Coastal and marine governance in the United Kingdom
Editorial

The purpose of this special issue is to consider a number of contemporary issues related to coastal and marine governance in the UK. This is a particularly pertinent geographical question at this time, as coastal and marine spaces are at the forefront of a number of important challenges for the UK, and governance structures are a key influence on how these issues can be tackled (McFadden 2007). The first and most obvious issue is climate change, the impacts of which are likely to be felt at the coast before anywhere else, perhaps through increased flood severity and frequency, increased erosion, and greater land instability. Second, the UK's coastal spaces are under immense socioeconomic pressure for development and exploitation, for tourism, port infrastructure, residential development, and more recently, for environmental mitigation schemes, managed realignment sites, and compensatory habitat. Third, is the changing pattern of the use of the UK's marine environment, including a reduction in fishing activity and an expansion of both the offshore renewable energy and cruise tourism sectors. These challenges form the context for the central question of this special issue: how to establish an effective governance framework for the UK's coastal and marine environment. The establishment of an effective coastal and marine governance framework is a challenge primarily due to the range of activities competing for access to coastal and marine space and the complexity of the associated legal and administrative arrangements. The historical reliance upon sector- and issue-specific governance approaches in the UK has created an uncoordinated governance framework, which lacks integration with pre-existing (or anticipated) policy, is short-term in outlook, and results in a less than efficient governance structure (Smith and Potts 2005). Since devolution in the UK during the 1990s, the situation has become more complex still, with England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all modifying their administrative frameworks to suit their needs and determining subtly different coastal and marine policy directions. The response to the complexities of governing coastal and marine spaces has been the development of governance models based upon the following assumptions: instead of conceiving of and implementing policy on a sector by sector basis, it is more effective and efficient to develop an integrated or coordinated approach; it is better to conceive of the marine to terrestrial transitional space as a single coherent zone that should be addressed as one unit, rather than as separately managed components; due to the variety of timescales at which coastal and marine systems operate, a long-term strategic view of coastal and marine governance is required; and a system that actively seeks the involvement of relevant stakeholders is likely to deliver better quality and more effective solutions. The resultant emergence of integrated coastal management (ICM) (which embodies these principles) as the dominant paradigm in coastal and marine governance is therefore unsurprising. The birth and evolution of the ICM concept has been tracked by authors in both generic terms (for example, Cicin-Sain and Knecht 1998; Vallega 1999) and within specific geographical contexts including the UK (Ballinger 2005), Canada (Ricketts and Harrison 2007), Israel (Fletcher 2000) and Japan (Kawabe 2004). National and international surveys of ICM progress have also been undertaken, including Sorenson (1993 1997), Cicin-Sain and Knecht (1998) and Rupprecht Consult (2006). Despite extensive applied research, the precise mechanism(s) to achieve ICM continue to be the subject of debate, however the ‘imperative of integration’ (Cicin-Sain 1993) is perceived as central. Over the last 30 years, several phrases have been adopted to describe the concept of ICM, including ‘coastal and marine resource management’, ‘coastal zone management’ (CZM), ‘integrated coastal zone management’ (ICZM), and of course, integrated coastal management’ (ICM). The meaning of each of the terms is subtly different and has evolved in its own context. For example, CZM was initially the dominant term used in the UK, having been taken from the US Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. CZM terminology was used widely by environmental pressure groups operating in the UK (particularly the Marine Conservation Society and Worldwide Fund for Nature), the UK government, and in academic papers and courses. This definition asserted the previously uncommon notion of considering the coast as a ‘zone’ that included both an area of land and sea – now an accepted core element of ICM theory. As the centrality of integration became a dominant theme in coastal management discourse in the 1990s, the inclusion of the word ‘integrated’ grew to be more common, hence ICZM. Today, two terms dominate applied and academic discourse: ICM and ICZM. ICZM has been the term favoured by the European Commission since it began to engage with the management of coasts in the early 1990s. This culminated in 2002, when the European Parliament and Council made a formal Recommendation ‘concerning the implementation of Integrated Coastal Zone Management in Europe’ (European Commission 2002), which encouraged all Member States to implement ICZM – thus cementing ICZM as the key term used by European practitioners. In contrast, in the USA and much of Asia and Australasia, the term ICM is more prevalent. ICM is also the dominant term in most academic writing, which leaves Europe in something of an isolated position in its use of the term ICZM. However, despite arguable minor distinctions between definitions, in common usage, ICM and ICZM are indistinguishable. In the UK, practical mechanisms to deliver coordinated coastal governance have focused on voluntary partnership approaches, largely due to the absence of formal integrated coastal governance structures. Various models of coastal partnership have evolved, some as part of coordinated programmes (for example, Morris 2008), and others in relative isolation, however all seek to reflect local circumstances and needs. The initial emphasis of many partnerships, largely arising from the influence of statutory nature conservation bodies, was on applied conservation management, particularly in estuaries. As partnerships evolved to embrace a wider range of coastal and marine issues (and the broader sustainability agenda), many retracted from direct management to perform a local ICM facilitation role. Obtaining funding for this role has been well documented as challenging (McGlashan 2003; Entec UK Ltd 2008) and has led to organisational instability and, in some cases, the closure of coastal partnerships. Despite this rather laissez faire approach to coastal governance, there are many examples of success delivered by partnerships, but the overall result is a rather limited ICM framework of questionable effectiveness (Fletcher 2003 2007a 2007b; McKenna and Cooper 2006). The governance of the UK marine environment, which tends to be the policy domain of national government, is a different matter, as demonstrated by the strong political commitment to deliver a new Marine Bill. The proposed Bill will establish a formal system of marine planning for UK waters, new consenting arrangements for marine activities, new arrangements for fisheries, greater access to coastal land, and enhanced protection of the marine environment. The Bill also provides for the formation of the Marine Management Organisation to oversee the revised coastal and marine governance arrangements. Following initial concerns of a separation between coastal and marine policy directions, rhetoric surrounding the April 2008 draft of the Marine Bill asserts that ICZM principles are implicit in the philosophy of the entire Bill. Thus, the Marine Bill is fundamental to the future development of coastal and marine governance in the UK, and forms the backdrop to this special issue. The preceding discussion, which only serves to hint at the complexity of the existing arrangements for coastal and marine governance in the UK, illustrates the challenging nature of any attempt to establish a more effective integrated governance framework for coastal and marine spaces. The ‘People and the Sea’ Conference (jointly convened by the Royal Geographical Society's Coastal and Marine Working Group and the National Maritime Museum) held in London in October 2007 sought to contribute to this debate by investigating contemporary coastal and marine governance challenges from a geographical perspective. The papers in this special issue reflect some of the key themes highlighted during the conference with particular reference to coastal and marine governance in the UK. In compiling this special issue, it became increasingly apparent that to allocate the papers into specific sub-themes was futile due to the interconnectedness of the topics debated, which is perhaps a reflection of the inherent character of the discipline. The ordering of the papers in the issue therefore seeks to convey a coherent storyline through the complexities of the coastal and marine framework of the UK and the challenges it currently faces. The first paper in the special issue, by Lorraine McFadden, entitled ‘Exploring the challenges of integrated coastal zone management and reflecting on contributions to “integration” from geographical thought’ focuses on a key question in coastal management discourse – how to deliver integration. After setting out some of the key challenges in progressing the ICZM agenda, the paper presents a series of UK case studies that serve to illustrate the difficulties of achieving integration in a complex governance framework. The role of geographical thinking is then presented as a mechanism to conceptualise coastal place differently and so present an alternative approach to achieving integration. A key element of working towards integration – linking physical processes to governance arrangements – is addressed by Andrew Cooper and John McKenna in the second paper in the issue which is entitled ‘Working with natural processes: the challenge for coastal protection strategies’. The paper recognises that, historically, the natural processes that occur at the coast have been seen as being in conflict with society, something from which people should be protected and against which they should be defended. In contrast, one of the key principles of ICM is that governance decisions should work with natural processes. From their analysis of a number of coastal protection case studies from Ireland, McKenna and Cooper find that there are a number of barriers to the adoption of the principle of working with nature, in particular challenges presented by societal perception and attitude to property rights. The gap between the principle and its adoption is therefore potentially significant, and reflects how the ad hoc nature of the current governance framework serves to compromise certain goals. Public opinion can present a further barrier to the effective delivery of coastal and marine governance, as highlighted by Mike Phillips in the third paper in the issue, entitled ‘Beach erosion and marine aggregate dredging: a question of evidence?’. This paper discusses the relationship between beach erosion and marine aggregate dredging and the perception of the public as to the associated cause and effect relationships. The removal of sediment from the coastal environment for terrestrial building projects is relatively common around the UK. However, it can be viewed as very controversial where nearby coasts are experiencing high levels of erosion. The public make the seemingly ‘obvious’ connection between the erosion and aggregate extraction. This paper explores the reality of the relationship between erosion and aggregate extraction, using examples from South Wales. The wider lesson from this paper is that the public perception of coastal and marine issues can be affected by both a lack of definitive scientific certainty regarding cause and effect relationships, and a lack of public understanding of the complex physical processes involved. A potential mechanism to address the public–science–governance interface is through coastal partnerships, which take pride in their capacity to engage with stakeholders and the public and in translating complex issues to a wider audience. The fourth paper in the special issue, by Tim Stojanovich and Natasha Barker entitled ‘Improving governance through local Coastal Partnerships in the UK’ considers the role of Coastal Partnerships as an important element of the contemporary coastal governance framework in the UK. As the paper discusses, it is a challenging time for most partnerships – funding is limited and there is potential under-recognition of the role of partnerships in the context of the debate over the draft Marine Bill. This paper considers the achievements of partnerships within a difficult operating context and offers a blueprint for their future. For many who work in the current UK coastal and marine governance sector, a clear improvement would be a statutory system that delivers an integrated approach to governance. Indeed, the Marine Bill appears to offer this, at least with respect to the marine environment. However, it is important to recognise that the transition to statutory footing for any governance arrangement may present a number of challenges. The fifth paper in the special issue, entitled ‘Governance and planning policy in the marine environment: regulating aquaculture in Scotland’ by Deborah Peel and Greg Lloyd presents a critical analysis of the adoption of statutory planning controls over aquaculture in Scotland. The paper provides an insight into the wider marine planning agenda and the challenges that the adoption of a system of marine planning in the UK will involve. The paper explores the challenges, vulnerabilities and tensions involved in the development of the new regulatory framework and offers a commentary on factors that contribute to the development of good governance. The final paper in the issue picks up a theme implicit in the other papers – that in order to deliver effective coastal and marine governance, appropriate skills and knowledge are required by all participants at a level appropriate to their role. The paper by Steve Fletcher, Jonathan Potts and Rhoda Ballinger entitled ‘The pedagogy of integrated coastal management’ focuses on the notion of capacity and of capacity building for ICM. In doing so, it also reviews the devolved UK policies towards capacity building for coastal and marine governance. The substance of the paper, however, is an analysis of the preferred learning styles of students of ICM in the UK and the implications of this for capacity building. From the paper, it is interesting to note that ICM students were found to exhibit a distinctive learning style and therefore mechanisms of capacity building could be tailored accordingly. However, the situation is complicated by the observation that each actor in an ICM process is likely to have a different role, making the identification of a simple ‘one size fits all’ solution difficult. In conclusion, it is important to recognise that the coastal and marine governance sector in the UK is in a time of change. The papers in this issue generally present challenges rather than solutions. They do, however, convey a message of hope and opportunity, particularly with regard to the role that geographical insights can play in the future evolution of the coastal and marine governance framework in the UK.