Overview of policy
Coastal governance in Jamaica is backed by
a number of policies and legal processes. Of
these, the Beach Control Act (1956) is the
most important piece of legislation. The Act
seeks to ensure proper management of
Jamaica’s coastal and marine resources and
protects the rights of the foreshore and sea
floor by prohibiting the use of these without
permission from the local environmental
regulatory body.
This body, the National Environment
and Planning Agency (NEPA), is responsible
for reviewing license applications for the
construction of docks, wharves, jetties,
breakwaters, marinas and for issuing licenses
for the construction of such structures. The
Act is currently undergoing substantive
review in order to address more
contemporary legal and management issues.
A number of relevant regulations and
policies are also in place. The 1992 Natural
Resources (Marine Parks) Regulation
established marine protected areas for the
conservation of marine resources. The
Montego Bay, Negril and Ocho Rios are
three marine parks to which these
regulations apply. These areas are Jamaica’s
primary tourist destinations.
The 1997 Coral Reef Protection and
Preservation Policy and Regulation and the
Policy on Seagrass Beds are also two
important regulations. The aims of these
polices are first to ensure the conservation of
coral reefs in order to sustain their ecological
and socio-economic functions and second,
to facilitate the control of practices which
could result in the destruction of sea grasses.
The document Towards A Beach Policy For
Jamaica (2000) specifically addresses the
controversial issue of beach access, and
issues relating to oil pollution, sewage
pollution, solid waste disposal, beach
erosion, coastal water quality, mariculture
and wild life protection. The document has
undergone a process of public consultation
and is now with the Ministry of Lands and
the Environment for completion of the
policy development process.
Despite the existence of legislation and
regulations that govern how coastal
developments, environments and issues are
dealt with, they are not fully enforced. This
leads to major deficiencies that have serious
consequences in critical areas of coastal
governance.
12 The edge Summer 2007
Key issues
Control of pollution of
coastal waters
The informal disposal of domestic, industrial
and agricultural waste directly affects the
water quality of coastal waters in Jamaica.
This problem occurs both in some inland
areas, where waste discarded into rivers
eventually end up being discharged in the
sea; and also, directly from developed coastal
areas of the country. Kingston Harbour, the
seventh largest natural harbour in the world,
is an example of an extremely polluted water
body. The problem is exacerbated by non-
enforcement of water quality and effluent
discharge standards and the malfunctioning
of some sewage treatment plants.
Monitoring of coastal resources
Beach erosion and the underlying causes and
effects are not monitored to a great extent.
One of the foundations upon which
Jamaica’s tourism sector is built on is the
promise of beach, sun and sand. Without
healthy beaches, the country’s economy
would be in greater turmoil than it already is.
Coral reef protection is also an ongoing issue.
Many reefs are destroyed as a result of tourist
activities, and poor water quality (excessive
nutrients) is also one of the primary reasons
for overgrowth of algae on coral reefs that
can suffocate them. These coral reefs act as a
sand source, and their destruction ultimately
leads to losses in sediment production and
the net erosion of beaches. In addition, they
frequently function in the role of natural
breakwaters, providing shelter to the
shorelines in their lee.
Lime Cay, Jamaica
Guidelines for coastal development
and resulting effects
The recent spate of tourism-related
developments along the coast of Jamaica
has raised the issue of creating specific
guidelines and limitations. Some resorts are
highly dense, offering hundreds of rooms to
overseas visitors. This puts a burden on the
coastal environment, as larger beach areas
are required or existing ones are being over-
utilised. The Beach Control Act does not
specifically refer to limits of beach
utilisation. The attendant socio-economic
impacts are also considerable, as basic
infrastructure, such as utilities and
healthcare facilities are not available or able
to cope with the increased numbers of
informal settlements that typically spring
up to house the service workers for these
developments.
Tackling the issues
The issues above get little attention until
serious problems occur. Apart from having
appropriate legislation in place, not much
preventative action or enforcement takes
place. Other private groups, such as marine
parks, play important roles in supporting
the protection of the environment, and
carry out frequent checks and assessments
on the health of a particular area. The scale
to which this is carried out, however, is
small and confined to only a few select areas
of our coast, such as prime tourist and
fishing areas.
Belgium
By An Cliquet, Dirk Bogaert, Frank Maes and Dino De Waen, University of Ghent
Delwaide Dock, one of the largest docks at Antwerp Harbour
Belgium is the smallest state bordering the
North Sea with a 66 km long coastline and a
territorial sea and continental shelf of 3,600
km2. Although small, it comprises several
types of coastal habitat, which are important
for a variety of flora and fauna and
accommodates many human activities
including recreation, shipping, fisheries,
industry and mineral extraction (Maes et al,
2005). Such a small and intensively-used
area needs an integrated policy but several
elements make this a difficult proposition.
Key issues
Complex institutional landscape
Since the creation of the Flemish
government in 1980, the Belgian state has
undergone several steps in its federalisation
process, resulting in a shift in competences
from the federal to regional governments.
For the coastal zone this has resulted in a
fragmentation of the governmental
institutions responsible for its management.
Most of the competences are now
divided between the federal government
(the marine part of the coastal zone) and the
Flemish Region (most matters on the
landward side of the coastal zone and some
matters at sea). The division between the
federal and the regional competences is
formed by the baseline, which is the low-
water line along the coast as marked on the
large-scale charts officially recognised by
coastal states (Cliquet, 1996). However,
divergent laws can assign jurisdiction at sea
to the Flemish Region.
At the different government levels,
several administrations are involved in
coastal zone policy including the Ministry of
Economic Affairs, the Ministry of Transport,
the Ministry of Defense and the Federal
Public Service Environment . On the
political level, several ministers are also
competent for marine issues with a Minister
for the North Sea appointed in 2003. And,
finally, at the level of the Flemish Region,
the Administration for Waterways and
Seaways, the Administration for the
Environment, the Administration for
Agriculture and Fisheries and the
Administration for Spatial Planning all have
responsibilities in the coastal zone. These
Flemish administrations are subdivided in
departments.
While there is no single integrated
coastal policy, some coordination exists for
some specific issues in the coastal zone,
including a steering group on seas and
oceans that deals with coordination on the
planning level but is limited in scope and
does not include participation of all
institutional levels (such as the local level),
nor information and participation for the
public. Another coordination structure on a
specific issue is a cooperation agreement
between the federal government and the
Flemish Region on dumping of dredged
material at sea.
Lack of participation
A second issue hampering the governance of
the Belgian coast is a lack of public
participation. Decisions within the coastal
zone allowing for public participation can be
indirect and direct. Indirect participation
can be obtained through several advisory
bodies, such as the Flemish Environmental
Council (MINA-Council) and the provincial
advisory body on spatial planning
(PROCORO). Direct participation is included
in several procedures, eg building permits or
environmental permits. These permits must
be made public, after which everyone can
express objections.
For certain coastal projects these forms
of participation are apparently inadequate.
This was the case for the first attempt to
establish marine protected areas in 1999.
Several user groups felt they had not been
involved in the process and finally the
federal government halted the attempt due
to their protest. The first planning of
offshore windmills close to the Belgian coast
created a similar problem.
In more recent attempts, the federal
government has learned from the negative
experiences in the past and in both
procedures for offshore windmills and
marine protected areas, much effort is given
to informal participation rounds, starting
form the very beginning of the process.
Tackling the issues
These two issues are intertwined with the
lack of a global and integrated policy and
cooperation. There are tools that could
mediate problems concerning the
institutional complexity and lack of
participation. Most drastically, all
competencies related to the coast could be
transferred to either the Flemish or federal
government. Alternatively, one could opt for
a comprehensive legal framework for
integrated coastal zone policy for the
Belgian coastal zone.
Less stringent than the above,
cooperation agreements between the federal
and regional governments could set up a
formal cooperation structure for integrated
coastal zone policy with different options for
institutional linkages having already been
considered (Cliquet et al, 2002).
While many key representatives are in
favour of a formal cooperation agreement,
to date, no political decisions have been
taken to formalize this agreement. The main
reason that this issue has not been brought
on the political agenda, is a lack of political
interest for integrated coastal zone policy at
both federal and Flemish level. It therefore
remains uncertain what the future will bring
for an urgently needed integrated Belgian
coastal zone policy.
For more information, see:
http://www.west-
vlaanderen.be/jahia/
Jahia/site/kustbeheer_en
The edge Summer 2007 13
South Africa
By Louis Celliers, Fiona Mackay, Sean Fennessy, Oceanographic Research Institute
Key issues
Delay in promulgation of
the National Environmental
Management: Integrated Coastal
Management Bill
This Bill was intended to be the legal
instrument that would be the mainstay of
coastal management in South Africa
(obtainable from http://www.gov.za). The
process of creating this important legal
instrument started very encouragingly with
a broad public participation process and
quickly resulted in the publication of a
Green Paper, that was soon followed by an
excellent White Paper. At the time, it was
generally accepted that the White Paper
was a fair reflection of firstly, the public
participation process and the opinions and
suggestions solicited through this process,
and secondly, it appeared to have
widespread acceptance insofar it
encapsulated the real coastal management
issue in what was then the post-apartheid
fledgling democracy.
After the White Paper was published, it
was easy to believe that the Bill was one
short step away from promulgation but
now, nearly eight years later, three different
environment ministers (Department of
Environmental Affairs and Tourism), and
more than five drafts, the Bill was
promulgated. Better late than never, but at
this point the Bill is not readily recognisable
as an iterative product of the White Paper,
which then raises serious transparency
issues in terms of the process that was
started in 1997. Even so, the promulgated
Bill is a positive step to achieving
Atlantic Beach, Cape Town
14 The edge Summer 2007
sustainable coastal development and will be
the framework for future coastal
governance. Furthermore, the Bill is
supported by other advanced
environmental legislation but often the
process to full implementation and
effectiveness is hampered by factors relating
to monitoring and enforcement, and a
weakened legal system.
A specific but parallel issue, even within
the new Bill, is the lack of a comprehensive
legal framework to manage ‘transitional
waters’, such as estuaries. There also
appears to be a discontinuity between
terrestrial and estuarine water management
policy and legislation. The current legal
framework does not implicitly resolve
departmental responsibility for waters in
the coastal zone that is not riverine, or of
the marine nearshore or offshore
environment.
The Coastal Management Bill makes
provision for establishing coastal
governance structures in all spheres of
government. Many of these structures have
already been created, most notably a
National Coastal Committee, as well as
Provincial Coastal Committees. In some
instances district Coastal Working Groups
have also already been created to represent
the local sphere of government. These
structures, which have been attended by
members on a voluntary basis, will become
compulsory according to a specific terms of
reference, specified by either the national
Minister of Environmental Affairs and
Tourism or the Member of the Executive
Councils of the respective coastal provinces.
Lack of human capital
Delivery of services and management
effectiveness of all spheres of government is
severely impeded by a lack of human
capital. There is no question that the
current and advanced South African legal
framework supports sustainable
environmental and coastal development.
However, the ability of the state to translate
this advantage into real and long-term
benefit for coastal communities and the rest
of civil society, while maintaining
ecosystem integrity, is limited due to a lack
of suitably qualified staff and high staff
turnover, which in turn leads to a lack of
continuity and understanding of coastal
issues by coastal managers. This is
particularly evident in the local sphere of
government where many of the policies
and legal instruments implemented directly
affect coastal communities.
Politicising of coastal management
and inappropriate profiteering
The limited ability of mid-level managers to
effect change due to high-level political
agendas is reducing the effectiveness of the
legal and policy framework. The pervasive
influence of politics in South Africa is
evident through all levels of civil society,
probably as a result of the policies of the
apartheid era and the subsequent
prioritisation of redress. This extends to
coastal management as opportunities for
coastal development have significant short-
term financial and political benefits. A lack
of strong moral leadership that reflects the
constitutional framework of South Africa is
the cause for serious coastal governance
issues across the three spheres of
government.
An example of the effect of these last
two coastal issues, is that from the fairly
narrow perspective of management of
harvestable marine resources, the national
authority responsible for these resources
has lost much of its research capacity to
manage them, and, because of political
agendas, is proving extremely slow to
replace this capacity. This loss of capacity
means that their response to concerns and
communications from stakeholders
(industry, communities, NGOs,) is very
poor, and also means they are failing to
meet some of their obligations to
international agreements.
Regional in-country perspectives
Hong Kong, CHINA
By Dr Kerrie MacPherson, University of
Hong Kong
It wasn't until 1975 that urban planning and
the marine environment 'met' in the Colony
Outline Plan (renamed the Hong Kong
Outline Plan) and the setting up of the
environment branch in government. This
was a time of rapid demographic and
economic growth and a rapid decline in the
urban environment. The usual clutch of
problems included insufficient sanitation
and sewerage, water supplies, inadequate
housing, squatter areas and so on.
In 1995, the Marine Parks Ordinance was
passed, providing for the designation,
protection and management of ecologically
important marine sites. This landmark
legislation however is essentially the
extension of urban zoning (or restrictive)
land-use and control to specific marine and
coastal areas of scientific interest.
However laudable such legislation has
been, Hong Kong's 6.9 million people
inhabiting a highly urbanised area of 1,650
sq km, share a fragile ecosystem strained by
industrial and urban development,
pollution, landfills and reclamation all of
which impact negatively on the marine
habitats. Furthermore with the inception of
China's open-door policy and the rapid
economic, industrial and urban
development in south China, human
pressures on marine resources and the
environment are unprecedented.
Even before the handover of Hong Kong
to China in 1997, there have been attempts
to address common cross-border
environmental problems with the
establishment of the Hong Kong-
Guangdong Environmental Protection
Liason Group. In the same year as the
passage of the Marine Parks Ordinance in
Hong Kong, China promulgated the China
Ocean Agenda 21 and initiated ICZM pilot
projects in Guangdong and elsewhere. The
Hong Kong -Guangdong group established a
series of technical subgroups to monitor
water quality, pollution control, white
dolphin (Sousa Chinensis) conservation,
fisheries management, aquaculture and red
tide monitoring.
The speed of Chinese legislation and policy
frameworks devised belies the continued
degradation of the marine environment due
to rapid urbanisation and a sectoral
approach to the environment. WWF (and
others) have urged the Hong Kong
government to ban trawling in Hong Kong's Tackling the issues
territorial waters, establishing 'no-take' Law for coastal protection
zones, or instituting a licensing/permit To protect and conserve the coastal
system based on actual assessments of fish environment, the Ministry of Environment
stocks. But the restructuring of marine and Forest (MoEF), has declared a Coastal
activities and the complex regulatory Regulation Zone (CRZ) which includes the
regimes, differing customary and statutory coastal stretches of seas, bays, creeks, rivers
legal systems between Hong Kong and and backwaters that are influenced by tidal
China, will have to be addressed before the action (landward) up to 500 m from High
'one country, two systems' become one. Tide Line (HTL) and the land between LTL
and HTL. Some activities, such as
Karnataka State, INDIA construction, mining, reclamation. have
By Dr A M Ramesh, Planning Commission either been prohibited or restricted. There
of India are also environment protection, and
prevention and control of pollution laws
Key issues which have provisions for protection of
Coastal erosion marine biodiversity.
Beach erosion is serious in certain areas
along the Karnataka Coast and becomes British Columbia, CANADA
acute during monsoon season, when the sea Association for Responsible Shellfish
is virtually roaring. Short term remedial Farming
measures are being taken in the State-funded
Key issues
Anti Sea Erosion Schemes. However, sea wall
• Siting of shellfish tenures which
construction by dumping huge stone blocks
interfere with other stakeholders and
has created more problems than benefits
lack of environmental assessments prior
especially deepening of the sea.
to siting
The coastline of British Columbia is being
Urbanisation and industrialisation
littered by obstructive and noisy aquaculture
The coast of Karnataka is increasingly
farms and the debris that is washed up on
becoming an industrial hub with large
the beaches from these farms. Although the
numbers of industries setting up along the
government has guarded against damaging
Mangalore coast. These range from
areas where eelgrass exists, the net result is
petrochemical, fertiliser, iron ore palletising,
the destruction of natural habitat where
pigments & paints, power generation, fish
beach leases exist and unknown damage to
processing plants and small scale industries.
the environment from extensive licensing of
Urbanisation is also increasing with
deep water leases in areas with little tidal
unplanned housing growth to accommodate
movement.
the industrial workforce. As a result, large
• Lack of proper testing for heavy metals
quantities of untreated domestic sewage are
such as cadmium and mercury and
being released into the coastal waters along
publication of results and warnings to
with industrial discharges. These effluents
the public regarding consumption of
impact on the already stressed coastal
shellfish containing high amounts of
ecosystem with frequent occurrence of
these metals.
blooms in the waters – an indicator of over
nitrification. It is clear that there is a need
Tackling the issues
for a planned approach to the expansion of
The issues have been ignored by
coastal cities/ towns.
government and licensing agencies in its
quest to expand the aquaculture industry
Identification of critical coastal
without adequate scientific study. Further,
habitats
the establishment of a Farm Practices Board
Along the coast of Karnataka, sparse
has also left concerned community groups,
mangrove vegetation occurs. The total area
NGOs or individuals without further redress.
of mangroves was 60 sq km in 1989 (MoEF),
NGOs, such as the Suzuki Foundation and
which had drastically reduced to 25 sq km
the Georgia Strait Alliance have addressed
by 2001 (KSRSAC and SAC). This alarming
some of these issues but government
reduction is mainly due to reclamation of
continues to ignore them.
the area for construction of brackish water
aquaculture ponds and saltpans. Depletion
in mangrove ecosystem is considered as one
of the causative factors for erosion increase
in the estuarine mouths.
The edge Summer 2007 15
CoastNet welcomes new corporate members

Join the Ramblers’ Association

and get 20% off
For over 70 years, we have been working on behalf of walkers
everywhere, promoting walking, safeguarding the beauty of the
countryside, maintaining paths and increasing access to Britain’s
beautiful landscapes.

As a registered charity, our work is funded almost entirely by

subscriptions and donations from people like you.

Join now and you get 20% off Ramblers membership

• Single annual membership – £19.20 (normally £24)
• Joint annual membership – £25.60 (normally £32)
(2 adults at the same address)

Visit www.ramblers.org.uk/offer and enter the

code EDE or call 020 7339 8500.
NB This offer is not available to existing Ramblers
Registered charity
members and expires on 31 Dec 2007. number 1093577

Leading the way in Royal Haskoning is a highly experienced

and renowned international consultant
environmental consultancy which is able to provide a comprehensive
range of skills for clients in the coastal
zone. From ICZM and EIA, to discrete
ecological surveys in terrestrial, intertidal
and marine habitats, we are able to assist
in ensuring sustainable development and
adherence to the complex suite of
environmental legislation that currently
exists in the UK and abroad.

If you would like further information

please contact:
Dr Martin Budd
m.budd@royalhaskoning.com
www.royalhaskoning.com

This publication is partially funded

CoastNet emails:
through the Corepoint project under
Alex Midlen; alex.midlen@coastnet.org.uk the Interrreg 3B Programme. Corepoint
aims to establish North West Europe
Theresa Redding; theresa.redding@coastnet.org.uk as an internationally recognised
Lesley Smeardon; lesley.smeardon@coastnet.org.uk region of excellence in coastal
management by encouraging full
Manuela de los Rios; manuela.delosrios@coastnet.org.uk implementation of ICZM, highlighting
Christine Punter; christine.punter@coastnet.org.uk best practice, providing education by
influencing national spatial policies –
Events; events@coastnet.org.uk for further details please see
General; admin@coastnet.org.uk http://corepoint.ucc.ie