CZM End Test

The CZM end test was held on Wednesday 4/6/08. There were three sections to the test.

In the first section a comprehensive list of conflicts/pressure points in the coastal zone was drawn up. This included such things as tourist developments in tropical locations, offshore energy developments, marine fisheries and sea level rise.

The second section identified the possible participants in coastal zone conflict. These included relevant government departments, environmental groups, property developers, the oil and gas industry, community gruops etc.

The third section was a conflict resolution analysis of the development of the cruise ship terminal in Falmouth Docks and how a (hypothetical) Falmouth Maritime Forum (based on the existing Devon Maritme Forum) would help to resolve the conflicts arising from this development. The main conflict is between the environmental lobby and the shellfish industry on one hand and the developers (A&P) and local commercial and political interests on the other concerning the proposed dredging for the new terminal.

I intend to complete a third year at Plymouth University leading to a BSc (Hons) in Environmental Science (Marine Conservation) and go on to work in the field of marine conservation. Having spent ten years as a professional diving instructor this is something I have always aspired to, however completing this foundation degree has confirmed my interest in the wider marine environment and given me the tools to pursue a career in marine conservation actively. There are also post graduate opportunities in this field, particularly a masters program at the University of KwaZulu Natal in South Africa which as a South African I am particularly interested in. (http://www.jobs.ac.uk/)

The answer to Life, the Universe and Everything is forty two.

What IS the question?

Coastal Zone Management Weblog

This blog has been constructed as part of the CZM module of a Foundation Degree in Marine Environmental Management at Falmouth Marine School. In it I have attempted to:

• Analyse the natural processes at work in the coastal zone.
• Identify techniques for coastal protection.
• Evaluate the effects of human intervention on coastal processes.
• Appraise socio-economic and environmental factors in the development of the coastal zone.
• Apply integrated coastal zone management techniques to a defined segment of the coastal zone.
• Summarise the CZM lectures and field sessions.
• Research and develop links on CZM.

Although this has been an ongoing project and some of the posts might seem a bit disjointed I hope I have provided enough links and research topics to provide a holistic view of the intricacies of Integrated Coastal Zone Management.

Oil Spill Response Exercise

On the 6th March 2008 a desk based training exercise indicating the roles and responsibilities of all parties involved in the mitigation, clean up and compensation of a spill of persistent oils from an oil tanker was played out by students and staff at Falmouth Marine School. This exercise was developed by the 2nd Year FdSc Marine Environmental Management students as part of their Environmental Policies B module to provide training to a conservation team comprising representatives from the National Trust, Cornwall Wildlife Trust and Natural England.

The training exercise was intended to provide these conservation bodies with a full briefing on all aspects of dealing with a catastrophic oil spill along the Cornish coastline. The main resource used to develop this exercise was the National Contingency Plan for Marine Pollution from Shipping and Offshore Installations (NCP) provided by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA), a statutory agency of the United Kingdom government and the competent authority that responds to pollution from shipping and offshore installations in U.K. waters.


Planning and Research

On the 4th March 2008 a planning session was held at which the various responses to a maritime oil spill were examined in the context of the NCP. Tasks were assigned within the group, several of which corresponded with the framework provided by the NCP. This gave the group two days to research and develop the training exercise. The research roles and responsibilities assigned to the group were as follows;

Tony Arden – Coordination, general issues, initial information and scenario, forms and checklists.
Rowena Johnson – Level of response and salvage issues.
Lucas Lowe-Houghton – At sea response.
Amy Brock-Morgan – Harbour response.
John Deane – Shoreline response.
Ken McMullen – Environmental monitoring.
Matt Reed – Media relations.
Luke-Edwyn Marsh – Finance and prosecution.
Simon Pattenden – Compensation.
Joe Reavis – International cooperation and assistance.
Rory McPhee (lecturer) – Insurance and shipping regulation.

The command and control procedures for incident response, based on the NCP, are flexible and depend on the level of pollution or tier assigned to the individual incidents by the Counter Pollution and Response (CPR) Branch of the MCA. This is represented at a regional level by the duty Counter Pollution & Salvage Officer (CPSO) who is informed of any incidents by one of the 19 HM Coastguard (HMCG) stations around the UK.

In the UK, spills are categorised by the internationally adopted tier system. Tier one is a small operational spill employing local resources during any clean-up. Tier two is a medium sized spill, requiring regional assistance and resources. Tier three is a large spill, requiring national assistance and resources and the National Contingency Plan would be activated in this case.

Three main control centres would be set up:

A Salvage Control Unit (SCU) – Led by the Secretary of State’s Representative for Marine Salvage and Intervention (SOSREP), who oversees and approves any salvage operation and has statutory powers to intervene if necessary. The SOSREP can also impose a Total Exclusion Zone (TEZ) around the incident site. The SCU would coordinate and control salvage and refloating operations, emergency bunker transfers and if possible, movement to a shelter port for the damaged ship.

A Marine Response Centre (MRC) – Led by the MCA to coordinate all at-sea counter pollution and clean-up operations such as dispersal spraying, monitoring oil movement, oil recovery operations and the cleaning of oil recovery equipment. It would also liaise with the local harbourmaster to provide a harbour response.

A Shoreline Response Centre (SRC) – Led by the Local Authority with technical support from the MCA. This centre coordinates the shoreline clean-up operations, waste disposal and health and safety monitoring for workers, volunteers and sub-contractors. It would also liaise with the emergency services to provide a land based exclusion zone and support for clean up operations. It would also implement any local contingency plans held by the Local Authority.

An Environment Group provides expert environmental advice to all three specialist response centres including environmental impact assessments and data on threatened habitats and species. The Environment Group is made up of representatives of the statutory nature conservation body (in this case Natural England), the environmental regulator (Environment Agency), the local Wildlife Trust (Cornwall Wildlife Trust) and relevant fisheries departments (Cornwall Sea Fisheries Committee and the Marine Fisheries Agency). Other conservation bodies such as the National Trust, RSPB, Wildlife and Wetlands Trust etc. may also be invited to take part in an advisory capacity.

The Incident Scenario

At 0345 hours on the 6th March 2008 Falmouth Coastguard received a distress call from the FMS Grey Tuna (formerly the MV McPhee), a 49 377 tonne oil tanker. The vessel was adrift in Falmouth Bay and subsequently grounded at 0400 hours, 1000 metres south of Rosemullion Head, in the vicinity of August Rock, at 50o 06.2N 005o 04.4W. The cause of the incident was established as engine failure and possible human error as the ship was too close to land at the time. The duty CPSO was informed and declared a Tier 3 incident with activation of the NCP. The pollution incident control and SOSREP were activated at 0730 hours, along with the duty press relations officer.

The 36 man Russian and Phillippino crew were evacuated, with 2 casualties being airlifted by a Royal Navy SAR helicopter from RNAS Culdrose directly to Truro hospital at 0430 hours and the remainder by the Falmouth RNLI lifeboat to Falmouth Docks at 0630 hours. There were two harbour tugs standing by at Falmouth Docks and a Coastguard Emergency Towing Vessel (ETV) enroute from Penzance. Members of the SCU boarded the vessel at 0830 and initial reports stated that a spill of 200 tonnes of light crude from a pumping tank were in the water.

The current weather at 1000 hours 6th March 2008 (start of exercise) was a westerly wind at 16 knots with the tide dropping (high water 0414, low water 1055 1.1 metres, next high water 1641 4.9 metres).

The FMS Grey Tuna (master a Russian national, Josef Stalin) was registered in Liberia, gross tonnage 49 377, net tonnage 26 500, carrying 22 000 tonnes of light crude oil in 12 main tanks plus 500 tonnes of diesel fuel. She was enroute from Nigeria to Rotterdam and calling in to Falmouth to pick up more bunker fuel. A single bottom hull the vessels particulars were as follows; length 173.6m, beam 32.2m, draught 11.2m, 1x diesel motor driving 1x shaft with a top speed of 14 knots.

The vessel was owned by Global Transport of Monaco whose agents are Malaka SA of Pireaus, Greece and was bare boat chartered by Doe SA based in Monrovia, Liberia. The hull insurers were Lloyds of London. The cargo was owned by Shell of Rotterdam (agents De Groening of Rotterdam) and the third party insurers (P&I Club) were Steamship Mutual of London while the cargo was insured by Zurich in London.

This was the initial information available at the start of the exercise at 1000 hours on the 6th March 2008.


The Response

The exercise to respond to this pollution incident was initially straightforward with the spill limited to 200 tonnes of light crude washed ashore on the beach below Rosemullion Head, part of the Fal and Helford Special Area of Conservation (SAC). The command and control elements of the NCP were activated and the initial response was to establish a TEZ across Falmouth Bay and install boom defences (held by the Truro Harbourmaster) across the entrances to the Fal and Helford estuaries.

The SCU (established at the Falmouth Coastguard station) arranged for the transfer of the bulk cargo and diesel fuel to smaller vessels available from Falmouth Docks and the stricken vessel was refloated on the next high tide and towed into Falmouth harbour for repair. The MRC (also at the Falmouth Coastguard station) had vessels standing by in Falmouth Bay to monitor oil movement and any further spills and dispersant spray planes on standby to move to RNAS Culdrose if needed. The SRC (established at Rosemullion Head by Kerrier District Council) initiated the shoreline cleanup with resources provided by Kerrier and Carrick District Councils with an exclusion zone enforced by Devon and Cornwall Police. Advice on environmental impact was provided by the Environmental Group to all three response centres with the major impact being on the beach below Rosemullion Head where the majority of the oil came ashore.

Dealing with the aftermath of the incident was more complicated. Although compensation for the cleanup and salvage operations is available through the International Oil Pollution Compensation Funds, establishing a case for prosecution would be complicated by the Byzantine nature of the international shipping world. An inquiry into the incident might be able to establish whether the master was at fault by being too close inshore and the owners’ responsibility for maintenance on the power plant but the multiple interests involved and the foreign registration might make prosecution difficult. The use of a single bottomed ship is also against current regulations.

Lessons Learnt

The major lesson learnt from this exercise was the need for close cooperation and liaison between all the different organisations involved in dealing with an incident of this nature. The exercise itself was a good tool in understanding the various processes involved and familiarising the exercise participants with the command and control structure dictated by the NCP. The prepositioning of boom defences, dispersant spray, clean up materials and other resources is of vital importance in a situation where time is of the essence.

My initial brief for the counter-pollution exercise was co-ordination, general issues, initial information and scenario, forms and checklists. During the planning phase of the exercise I acted as group chair as the group developed the exercise. Subsequently I created the scenario for the exercise using "real world" information such as the vessel involved which is based on the RFA Oakleaf, a support tanker of the Royal Navy and topographic maps and marine charts. Most of the forms and checklists were obtained from the National Contingency Plan for Marine Pollution from Shipping and Offshore Installations (NCP). At the start of the exercise the scenario and checklists were distributed and I then acted as the group co-ordinator whilst the exercise was played through.

A need for a greater understanding of shipping law and the mechanisms for mitigation and prosecution were highlighted by the lack of a section of the exercise dealing with these issues. The mechanism for shipping insurance claims was not really made very clear although information on the compensation funding was available if a little complicated. These issues need to be addressed before this exercise is repeated for the target group of conservation organisations. The introduction of an umpire to control variables in the scenario as it plays through and access to resources such as maps, charts and the internet during game play are also of equal importance.

References

Maritime and Coastguard Agency Scientific, Technical and Operational Advice Notes [online];

STOp 2/94: Low Viscosity Type 3 Dispersants.
STOp 2/95: Operational Guidelines for the Application of Bioremediation Agents.
STOp 1/98: Health, Safety & Welfare during Shoreline Clean-up.
STOp 5/98: A National Framework for Dealing with Hazardous Containers Washed Up on the UK Shoreline.
STOp 5/99: Guidelines for the Preparation of Coastal and Estuarine Booming Plans.
INF 3/00: MCA Contacts for Local Authorities.
STOp 1/01: Maritime Pollution Response in the UK - the Environment Group.
STOp 2/01: The Establishment, Management Structure, Rolesand Responsibilities of a Shoreline Response Centre during a Maritime Pollution Incident in the United Kingdom.
STOp 4/01: Advice to Local Authorities on the Collection and Handling of Oil Samples.
STOp 1/2003: Guidance for the Operation of the Technical Team, Waste Management Sub Group within a National Contingency Plan Shoreline Response Centre.
STOp 3/2003: Preparing Local Authority Oil and Chemical Spill Contingency Plans in line with the 'National Contingency Plan for Marine Pollution from Shipping and Offshore Installations'.
STOp 1/2004: Implications of the EU Landfill Directive for Oily Waste Disposal.

All available at: http://www.mcga.gov.uk/c4mca/mcga07-home/emergencyresponse/mcga-pollutionresponse/mcga-stop.htm [07.04.08].

National Contingency Plan for Marine Pollution from Shipping and Offshore Installations [online]. Available at: http://www.mcga.gov.uk/c4mca/ncp_final_version_-_august_2006.pdf [04.04.08].

The International Regime for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage [online]. Available at: http://www.iopcfund.org/npdf/gen

Sea Level Rise in Cornwall

“Rises in sea levels could have a major impact upon communities in coastal and estuarine areas.” (The State of the Cornish Environment, 2002)

Changes in global temperatures over a long term timescale result in changes in sea-level, mainly through thermal expansion of the ocean and the melting of land ice. Over the past 100 years the world has warmed by about 0.5°C (Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia). Due to increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the world will be a warmer place in the future. Predictions of the extent of sea level rise are varied but no matter what the level, the coastline of Cornwall will be affected.

Climate change causes sea levels to rise in two main ways. Water expands as it warms. As the globe warms up, so do the seas and as they expand the sea level rises. This is thought by scientists to be the most dominant factor in sea level change. The second most important factor is melting land ice. Water in glaciers has been trapped as ice for thousands of years and when the glaciers melt the water enters the sea and the sea level rises.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published its Fourth Assessment in 2007. The main conclusions drawn were as follows.

1.Warming of the climate system is unequivocal.
2.Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations.
3.Anthropogenic warming and sea level rise will continue for centuries due to the timescales associated with climate processes and feedbacks, even if greenhouse gas concentrations were to be stabilized, although the likely amount of temperature and sea level rise varies greatly depending on the fossil fuel burning intensity of human activity during the next century.
4.The probability that this is caused by natural climatic processes alone is less than 5%.
World temperatures could rise by between 1.1 and 6.4 °C during the 21st century.
5.Sea levels will probably rise by 18 to 59 cm.
6.There is a confidence level of more than 90% that there will be more frequent warm spells, heat waves and heavy rainfall.
7.There is a confidence level of more than 66% that there will be an increase in droughts, tropical cyclones and extreme high tides.
8.Both past and future anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions will continue to contribute to warming and sea level rise for more than a millennium.
9.Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values over the past 650,000 years.

Some critics have contended that the IPCC reports tend to underestimate dangers, understate risks, and report only the "lowest common denominator" findings (McKibben, 2007). It may already be out of date and omits recent observations and factors contributing to global warming, such as the release of greenhouse gases from thawing tundra. Some other studies estimate that in 2100 sea levels could be 0.5–1.4 m above 1990 levels (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6179409.stm).

The South West could see the highest sea level rise in Britain with a rise of between 20cm to 80cm by 2080. Mean sea level at Newlyn has risen 15cm since 1915 (NTSLF, Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory). Mean wave height has increased from 1.8m in 1962 to 2.3m today. The predicted changes in sea level are dramatic and are at their most extreme at the western tip of Cornwall. The National Trust believe managed retreat may be the only solution for some low lying areas e.g. Marazion. The UK Climate Change Impact Programme (UKCIP) predicts extreme sea levels (spring tides, storm surges etc.) will be experienced more often and storm frequency is expected to increase with over 50% more winter low pressure systems crossing the UK.

Taking all these factors into consideration sea level rise in Cornwall should be taken as a given and attention should turn to mitigating the effects and resulting impacts on the coastline. Such impacts may include increased coastal erosion, higher storm-surge flooding, more extensive coastal inundation, changes in surface water quality and groundwater characteristics, increased loss of property and coastal habitats, increased flood risk and potential loss of life, loss of cultural resources, impacts on agriculture and aquaculture through decline in soil and water quality, and loss of tourism, recreation and transportation. However appropriate management techniques are still being formulated and would appear to fall into two categories, coastal defence (hard engineering) or managed retreat (soft engineering).

Many countries (such as the Netherlands) have a single controlling authority for coastal management which can treat the coastal zone as a whole, with the foreshore, hinterland and offshore areas being parts of a single unit within which occur a complex series of interactions. This is not the case in the United Kingdom. Coastal defence in the UK is the responsibility of local authorities (in this case Cornwall County Council) with some support supplied by the Environment Agency (part of DEFRA). Although Cornwall County Council recognises the fact of sea level rise it does not seem to have any concrete plans to deal with it. This could be due to several factors but the overriding factors would seem to be the financial cost of mitigation, whether through hard or soft engineering, and the lack of central government guidance. Vulnerable areas have been identified but the management options are still being developed.

Sea Level Rise in Cornwall. (http://www.cornwall.gov.uk/index.cfm?articleid=11617)
Sea Level Rise in the Fal Estuary (http://www.cornwall.gov.uk/index.cfm?articleid=11617)

However, hard engineered coastal defences such as offshore breakwaters, seawalls and embankments might not be the only option.

“There is no guarantee that hard defences work in the long term: they are often only a temporary solution. As sea levels rise and severe storms increase, it will become ever more difficult and expensive to build and maintain strong defences. They can also disfigure the coast and cause environmental harm by moving the problem to another location. We believe therefore that hard defences should only be used as a last resort.” (National Trust, 2005)

This illustrates the approach to managed retreat that is increasingly being adopted by NGO’s such as the National Trust, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, Wildlife and Wetlands Trust etc. By working with nature instead of against it and managing the retreat from the advancing sea by creating space along the coastline such as salt marshes and sand dunes to act as natural sea defences, they believe that wildlife and habitats can be protected. At the same time these natural coastal defences would enhance the protection already provided to infrastructure and housing. The National Trust believes this is likely to be the most realistic and cost-effective approach over the long term.

The National Trust is Britain’s largest coastal landowner. With 1130 kilometres of coastline the Trust now owns nearly 10% of the coast of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Of this they have identified 169 sites along some 608 kilometres (60%) of National Trust-owned coastline which could lose land by erosion. Nearly 10% of this loss could be between 100-200 metres inland and 5% more could be losses of over 200 metres inland. Of the sites identified, 126 (with land covering 4040 hectares) are currently at risk from tidal flooding with a further 33 low-lying sites at risk of combined tidal and river flooding within the next 100 years. Looking at these figures it can be seen that the National Trust’s response to sea level rise could have a significant impact on local and national government policy. Five key areas were identified. (Taken from Shifting Shores: Living with a Changing Coastline, 2005. The National Trust)

“1. Long-term planning is essential. To adapt effectively to sea-level rise and climate change we need to plan at least 50 to 100 years ahead. In many cases it will be necessary to relocate people, habitats and buildings and to do so cost-effectively requires early action. The future is inherently unpredictable, even more so with climate change and a dynamic coastal environment, so we need to allow flexibility in our management and planning.

2. Think and act in a wider context. The boundaries of the Trust’s coastal sites take no account of the real boundaries of the coastal cells in which coastal processes operate. In order to take a flexible and responsive approach to dealing with coastal change, we need to think and act in a much wider spatial context, managing our sites within freshwater catchments and coastal cells.

3. Work with nature not against it. Our experience has demonstrated that working with natural processes is the most sustainable approach. In some cases this will mean undoing past mistakes, taking out hard defences and letting the coast realign naturally. In others we will need to phase our approach, buying time with temporary solutions while finding space to allow natural defences to form.

4. Solutions need partnership. We cannot operate in isolation as the decisions we make nearly always impact beyond the immediate site. Tackling the problems facing our sites also requires action by others, especially neighbouring coastal owners and managers. Finding mutually beneficial solutions like large-scale realignment projects requires a strong partnership approach.

5. Involving the public is critical. Raising awareness of the impacts on our coastal sites is vital to winning public confidence. Any form of realignment of the coast can create uncertainty and even hostility. Building consensus and providing information takes time and effort, but is crucial to finding sustainable solutions.” (National Trust, 2005)

So what are the options for managing the effects of sea level rise on Cornwall’s coastline? Most of the major population centres are in the coastal zone – Falmouth, Penryn, Truro, Penzance, St. Ives, Newquay, Bude and St. Austell. They contain a large proportion of the urban population and housing in Cornwall as well as major infrastructure (e.g. Falmouth docks), centres of education and local government, cultural and historical areas, retail centres and areas of regeneration and development. Managed retreat from these locations would be prohibitively expensive, legally ambiguous and socially disruptive.

Most already have some form of hard coastal defence which could be added to and maintained with help from central government. As these would be major civil engineering projects they would provide employment and investment opportunities in a region of high unemployment.

At the same time the option of managed retreat and the creation of natural coastal defences could be instituted for the rest of Cornwall’s coastline. Areas such as the Fal estuary, with its salt marshes and St. Ives Bay, with a well established dune system are ideal for establishing the management systems required. These could then be applied to other areas of the coastline.

Although this would still require large expenditures, these would be cheaper than large scale hard engineering and have the added benefit of providing protection to wildlife and existing habitats and creating new habitats.By combining the two approaches to mitigating sea level rise a viable management system could be developed to maintain a sustainable economy and society in Cornwall. Whether the political will and financial resources to implement such a system exist is another question.

Sea Level Rise - References and links

Douglas, B.C., et al, 2000. Sea Level Rise: History and Consequences. Burlington MA: Academic Press.

French, P.W., 1997. Coastal and Estuarine Management. Abingdon: Routledge.

Houghton, J., 1994. Global Warming: The Complete Briefing. Oxford: Lion Publishing.

Kay, R. & Alder, J., 1999. Coastal Planning and Management. New York: Routledge.

Warrick, R.A., et al, 1993. Climate and Sea Level Change: Observations, Projections and Implications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Climate Change and Sea Level Rise, 2004. Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia [online]. Available at: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/ [03.02.08].

Fourth Assessment Report, 2007. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [online]. Available at: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf [04.02.08].

McKibben, B., 2007. Warning on Warming. The New York Review of Books [online]. 54(4). Available at: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19981 [03.02.08].

National Tidal and Sea Level Facility. Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory [online]. Available at: http://www.pol.ac.uk/ntslf/ [04.02.08].

Sea level rise 'under-estimated'. 2006 [online]. Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6179409.stm [04.02.08].

Shifting Shores: Living with a Changing Coastline, 2005. The National Trust [online]. Available at: http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/main/w-shifting_shores.pdf [02.02.08].

State of the Cornish Environment, 2002. Cornwall County Council [online]. Available at: http://www.cornwall.gov.uk/index.cfm?articleid=11554 [03.02.08].

Coastal Defences

The coastal zone is a dynamic area of natural change and of increasing human use. It occupies less than 15% of the earth's land surface; yet accommodates more than 50% of the worlds population (it is estimated that 3.1 billion people live within 200 kilometres from the sea). Coastal zones contain rich resources to produce goods and services and are home to most commercial and industrial activities.

In the European Union, almost half of the population now lives within 50 kilometres of the sea and coastal zone resources produce much of the Union’s economic wealth. The fishing, shipping and tourism industries all compete for vital space along Europe’s estimated 89 000 kilometres of coastline, and coastal zones contain some of Europe’s most fragile and valuable natural habitats.

Coastal protection is already extremely important where there are extensive low-lying areas that require protection (e.g.Venice, New Orleans, and the Netherlands).

Protection against the sea level rise in the 21st century will be especially important, as it is currently accelerating. This will be a challenge to coastal management, since seawalls and breakwaters are generally expensive to construct, and the costs to build protection in the face of sea-level rise would be enormous.

Strategies for coastal defense

1. Do nothing, adding no protection and leading to eventual abandonment.
2. Managed retreat or realignment, which plans for retreat and adopts engineering solutions that recognise natural processes of adjustment, and identifying a new line of defence.
3. Hold the line with shoreline protection, whereby sea defences are constructed around the coastlines.
4. Move seawards, by constructing new defenses to seaward of the original ones.
5. Limited intervention by which adjustments are made to be able to cope with inundation such as creating salt marsh areas, raising coastal land and building vertically.

The decision to choose a strategy is site-specific, depending on pattern of relative sea-level change, geomorphological setting, sediment availability and erosion, as well a series of social, economic and political factors.

Alternatively, integrated coastal zone management approaches may be used to prevent development in erosion- or flood-prone areas to begin with. Growth management can be a challenge for coastal local authorities who often struggle to provide the infrastructure required by new residents

Groynes, seawalls, revetments, rock armour, gabions, offshore breakwaters, cliff stabilisation, river entrance training walls and floodgates are all examples of hard coastal defences. Soft defences include beach nourishment, sand dune stabilisation and beach drainage schemes.

The Centre for Coastal Processes, Engineering and Management (part of the University of Southampton) states that "a full 15 000 km of UK coastline is presently under threat from erosion; a further 10 000 hectares of land is at risk from flooding and 13 000 hectares is predicted to disappear in the next 20 years. The responsible, informed protection and management of our coastline is vital: 50% of the world's ecosystems are found in the coastal zone. Despite the need for protection and good husbandry, virtually all UK exports/imports pass through ports on estuaries, contributing a massive £50 billion per year to the economy (5% of the entire UK GDP). The way we treat the coastline is therefore of fundamental importance to the future of the UK."

http://www.ccpem.soton.ac.uk/

Integrated Coastal Zone Management

Integrated coastal zone management (ICZM) is a process for the management of the coast using an integrated approach, regarding all aspects of the coastal zone, including geographical and political boundaries, in an attempt to achieve sustainability.

This concept was initiated in 1992 during the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. The policy regarding ICZM is set out in the proceedings of the summit within Agenda 21, Chapter 17.
The European Commission defines the ICZM as follows:-

ICZM is a dynamic, multidisciplinary and iterative process to promote sustainable management of coastal zones. It covers the full cycle of information collection, planning (in its broadest sense), decision making, management and monitoring of implementation. ICZM uses the informed participation and cooperation of all stakeholders to assess the societal goals in a given coastal area, and to take actions towards meeting these objectives. ICZM seeks, over the long-term, to balance environmental, economic, social, cultural and recreational objectives, all within the limits set by natural dynamics. 'Integrated' in ICZM refers to the integration of objectives and also to the integration of the many instruments needed to meet these objectives. It means integration of all relevant policy areas, sectors, and levels of administration. It means integration of the terrestrial and marine components of the target territory, in both time and space.

European Commision Coastal Zone Policy
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/iczm/home.htm

ENCORA CoastalWiki - EU Co-ordination Action on ICZM
http://www.encora.eu/coastalwiki/Main_Page

Safecoast - Knowledge exchange on coastal flooding and climate change in the North Sea region
http://www.safecoast.org/

ICZM principles
http://www.tvlink.org/vnr.cfm?vidID=53

Coastalwiki

http://www.encora.eu/coastalwiki/Main_Page

An Internet encyclopaedia of 899 information pages for and by coastal professionals providing up-to-date high quality Coastal and Marine information

IPCC 4th Assessment Report

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published its Fourth Assessment in 2007. The main conclusions drawn were as follows.

• Warming of the climate system is unequivocal.
• Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations.
• Anthropogenic warming and sea level rise will continue for centuries due to the timescales associated with climate processes and feedbacks, even if greenhouse gas concentrations were to be stabilized, although the likely amount of temperature and sea level rise varies greatly depending on the fossil fuel burning intensity of human activity during the next century.
• The probability that this is caused by natural climatic processes alone is less than 5%.
• World temperatures could rise by between 1.1 and 6.4 °C during the 21st century.
• Sea levels will probably rise by 18 to 59 cm.
• There is a confidence level of more than 90% that there will be more frequent warm spells, heat waves and heavy rainfall.
• There is a confidence level of more than 66% that there will be an increase in droughts, tropical cyclones and extreme high tides.
• Both past and future anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions will continue to contribute to warming and sea level rise for more than a millennium.
• Global atmospheric concentrations ofcarbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values over the past 650,000 years.

Some critics have contended that the IPCC reports tend to underestimate dangers, understate risks, and report only the "lowest common denominator" findings (McKibben, 2007). It may already be out of date and omits recent observations and factors contributing to global warming, such as the release of greenhouse gases from thawing tundra. Some other studies estimate that in 2100 sea levels could be 0.5–1.4 m above 1990 levels

Fourth Assessment Report, 2007. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [online]. Available at: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf [04.02.08].

McKibben, B., 2007. Warning on Warming. The New York Review of Books [online]. 54(4). Available at: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19981 [03.02.08].

Sea level rise 'under-estimated'. 2006 [online]. Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6179409.stm [04.02.08].

Environmental Management Plan

http://www.dartestuary.org/clean_protect/coastal_protection.html

Dart Estuary Environmental Management latest 2006-2011 Periodic Review Dart Estuary Environmental Management Plan (EMP)

Coastal Issues Special Interest Group

http://www.coastalsig.lga.gov.uk/about%20us.htm

The Local Government Association's Special Interest Group on Coastal Issues comprises elected members from coastal local authorities. Its principal aim is: "......to establish improved governance, management and community well-being to ensure that the UK has the best managed coast in Europe, and to identify appropriate and sustainable funding strategies to support this aim."

Coastal Erosion

http://www.snh.org.uk/publications/on-line/heritagemanagement/erosion/

A guide to managing coastal erosion in beach/dune systems produced by Scottish Natural Heritage.

Beach Management Plan

http://www.torridge.gov.uk/index.cfm?articleid=6209

An example of a beach management plan produced by Torridge District Council

Beach Management Manual

http://www.ciria.org/pdf/r153_screen.pdf

Construction Industry Research and Information Association

The Coastal Management Sector

1. Defra's Flood Risk Management Division is responsible for flood and coastal erosion risk management policy, grant aid for capital works and strategic research.
2. Defra's European Wildlife Division is also important because of the complexities of applying the Habitats Regulations to coastal risk management in internationally defined sites.
3. The Environment Agency has operational responsibility for coastal flood risk management. The EA has a series of Flood Defence Committees and national, regional and local officers with executive powers and is also the lead agency in implementing the Water Framework Directive.
4. District Councils and Unitary Authorities with a coastline have operational responsibilities for coastline protection and land use planning within their areas.
5. The Marine Consents Environment Unit within Defra is responsible for issuing a variety of licences required for engineering projects below high water mark.
6. The insurance industry is seeking to influence the amount of investment in flood risk management schemes.
7. The Treasury is the agency that ultimately controls the Government investment in flood and coastal erosion risk management measures.

The Environment Agency

http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/

Joint Nature Conservation Committee - Habitats Regulations

http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page-1379

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

http://www.defra.gov.uk/

Seabed Dredging

Seabed dredging presents a conflict between economic and environmental interests. Does capital dredging result in increased coastal erosion?

http://www.marinet.org.uk
A critique of dredging by a campaigning group.
http://www.hallsands.org.uk
Destruction of a village after the removal of beach sand
http://www.bmapa.org
British Marine Aggregrate Producers Association, representing 8 out of 11 companies involved in the industry
http://www.gowersos.keyframe.net
Effects of offshore dredging in the Bristol Channel
http://www.soshayle.fsnet.co.uk
Removal of beachsand

Possible Impacts - Loss of habitat, underwater noise affecting cetaceans, silting over a wide area, undermining coastal protection.

Benificiaries - Shareholders, developers, the Crown Estate.

Dredging Consents
Approvals required under following legislation:

Food and Environmental Protection Act 1985 - Deposits of dredged material
Local harbour authority byelaws - maintenance dredging & inshore extraction
Coast Protection Act 1949 - Beyond harbour limits

CZM and the Crown Estate

Definitions
Foreshore - Intertidal area
Fundus - Inshore seabed (estuaries etc)
Seabed - Bottom out to limit of territorial waters

55% of the UK foreshore is owned by the Crown Estate, with the other 45% being owned by local authorities, Duchy of Cornwall, the National Trust etc. It also owns 100% of the seabed in territorial waters and all the mineral rights to the continental shelf limit.

Asset value of the Crown Estate - £7 billion
Income - £200 million per annum, of which £38 million comes from marine exploitation (2000), mainly in the form of dredging licences (capital dredging - removal of aggregrate, maintenance dredging - clearing navigation channels)

21% of construction aggregate comes from marine sources with 24 million tonnes extracted annually. 0.12% of the seabed is covered by licences, of which 11% is currently being dredged.

http://www.crownestate.co.uk/marine

Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006
Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981

Law of the Sea

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) is the international agreement that resulted from the third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, which took place between 1973 and 1982. UNCLOS defines the rights and responsibilities of nations in their use of the world's oceans, establishing guidelines for businesses, the environment, and the management of marine natural resources. The Convention concluded in 1982 replaced four 1958 treaties. UNCLOS came into force in 1994, and to date 155 countries and the European Community have joined in the Convention. The United States has signed the treaty, but the Senate has not ratified it.

The UN has no direct operational role in the implementation of the Convention. However there is a role played by UN organizations such as the International Maritime Organization, the International Whaling Commission, and the International Seabed Authority.

The convention set the limit of various areas, measured from a carefully defined baseline. (Normally, a sea baseline follows the low-water line, but when the coastline is deeply indented, has fringing islands or is highly unstable, straight baselines may be used.) The areas are as follows:

Internal waters
Covers all water and waterways on the landward side of the baseline. The coastal state is free to set laws, regulate use, and use any resource. Foreign vessels have no right of passage within internal waters.

Territorial waters
Out to 12 nautical miles from the baseline, the coastal state is free to set laws, regulate use, and use any resource. Vessels were given the right of "innocent passage" through any territorial waters, with strategic straits allowing the passage of military craft as "transit passage", in that naval vessels are allowed to maintain postures that would be illegal in territorial waters. "Innocent passage" is defined by the convention as passing through waters in an expeditious and continuous manner, which is not “prejudicial to the peace, good order or the security” of the coastal state. Fishing, polluting, weapons practice, and spying are not “innocent", and submarines and other underwater vehicles are required to navigate on the surface and to show their flag. Nations can also temporarily suspend innocent passage in specific areas of their territorial seas, if doing so is essential for the protection of its security.

Archipelagic waters
The convention set the definition of Archipelagic States in Part IV, which also defines how the state can draw its territorial borders. A baseline is drawn between the outermost points of the outermost islands, subject to these points being sufficiently close to one another. All waters inside this baseline will be Archipelagic Waters and included as part of the state's territorial waters.

Contiguous zone
Beyond the 12 nautical mile limit there was a further 12 nautical miles or 24 nautical miles from the territorial sea baselines limit, the contiguous zone, in which a state could continue to enforce laws regarding activities such as smuggling or illegal immigration.

Exclusive economic zones (EEZs)
Extend 200 nautical miles from the baseline. Within this area, the coastal nation has sole exploitation rights over all natural resources. The EEZs were introduced to halt the increasingly heated clashes over fishing rights, although oil was also becoming important. The success of an offshore oil platform in the Gulf of Mexico in 1947 was soon repeated elsewhere in the world, and by 1970 it was technically feasible to operate in waters 4000 metres deep. Foreign nations have the freedom of navigation and overflight, subject to the regulation of the coastal states. Foreign states may also lay submarine pipes and cables.

Continental shelf
The continental shelf is defined as the natural prolongation of the land territory to the continental margin’s outer edge, or 200 nautical miles from the coastal state’s baseline, whichever is greater. State’s continental shelf may exceed 200 nautical miles until the natural prolongation ends, but it may never exceed 350 nautical miles, or 100 nautical miles beyond 2,500 meter isobath, which is a line connecting the depth of 2,500 meters. States have the right to harvest mineral and non-living material in the subsoil of its continental shelf, to the exclusion of others.

Aside from its provisions defining ocean boundaries, the convention establishes general obligations for safeguarding the marine environment and protecting freedom of scientific research on the high seas, and also creates an innovative legal regime for controlling mineral resource exploitation in deep seabed areas beyond national jurisdiction, through an International Seabed Authority.

Falmouth and Truro Port Health Authority

Responsible for monitoring and classification of live bivalve mollusc harvesting areas. In regards to human health.

Viral infections and shellfish
Estuaries used for sewage disposal and oysters and mussels are filter feeders (oysters filter 10-24 litres of water per hour) and can concentrate pathogens. Shellfish are usually eaten raw or lightly cooked. Main pathogens are norovirus, causing gastroenteritis and hepatitis B, and E. coli which causes food poisoning.

DSP - Diuretic shellfish poisoning
PSP - Paralytic shellfish poisoning
ASP- Amnesiac shellfish poisoning

Outbreaks caused by shellfish
Scandinavia - 1997
China - 1998
Spain - 1999
France and Italy - 2002

E. coli is present in human and animal faeces and is used as an indicator when testing but its absence does not guarantee other viruses are not present. CEFAS manages monitoring on behalf of the Food Standards Agency, which dictates policy to local enforcement agencies.

50 local enforcement agencies
16 testing laboratories
75 production areas (371 rope, trestle and natural beds)

Classification
A - less than 230 organisms per 100g - direct human consumption
B - less than 4600 per 100g - purified by depuration before consumption
C - less than 46000 per 100g - relayed for at least 2 months before reclassification as B
D - more than 46000 per 100g - not for human consumption, prohibited

Figures for England in 2007
A - 2.6%
B - 88.4%
C - 7.1%
D - 1.9%

Classification based on trends not individual results, data sets based on 10 monthly examinations with randomised timings to accommadate environmental variables such as tide, winds, rainfall runoff, sewage discharge times and seasons.

Depuration
Purification in tanks with circulated, purified seawater and UV lights for 42 hours which reduces E. coli to less than 230 per 100g (class A). Water temperature and salinity can be set for different species to induce filter feeding.

http://www.falandtruropha.co.uk/

Shellfish and CZM

Main species exploited
Prawns - 50 species fished wordwide.
European lobsters - 5 years to grow to a saleable weight of 1lb, live up to 15 years.
Edible crabs - best meat yield April to November. Can move up to 100 miles in annual migration.
Oysters - Natives (wild) not sold May-August. Pacific (farmed) sold all year.
Scallops - Can live up to 10 years.
Mussels - Farmed in Scotland, Wales and southern England all year round. Best Oct-March.
Cockles - Dense beds in most estuaries.

Public right to fish
Right to collect shellfish if there is public access to the shore. Controlled by local bye-laws but not prohibited unless by specific several order.

Policy issues
Marine Bill - Shellfish industry fear resultant Act will enable subsequent Statutory Instruments controlling their exploitation. Proposals do not cover 6-12 nautical mile zone. Sea Fisheries Commitees being restructured. Marine Protected Zones/Areas could be commercially exploited.

Shellfish Waters Directive (79/923/EEC) sets mandatory or guideline standards for water quality but excludes crustaceans. Administered by DEFRA and implemented by Environment Agency.

Shellfish Hygiene Directive. CEFAS (Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science) tests and collates samples of catch on behalf of local enforcement agencies (in Falmouths case the Port Health Authority).

33 of 124 shellfish grounds in the UK are in the South West and account for 44% of all landings.

http://www.cefas.co.uk/
http://www.swenvo.org.uk/
http://www.dartestuary.org.uk/
http://www.manandmollusc.net/
http://www.shellfish.org.uk/