Addressing the tangled web of governance mechanisms for land-sea interactions: Assessing implementation challenges across scales

Marine Policy xxx (xxxx) xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Marine Policy journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/marpol

Addressing the tangled web of governance mechanisms for land-sea interactions: Assessing implementation challenges across scales Anne Marie O’Hagan a, *, Shona Paterson b, c, Martin Le Tissier a, c a

MaREI Centre, Beaufort Building, Environmental Research Institute, University College Cork, Ringaskiddy, Co. Cork, Ireland College of Business, Arts and Social Sciences, Brunel University London, Uxbridge, UB8 3PH, United Kingdom c Future Earth Coasts, MaREI Centre, Beaufort Building, Environmental Research Institute, University College Cork, Ringaskiddy, Co. Cork, Ireland b

A R T I C L E I N F O

A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Evolutionary governance theory Land-sea interactions EU Ireland

The coastal zone is a locus where many activities of society intersect with natural processes that shape the coastal zone and the resource base available. In the EU, regional legislation exists to specifically manage the coastal and inshore marine space and resources (e.g. Marine Strategy Framework Directive) whilst policy areas such as landuse planning, property rights and key aspects of consenting processes remain under the authority of Member States. Interactions exist between these different policy drivers at multiple scales, but the overall landscape is characterised by tensions or weak links between drivers originating from the EU and national priorities leading to a complex, non-linear and confusing policyscape. This paper reviews how legislation, and implementing orga­ nisations, in Ireland have evolved in the context of EU environmental perspectives that have progressed from conservation-centric to addressing modern day challenges such as regional development for Blue Growth and aspirations of international agreements (e.g. Convention on Biological Diversity, UN Agenda 2030). Through an analysis employing principles of Evolutionary Governance Theory, the way different governance institutions have co-evolved to understand how dependencies between current actors and objectives influence each other is examined. The study explores appropriate governance approaches to land-sea interactions utilising examples from implementation of the EU Maritime Spatial Planning Directive in selected EU Member States, and how they take land-sea interactions into account. This is contrasted with examples from other EU legislation and policies such as those relating to river basin management, the marine environment, and integrated coastal management. The paper concludes with tentative recommendations on how policies addressing land-sea interactions need to evolve to better deliver on global policy drivers.

1. Introduction The coastal zone represents a space where the interests of land-based and marine-based activities intersect. Whilst each domain of land and sea is subject to a plethora of legal instruments to govern activities that take place within their realms, the efficacy of how these instruments interact with each other at the coast has not been addressed adequately. The consequence is that the ‘coast’ becomes a ‘white line’ that can be treated as either falling inside or outside of existing governance regimes depending on circumstances and interests. The purpose of this review is to undertake an analysis of how land-based and marine-based legislation has evolved in the context of the European Union and one Member State - Ireland - and identify the conflicts and contradictions that have arisen at the coast using Evolutionary Governance Theory as a methodology.

Although there are a number of reviews of governance for one or both domains (e.g. Ref. [1]) they tend to be descriptive in nature and do not address the relationship of land with marine legislation and vice versa, or how to overcome mismatches in the scales of different pieces of legislation [2]. Evolutionary Governance Theory (EGT) has been deployed to analyse how elements of governance are subject not only to evolution but also how these elements co-evolve over time [3,4]. EGT understands governance as radically evolutionary: all elements of governance are subject to evolution, all these elements and their de­ pendencies co-evolve, and many of them are the product of governance itself [3]. This perspective allows the effects of governance arrange­ ments influenced by the dynamic networks of actors, discourses, and institutions to be more closely examined, with particular attention paid to social systems as observers. Three aspects of evolution can be defined:

* Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (A.M. O’Hagan), [email protected] (S. Paterson), [email protected] (M.L. Tissier). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019.103715 Received 30 November 2018; Received in revised form 19 July 2019; Accepted 15 October 2019 0308-597X/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Anne Marie O’Hagan, Marine Policy, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019.103715

A.M. O’Hagan et al.

Marine Policy xxx (xxxx) xxx

path dependence, interdependence and goal dependence [3]. Path dependence refers to numerous legacies from the past influencing governance evolution. The presence of certain actors and their per­ spectives, along with the presence of formal and informal institutions and the dialectics between actors and institutions can all be seen as path dependencies that shape the course of governance. Interdependence re­ fers to the relationship between actors in a planning system and the configuration of actors and institutions that evolves over time. Goal dependence is dependence on the influence of shared visions or plans on changes in the actor/institution configuration. The combined effects of these different dependencies create rigidities for the evolution of the planning system, however the interplay between the different de­ pendencies also creates flexibility [4]. This EGT framework provides a greater understanding of how organisations, perspectives and in­ stitutions are continuously changing in relation to each other. The EGT perspective also creates new spaces of analysis and for modes of po­ tential policy transformations. This paper applied EGT as a mechanism to study the way different governance strategies in the EU and Ireland, as a Member State, have co-evolved in order to understand how de­ pendencies between regional and national objectives influence, constrain and/or support, each other.

3. Conflicting scales of policy The implementation and achievement of sustainable development necessitates integration of economic, social and environmental aspects. Balancing such interests remains a challenge. The Sustainable Devel­ opment Goals (SGDs) address key global concerns such as affordable and clean energy (Goal 7), climate action (Goal 13) and life below water (Goal 14) that seeks to conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development. The SDGs recognise the inter-connections between all goals, with success in one, involving dealing with issues more commonly associated with another [14]. This interdependency presents challenges for implementation at multiple scales. At the EU level, Article 11 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (2012/C326/01) (TFEU) enshrines the principle of environmental integration. This means that environmental protection requirements must be integrated into the definition and implementation of other EU policies and activities with a view to promoting sustainable development. Article 7 TFEU also requires that the EU ensures consis­ tency between its policies and activities, taking into account all policy objectives. Both these articles come under the heading of ‘provisions of general application’ within the Treaties. These are obviously supple­ mented by other more specific articles such as Articles 191–193 on the Environment and Article 194 on Energy. Article 191(1) now explicitly recognises that EU policy on the environment should contribute to “promoting measures at international level to deal with regional or worldwide environmental problems, and in particular combating climate change,” a clause added with the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty. If the example of climate change is considered, ‘combating’ this re­ quires both mitigation and adaptation measures. Renewable energy can be considered a mitigation measure and Article 194 TFEU, on energy, recognises that in the context of needing to preserve and improve the environment, EU energy policy should aim to develop “new and renewable forms of energy” (Article 194(1)). Prior to the Lisbon Treaty, renewable energy legislation was adopted under the previous ‘envi­ ronment’ provision of the EC Treaty (now Article 192(1) TFEU). In more recent times, development of renewable energy projects are often legally challenged on the grounds that they will negatively impact on the environment and in particular could significantly adversely affect sites protected under the Habitats Directive. This causes tension between the objectives of meeting renewable energy targets, protecting biodiversity and ‘combating’ climate change with the overarching aim of achieving sustainable development at EU and national levels. Arguably this is exacerbated at national level where not only are there multiple objec­ tives but each objective is usually under the remit of a different policy maker and competent authority. Nowhere is this more pronounced than at the coast. In the coastal zone, EU Directives in combination with national and local legislation, regulate what marine managers are obliged to do. However, in reality, economic concerns often dictate what measures Member States are willing or able to take, while achievability can be dictated by unpredictable and, at times, exogenous factors [2,15,16]. These social and ecological considerations often result in a matrix of obligation and uncertainty that constrains the way that policy is implemented and the objectives of management. Such constraints are compounded by considerations of spatial and temporal scales, both of social systems (of laws and economies) and fluctuating ecological sys­ tems (Fig. 1). In addition, the path dependencies, highlighted where the policies and cycles overlap and may come into conflict, reinforces this increasingly complex policy landscape. This complexity, taking the installation of offshore wind farms as an example, can result in an ac­ tivity dictating that the use of space is locked-in over the lifespan of the devices, which in turn limits the capacity of government to practice adaptive management under the MSFD in these particular locations. This mismatch may result in incompatible policy objectives in certain areas unless there is concerted effort at the institutional level to harmonise the implementation processes.

2. The reality of land and sea interactions Coasts are the places where both numerous societal activities interact, and some of the most productive and dynamic natural systems converge. The activities of society that shape the exploitation of mari­ time resources intersect with natural marine and riverine processes that shape the coastal zone and largely determine the nature of the resource base [5,6]. Consequentially, coastal zones are at the frontline of sus­ tainability challenges from ever-increasing pressures from growing populations and associated development activity, whilst they concur­ rently bear the brunt of climate change impacts, including from sea level rise [7–9]. A consequence of this reality is that governance exists at multiple scales, and is complex and often non-linear in delivery, with constantly changing interplay between different spheres of legislative control, institutional hierarchies, and social drivers and values [10]. At the coast, this complexity is further compounded by the fact that policies and governance approaches in the terrestrial sphere are often very different, and at times in conflict, with marine and ocean policies [11,12]. Leyshon [13] states that coasts “suffer from definitional am­ biguity and conceptual insufficiency” that have tangible consequences for environmental governance. At the European Union (EU) scale, the marine space and resources are currently the focus of legal frameworks such as the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, (Directive 2008/56/EC) (MSFD)), however, policy areas such as land-use planning, property rights and critical aspects of key consenting processes for ma­ rine development remain under the authority of Member States, with little intervention at the EU scale. These path dependencies of both ge­ ographies and levels of implementation of policy that have evolved over various timeframes make for a complex and confusing policyscape. A further complicating factor is that EU environmental perspectives have progressed from being mainly conservation-centric to instead focussing more directly on social and economic development as well as modern day challenges such as those presented by the aspirations of interna­ tional agreements (e.g. Convention on Biological Diversity and the UN Agenda 2030) providing a shift in goal dependence. Individual frame­ works, such as the legally binding MSFD that enshrines the ecosystem approach to the management of human activities having an impact on the marine environment and integrates the concepts of environmental protection and sustainable use, do not have mechanisms to reflect and/or adapt to such evolutions of emphasis, presenting yet more challenges for national scale implementation.

2

A.M. O’Hagan et al.

Marine Policy xxx (xxxx) xxx

4. The reality of governance at the coast An analysis of marine legislation has identified over 200 interna­ tional, regional, EU and national instruments that apply to marine environmental planning and management in the UK [16], that, given the international and regional dimensions, will also hold in principle for other EU Member States (Fig. 2). At the centre of the ‘horrendogram’ are international conventions, treaties and protocols (orange boxes for global law and agreements and blue boxes for International organisa­ tions). Moving outwards, the red boxes show EU Directives and policies which govern activities in European seas, with blue ovals showing the primary target/status to be met [16]. This obvious demonstration of path dependency has resulted in a piecemeal approach that has rein­ forced the compartmentalisation of management of activities, rather than the integrated approach cited and advocated as an objective of global policies, EU Directives and other relevant legislation [17]. While the legislative landscape is demonstrably complex, this is further com­ pounded by competences for marine and coastal management being divided primarily between DG MARE (maritime affairs, fisheries, Blue Growth, MSP) and DG Environment (nature conservation and biodi­ versity, water policy, integrated coastal management, sustainable development/SDGs). In addition, other DGs have more discrete roles such DG MOVE for transport and shipping, DG CLIMA for climate change, DG RTD for research and DG ENER for energy, each of which will impact upon the strive for integrated management. Internationally there have been moves to promote more integrated maritime governance through approaches such as integrated coastal

Fig. 1. Decision space analysis matrix of policies relevant to the European marine environment, Water Framework Directive (WFD), Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), and Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). (EEZ ¼ Exclusive Economic Zone; GEnS ¼ Good Environmental Status; IMP ¼ Integrated Maritime Policy; MSFD ¼ Marine Strategy Framework Directive) [2].

Fig. 2. International, European and English legislation giving protection to the marine environment [15]. 3

A.M. O’Hagan et al.

Marine Policy xxx (xxxx) xxx

management, ecosystem-based management and maritime spatial planning [7,18]. These are at varying stages of implementation world­ wide. Integrated Coastal Management (ICM) has had a long and varied history in the EU with an EU-wide demonstration programme between 1996 and 1999 though its prominence has waned since the advent of Maritime Spatial Planning. Other authors recognise that MSP could result in a new form of “coastal squeeze” [19] and that it represents a “powerful competing priority” [20] for ICM rather than providing the mechanism for greater land-sea integration necessary for more effective planning and management. The EC’s work on developing an Integrated Maritime Policy, prior to finalisation in 2007, strongly advocated Maritime Spatial Planning to deliver ‘a strong, growing, competitive and sustainable maritime economy in harmony with the marine environ­ ment’ [21]. In 2008, the Commission adopted the MSFD that requires Member States to achieve Good Environmental Status of their marine waters by 2020. This was preceded by the Water Framework Directive in 2000, which was the first legal instrument to move away from organ­ ising management according to administrative boundaries favouring hydrological units. Both Directives cover coastal waters to greater and lesser extents respectively. Whilst these Directives are strongly focused on environmental quality, simultaneously EU institutions have been actively promoting and supporting marine and coastal areas as key drivers in the EU’s maritime economy. The ‘blue’ economy currently represents approximately 5.4 million jobs and generates a gross added value of almost €500 billion a year [18]. In recognition of the fact that further growth is possible in a number of areas, the ‘Blue Growth’ strategy was launched in 2012 [22]. Combined with actions deriving from the Integrated Maritime Policy, economic development of EU marine regions is high on the political and policy agenda of both the EU and Member States. Delivering more activity in marine areas can result in increased competition for maritime space. This compounded the need for new approaches to management so that waters could be planned and managed more consistently and transparently. Accordingly, a frame­ work Directive on Maritime Spatial Planning was adopted in 2014, with Member State transposition required by September 2016 and develop­ ment of Member State Maritime Spatial Plans required by March 2021. MSP is defined in the Directive as “a process by which the relevant Member State’s authorities analyse and organise human activities in marine areas to achieve ecological, economic and social objectives” (Article 3(2)). In terms of geographic scope, the MSP Directive defines marine waters as “the waters, the seabed and subsoil” as defined by both the MSFD (Article 3(1)(a)) and coastal waters as defined in the WFD (Article 2(7)) and their seabed and their subsoil. Arguably, this situation arises because of how certain competences are shared between the EU and Member States. Under Article 3 TFEU, the EU has exclusive competence for the conservation of marine biological resources under Common Fisheries Policy and for concluding international agreements. Generally, however, competences for the environment are shared between the EU and Member States (Article 4, TFEU). Spatial planning on land is a Member State competence and the EU has no role in the specifics of spatial planning though it has a shared competence with Member States for economic, social and territorial cohesion. Complications deriving from this situation were raised repeatedly during the negotiation phases of the MSP Directive that, it should be noted, was originally intended to include Integrated Coastal Management (ICM) as well as MSP [23]. The final adopted Directive did not include ICM as many Member States were of the opinion that EU action on ICM infringed on the rights of Member States relating to town and country planning and went beyond the principle of subsidiarity [24]. This is explicitly recognised in the MSP Directive in Recital 17, which states that “if Member States apply terrestrial planning to coastal waters or parts thereof, this Directive should not apply to those waters.” The EC Integrated Coastal Zone Management Recommendation (COM(2002)413) therefore remains valid though, as Fletcher et al. [25] point out, the EU policy context has “significantly changed.”

Article 1 of the MSP Directive states that MSP is aimed at “promoting the sustainable growth of maritime economies, the sustainable devel­ opment of marine areas and the sustainable use of marine resources.” This is complemented by Article 5, on the objectives of MSP, which specifies that through their maritime spatial plans, “Member States shall aim to contribute to the sustainable development of energy sectors at sea, of maritime transport, and of the fisheries and aquaculture sectors, and to the preservation, protection and improvement of the environ­ ment, including resilience to climate change impacts. In addition, Member States may pursue other objectives such as the promotion of sustainable tourism and the sustainable extraction of raw materials.” The issue arising here is that whilst MSP seeks to deliver sustainable development of marine areas and a competent authority must be iden­ tified for MSP under Article 13, many of its objectives will involve other policy areas that will have different competent authorities thereby increasing the potential for competition and tension and raises the question as to how seemingly competing objectives can be achieved. Coastal Member States across the EU are currently in the process of preparing and developing Maritime Spatial Plans [26]. In some coun­ tries, this has necessitated the enactment of new legislation to streamline approaches to marine planning and management, elsewhere systems that were already in place have had to be amended. In the UK, for example, the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 instigated a new system of marine management including a new marine planning system and marine plans that set out in detail what can occur in different parts of the sea areas to which they relate. It also provided for the designation of marine conservation zones in line with international and EU obliga­ tions. In Ireland, path dependency has resulted in more novel coastal and marine governance approaches being retro-fitted to existing ap­ proaches and their institutional frameworks. As Kelly et al. [27] state this type of ‘layering’ on top of existing policies, practices and in­ stitutions without little consideration of their wider impacts “often systematically reproduce the issues they seek to resolve”. 5. Case study on the contradictions of policy instruments: Ireland Generally, it can be said that major international events (conferences and disasters) and key EU legal instruments result in national responses, be it legislative or policy-based. This is expanded upon in Table 1 with reference to Ireland. What this chronological table demonstrates is that, often, relatively narrow focused policy and legal instruments result as a consequence of events or instruments that actually have much broader scope. Pathway dependencies, interdependencies and goal dependencies all play a role in this tapestry of governance evolution with legacies, actor configurations and scaled visioning all ensuring that subsequent implementation is directly linked to the over-arching instrument. Ulti­ mately, this means that the broader aim of natural resource management and/or sector-specific activity can become lost in the detail of the minutiae of amended legislation that is also affected by principles of subsidiarity, which is capable of both supporting or undermining the legitimacy of EU environmental policy [28,29]. In the context of coasts, where multiple ecosystems and activities coalesce, single policy and legal objectives become more difficult to deliver, suggesting that coastal governance must evolve to deliver multiple different, but inter-linked, objectives. It is widely known that a mix of individuals, groups and or­ ganisations are all involved in coastal governance but the missing link, and limiting factor, is the coordination of such actors. In Ireland, management of the marine and coastal environment traditionally occurred in a policy vacuum [30] and a first attempt to draw together different political and legislative strands of marine and coastal management did not occur until the publication in 2012 of ‘Harnessing Our Ocean Wealth’ [31], discussed below. Traditionally, as a result of history and path dependencies, almost all marine and coastal activities were licensed or leased under the Foreshore Act, 1933 and this remains the key legal basis for regulating marine and coastal activities 4

A.M. O’Hagan et al.

Marine Policy xxx (xxxx) xxx

Table 1 Selected key international events and initiatives with corresponding EU and Irish developments. International

EU

National - Ireland Local Government (Ireland) Act (1898) - created a County Council for each of the [then] thirty-three Irish administrative counties. Foreshore Act, 1933 - An Act to provide for the granting of licences and leases of State-owned foreshore and other related matters Maritime Jurisdiction Act, 1959 and Maritime Jurisdiction (Straight Baselines) Order 2016 Continental Shelf Act, 1968

UN Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) I 1956: four treaties adopted: Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone, entered into force: 10/11/1964; Convention on the Continental Shelf, entered into force: 10/06/1964; Convention on the High Seas, entered into force: 30/11/1962; Convention on Fishing and Conservation of Living Resources of the High Seas, entered into force: 20/ 03/1966 UNCLOS II 1960: no new agreements

Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963 – first legislation governing planning and development. Did not include the foreshore but covered the seashore

Torrey Canyon Oil Spill 1967 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment (UNCHS) in Stockholm 1972 Oslo Convention on dumping waste at sea 1972 UNCLOS III: 1973–1982 Paris Convention on land-based sources of marine pollution: 1974

UN Law of the Sea Convention 1982

Piper Alpha Explosion 1985

United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro 1992. Agenda 21 UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) 1992

UN Framework Convention on Climate Change 1992

OSPAR Convention 1992 Jakarta Mandate on Marine and Coastal Biological Diversity 1995 (CBD COP2)

Malawi principles on the ecosystem approach 1998 (CBD COP4)

Ireland joins the EEC 1972

Birds Directive (79/409/EEC), amended in 2009 (2009/ 147/EC) Common Fisheries Policy 1981

First Environmental Impact Assessment Directive (85/337/ EEC)

Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC)

European Climate Change Programme. EU Emissions Trading System. 2020 Climate and Energy Package. 2030 Climate and Energy Framework. 2050 Low Carbon Economy. EU Adaptation Strategy 2013. Strategic Energy Technology Plan (SET Plan). Renewable Energy Directive (2009/28/EC).

ICZM Demonstration Programme - 1996 - 1999 Amended EIA Directive (97/11/EC) – to comply with the Espoo Convention on EIA in a Transboundary Context.

Directly applicable Ireland ratifies Law of the Sea Convention in 1996. Sea Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Act, 2006. Ireland submits its claim for the Porcupine Abyssal Plain (extended continental shelf) in 2005, Celtic Sea/Bay of Biscay in 2006 and Hatton-Rockall 2009. European Communities (EIA) Regulations, 1989–2001. Local Government (Planning and Development) Regulations 1990, S.I. No. 25 of 1990, later amended. Foreshore (EIA) Regulations, 1990. Fisheries (EIA) Regulations, 1990. First ever Department of the Marine created in 1987

Foreshore (Amendment) Act, 1992. EC (Natural Habitats) Regulations, 1997. European Union (Environmental Impact Assessment and Habitats) Regulations 2011. European Union (Environmental Impact Assessment and Habitats) Regulations 2015. National Biodiversity Plan 2002. An Interim Review of the National Biodiversity Plan (2005). Ireland’s 3rd National Biodiversity Action Plan 2017–2021. National Policy Position on Climate Action and Low Carbon Development (2014) Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act, 2015 National Mitigation Plan 2017 National Adaptation Plan: Planning for a Climate Resilient Ireland (2018) Ireland signs OSPAR Convention 1992. Foreshore and Dumping at Sea (Amendment) Act 2009. Bantry Bay Charter on ICZM and Donegal Beaches project on ICZM. No longer in force, superseded by Directive 2011/92/EU

(continued on next page)

5

A.M. O’Hagan et al.

Marine Policy xxx (xxxx) xxx

Table 1 (continued ) International

EU

National - Ireland

UNECE Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters 1998 (Aarhus Convention)

Amended EIA Directive (2003/35/EC) - to align the provisions on public participation with the Aarhus Convention on public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters

Aarhus Convention ratified by Ireland in 2012. European Communities (EIA) (Amendment) Regulations 2006. European Communities (Foreshore) Regulations, 2009. Fisheries and Foreshore (Amendment) Act, 1998 European Communities (Water Policy) Regulations 2003 [See also Table 2] Planning and Development Act, 2000 enters into force: repealed 1963 Act. Section on the foreshore. First mention of ‘sustainable development’ in the context of planning in Irish legislation Planning and Development (Strategic Environmental Assessment) Regulations 2004 and 2011. European Communities (Environmental Assessment of Certain Plans and Programmes) Regulations 2004–2011.

Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)

Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive (2001/42/ EC) World Summit on Sustainable Development 2002

A European Union Strategy for Sustainable Development (COM/2001/264) and reviews. Mainstreaming sustainable development into EU policies: 2009 Review of the European Union Strategy for Sustainable Development (COM/2009/400) ICZM Recommendation 2002 Integrated Maritime Policy 2007

Marine Strategy Framework Directive 2008 Amended EIA Directive (2009/31/EC) – to add projects related to the transport, capture and storage of carbon dioxide Amended EIA Directive (2011/92/EU)

UNCED 2012 – Sustainable Development Goals

Next steps for a sustainable European future: European action for sustainability (COM(2016) 739) Amended EIA Directive (2014/52/EU) MSP Directive (2014/89/EU)

today, the original Act having been amended four times to reflect additional legal requirements. The original 1933 Act was enacted to regulate property rights in State-owned foreshore; to protect the public rights of navigation and fishing and to provide for the granting of foreshore licences and leases [32]. The Act defines foreshore, seashore and tidal lands but does not enable an ecosystem-based approach to management as these areas are all defined according to the position of the high water mark of ordinary or medium tides. Additionally, the legislation is concerned primarily with licensing and leasing of marine development rather than environmental management or indeed sus­ tainable development. The foreshore extends seaward from the high water mark. Originally, the outer limit of the foreshore was not pre­ scribed in the 1933 Act but was presumed to be 12 nautical miles. This was legally confirmed in 2005, by section 60(a)(i) of the Maritime Safety Act, 2005. As a result of membership of the European Union, Ireland has had to amend and enact numerous pieces of legislation to transpose EU Directives. In the case of the Foreshore Acts, this has been primarily to reflect the requirements of the Environmental Impact Assessment

Transfer of certain foreshore responsibilities from Department of Communications, Marine & Natural Resources to the [then] Department of Agriculture and Food. Harnessing Our Ocean Wealth 2012. General Scheme of the Maritime Area and Foreshore (Amendment) Bill published in 2013. European Communities (Marine Strategy Framework) Regulations 2011 and 2017. European Communities (Geological Storage of Carbon Dioxide) Regulations 2011 and 2014 Foreshore (Amendment) Act 2011 and Regulations – transfer of functions. European Union (EIA) (Foreshore) Regulations 2012. European Union (EIA) (Aquaculture) Regulations 2012. European Union (EIA) (Planning and Development Act, 2000) Regulations 2012. European Union (EIA) (Flood Risk) Regulations 2012. European Union (Environmental Impact Assessment and Appropriate Assessment) (Foreshore) Regulations 2014. European Union (EIA) (Planning and Development Act 2000) Regulations 2014. European Union (Environmental Impact Assessment and Habitats) Regulations 2015. Our Sustainable Future (2012) and progress reports. The Sustainable Development Goals: National Implementation Plan 2018-2020. Aquaculture (Licence Application) (Amendment) Regulations 2018 Planning & Development (Amendment) Act, 2018 (Part 5) Ireland 2040 – National Planning Framework 2018. National Development Plan 2018-2027.

Directives, and later the Habitats Directive, and specifically how these impact upon site level development consents. Ratification of the Aarhus Convention, and resultant EU Directives, have also necessitated changes in foreshore legislation. These changes took the form of statutory in­ struments and represent a ‘layering’ of additional objectives and re­ sponsibilities with the same institution, compounding the already existing path dependencies. The relationship between foreshore legislation and resultant man­ agement with terrestrial legislation and planning more generally has always been difficult. The original, principal planning legislation in Ireland, the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963 defined land as including “any structure and any land covered with water (whether inland or coastal)” but did not define the term ‘coastal’ or mention the foreshore at all (Section 2(1)). New planning legislation, the Planning and Development Act, 2000, repealed the 1963 Act with the new Act containing a dedicated section on the Foreshore (Part XV Development on the Foreshore). This retained the original definition of the foreshore but expanded it to include “land between the line of high 6

A.M. O’Hagan et al.

Marine Policy xxx (xxxx) xxx

water of ordinary or medium tides and land within the functional area of the planning authority concerned that adjoins the first-mentioned land” (Section 224). The effect of this change was to require development on the foreshore, that did not fall within the category of exempted devel­ opment, to have permission from the planning authority (Section 225). In theory, this should have been a positive development as, until this time, planning and management of the foreshore fell between a number of responsible national and local authorities, determined by the almost sacrosanct position of the high water mark. Above the high water mark, local authorities had full responsibility for management but below the high water mark, responsibility rested with central government, divided according to sectoral interests. The result being that if a development has both marine and terrestrial elements, for example, two EIAs may be necessary as well as separate public consultation exercises. In practice, many local authorities were reluctant to exercise any management functions along the coast, as they were unsure of their own legal juris­ diction [33,34]. Under planning legislation, local authorities as the designated planning authorities must prepare County Development Plans for their functional area. These plans contain objectives relating to, among others, the use of land in the area, provision of infrastructure and con­ servation of the environment. There are 31 local authorities in Ireland, 17 of which are coastal. County Development Plans (CDPs) for each of those 17 areas all refer to coastal management in some way: be it the need for greater integration between marine and terrestrial planning or need for integrated management approaches recognising for example that such plans “cannot deal with all the issues that arise in the coastal zone” [35]. What is interesting to note in the plans, is that the majority refer to the coast or coastal zone with little mention of foreshore. The term ‘coast’ is not defined in Irish law though certain county develop­ ment plans define the term for the purposes or context of the plan as the area between High Water Mark to the nearest scenic route or road parallel to the coast (e.g. Sligo [36] and Waterford [37] respectively). There remains no national integrated coastal management policy or equivalent, though a draft policy was published in 1997 [38] and there have also been numerous initiatives to implement ICM at local and regional scales primarily through time- and funding-limited pilot and demonstration projects [30]. CDPs must be reviewed every six years. Often the plans reflect current topical issues, for example, the most recent tranche of development plans highlight the importance of coastal areas in changing climatic conditions, the need to focus on coastal flooding and erosion when planning development and the potential of marine and coastal areas to contribute to rural economic growth and the ‘blue economy’. Whilst there have been no fundamental changes to the goal de­ pendency aspects of Irish legislation governing marine and coastal management, modifications have been made at the EU level. The Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) was the first legal instrument to move away from management on the basis of administrative boundaries towards management of the hydrological basin. It includes both tran­ sitional (estuarine) waters and coastal waters; the latter defined as extending one nautical mile seaward of the baseline (Article 2(7) WFD; [14]). Under the WFD, River Basin Management Plans must be prepared to protect and improve the water environment. These are prepared and reviewed every six years, with the first plans covering 2010 to 2015 and the second round of plans covering the period 2018–2021. The first cycle of river basin management planning involved the development of plans for four River Basin Districts (RBDs) in the Republic of Ireland, and a further three international RBDs (which straddled both Northern Ireland and the Republic). The second phase of river basin management plans is dramatically different in that there is now only one plan covering the Republic of Ireland with an area of 70,273 km2, which can be further divided into 46 catchment management units. The reason for this change in approach is primarily attributed to the fact that multiple RBDs did not prove effective for plan development or implementation [39]. The WFD was complemented in 2008 with the adoption of the

Table 2 Instruments transposing the Water Framework and Marine Strategy Framework Directives in Ireland.

7

Instruments transposing the Water Framework Directive in Ireland

Instruments transposing the Marine Strategy Framework Directive in Ireland

1. Water Quality (Dangerous Substances) Regulations 2001, S.I. No. 12 of 2001 2. The Quality of Shellfish Waters (Amendment) Regulations 2001, S.I. No. 456 of 2001 3. European Communities (Protection of waters against pollution from agricultural sources) Regulations 2003, S.I. No. 213 of 2003 4. EC (Water Policy) Regulations 2003, S.I. No. 722 of 2003 5. European Communities (Good Agricultural Practice for Protection of Waters) Regulations 2005, S.I. No. 788 of 2005 6. European Communities (Good Agricultural Practice for Protection of Waters) Regulations 2006, S.I. 378 of 2006 7. Water Services Act, 2007 8. European Communities (Drinking Water) (No. 2) Regulations 2007, S.I. 278 of 2007 9. Waste Water Discharge (Authorisation) Regulations 2007, S.I. 684 of 2007 10. Water Services Act, 2007 (Commencement) Order 2007, S.I. 139 of 2007 11. European Communities (Good Agricultural Practice for Protection of Waters) (Amendment) Regulations 2007, S.I. No. 526 of 2007 12. Bathing Water Quality Regulations 2008, S.I. No. 79 of 2008 13. EC (Good Agricultural Practice for Protection of Waters) Regulations 2009, S.I. No. 101 of 2009 14. EC Environmental Objectives (Surface Waters) Regulations 2009, S.I. No. 272 of 2009 15. The European Communities Environmental Objectives (Freshwater Pearl Mussel) Regulations 2009, S.I. No. 296 of 2009 16. EC Environmental Objectives (Groundwater) Regulations 2010, S.I. No. 9 of 2010 17. Urban Waste Water Treatment (Amendment) Regulations 2010, S.I. No. 48 of 2010 18. European Communities (Water Policy) (Amendment) Regulations 2010, S.I. No. 93 of 2010 19. Waste Water Discharge (Authorisation) (Amendment) Regulations 2010, S.I. No. 231 of 2010 20. EC (Good Agricultural Practice for Protection of Waters) Regulations 2010, S.I. No. 610 of 2010 21. EC (Good Agricultural Practice for Protection of Waters) (Amendment) Regulations 2011, S.I. No. 125 of 2011 22. European Union (Water Policy) Regulations 2014, S.I. No. 350 of 2014.

1. European Communities (Marine Strategy Framework) Regulations 2011, S.I. No. 249 of 2011 2. European Communities (Marine Strategy Framework) (Amendment) Regulations 2017, S.I. No. 265 of 2017

A.M. O’Hagan et al.

Marine Policy xxx (xxxx) xxx

Marine Strategy Framework Directive (2008/56/EC), which seeks to achieve Good Environmental Status of marine waters by 2020. Under the MSFD, ‘marine waters’ are defined as extending from the baseline to the limits of national jurisdiction, usually 200 nautical miles. Member States are required to undertake an Initial Assessment involving a comprehensive review of the physical, chemical and biological charac­ teristics of their assessment area as well as the human pressures acting upon it, which was completed in Ireland in 2013 [40]. Ireland’s assessment area covered 490,000 km2 comprising primarily of EEZ waters and some continental shelf areas. The inner MSFD boundary incorporates coastal waters defined under the WFD but does not include WFD ‘transitional waters’, i.e. brackish and estuarine waters. Since then a monitoring programme and programme of measures to reach Good Environmental Status have been adopted. The latter recognises the role of other policy measures such as the WFD, the Habitats Directive (Natura 2000 sites) and the Common Fisheries Policy in helping to deliver the objectives of the MSFD. It has also been stated by the Department of Environment, Community and Local Government that marine planning and licensing “will make a positive contribution towards the achieve­ ment of GES include the foreshore consent process (territorial waters) and the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Strategic Envi­ ronmental Assessment (SEA) Directives and associated national regula­ tions” [41]. The programme of measures was developed in close coordination with France and the UK, as other Member States in the Celtic Seas sub-region and includes measures based on regional agree­ ments such as OSPAR. Whilst there may be a single RBMP under the WFD, there are mul­ tiple legal instruments transposing the provisions of the WFD into Irish law, in contrast to the MSFD, as shown in Table 2. This, coupled with the various plans and strategies published to deliver their objectives, leads to complex management arrangements. The same can be said for most major EU instruments. The EIA Directive, for example, has over 20 transposing instruments in Irish law, often applicable by sector. Added to this is the regular need for multiple statutory requirements and par­ allel assessments for a single project which, as the EC has recognised, can lead to delays, discrepancies and administrative uncertainty in the associated applications [42]. The non-binding guidance issued by the Commission clarifies that under the EIA Directive there are two pro­ cedures to streamline environmental assessments of projects that are subject to that Directive and other environmental assessments deriving from applicable EU legislation. Under the joint procedure, Member States can carry out a single assessment of the environmental impact of a given project, thereby replacing multiple assessments. Alternatively, under the coordinated procedure, Member States designate an authority to coordinate the various assessments of a project’s environmental impact, thereby improving coordination, clarity and efficiency. Whilst almost all marine sectors express the need for more clarity and coordi­ nation, the realities of institutionalising streamlined processes are much more complex in marine and coastal environments.

a relatively low priority for successive governments (Fig. 3) although this does not always imply a fragmentation or loss of institutional memory [44]. Following the general election in 2007, a number of changes were made to the responsibilities of Government Departments in the interests of a better alignment of functions, which would set the framework for many of the responsibilities that still exist today. Specifically, the then Department of Agriculture and Food was renamed the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (DAFF) and gained responsibility for sea fisheries and aquaculture, foreshore leasing and licensing, marine en­ gineering, pier and harbour development1 and coastal zone manage­ ment [45]. Additionally, DAFF assumed over-arching responsibility for the Marine Institute, Ireland’s marine research agency; Bord Iascaigh Mhara (Irish Sea Fisheries Board) and the Sea Fisheries Protection Agency (SFPA). Responsibilities relating to maritime transport and maritime safety, including the Irish Coast Guard, were transferred to the (then) Department of Transport at the same time. The former Depart­ ment of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources became the Department of Energy, Communications, and Natural Resources (DECNR) in 2007. It retained responsibility for national energy supply and the development of sustainable and renewable energies as well as responsibility for the exploration, exploitation and development of Irish oil, gas and mineral resources. Additionally in 2007, responsibility for foreshore licensing functions relating to harbours listed in the Harbour Acts, 1946–1996, de­ velopments relating to commercial ports, offshore energy developments and coastal policy transferred to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. In order to effect this change it was necessary to enact primary legislation in the form of the Foreshore and Dumping at Sea (Amendment) Act 2009, signed into law in December 2009. Under this Act, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food retained foreshore responsibilities where the foreshore consent (licence or lease) relates to a Fishery Harbour Centre or where the consent required is for the use, development or support of the sea-fishing or aquaculture industries [46]. In all other cases, an application for a foreshore consent or the administration of a function under the Fore­ shore Acts became the responsibility of the (then) Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government at that time signalled his intent to review the operation of the Foreshore Acts ‘to ensure that they are tightly integrated with the modern planning processes available under the 2000 Planning Act and the 2006 Strategic Infrastructure Act’ [47]. Following changes in government, a new Maritime Area and Foreshore (Amendment) Bill was published in 2013 that sought to align the foreshore consent process with the onshore planning system and provide a coherent mechanism to facilitate and manage development activity in the foreshore, Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf [48,49]. However, over five years later, this has not been enacted. Successive governments have changed departmental names and reassigned certain responsibilities. For example, environmental func­ tions including climate change, air quality, noise and sustainable development were transferred to the [new] Department of Communi­ cations, Climate Action and Environment in July 2016. Kelly et al. [50] found that in Ireland there are at least 34 different government de­ partments, agencies, and bodies with responsibility for estuarine, coastal, and marine management across different territorial scales. These numerous changes and political ‘tinkering’ has led to a discon­ tinuous and haphazard evolution of legislation relating to these spaces that have failed to meet-up with the intended strategic aspirations. Whilst strategic objectives may be reflected in new or amended

5.1. Institutional responses Management of the coastal and marine environment in Ireland has habitually been largely sectoral with each sector of activity usually falling under a central government department. ‘Marine’ interests were firstly under the remit of the Department of Fisheries (1921), followed by the Department of Lands and Fisheries (1928), then Lands and Fisheries separately until 1978 when the Department of Fisheries and Forestry was created. In 1984, there were calls for the establishment of a new Department of the Marine and a new Marine Research and Devel­ opment Unit [43]. This highlighted a number of problematic issues facing the development of the Irish marine sector including poor structures for development planning, little coherence with international maritime law developments and inadequate investment in research and development. Subsequently, numerous shifts in name and re­ sponsibilities of ministries demonstrate that the marine domain has been

1 Except pier and harbour development of commercial harbours, which were the responsibility of the Department of Transport; and island harbours under the responsibility of [then] Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs.

8

A.M. O’Hagan et al.

Marine Policy xxx (xxxx) xxx

Fig. 3. Snapshot of evolution of ‘marine’ competences in Irish central government.

legislation and/or policy, there is little evolution in terms of the in­ stitutions or bodies tasked with implementing such changes. This consequently makes it more difficult to actually govern the issue or space, to coordinate decision making and ultimately to move in a di­ rection in line with the intention of the earlier actors and institution. As Kelly et al. [27] state “path dependent decision-making results in system ‘lock-in’ where problematic elements, such as structures and roles, get embedded in the system, making it harder to implement transformative change and the status quo largely remains intact”. Ireland’s first integrated marine plan “Harnessing Our Ocean Wealth” was published in 2012 and covers both marine and coastal areas [31]. This puts forward the Government’s vision, high-level goals and key ‘enabling’ actions to put in place an appropriate policy, governance and business climate to enable Ireland’s marine potential to be realised. The three high level goals relate to a thriving maritime economy, healthy ecosystems and engaging with the sea, broadly reflecting the three pillars of sustainable development, and whilst not reflecting any Directive explicitly, very much in line with over-arching EU marine and maritime policy. The targets of the Plan are to double the value of the country’s ocean wealth to 2.4% of GDP by 2030; and increase the turnover from Ireland’s ocean economy to exceed €6.4bn by 2020. Eight enablers are identified as key to creating the conditions for achieving the targets. The enablers are not prioritised but consist of 39 actions linked to one of the goals and has both responsibility and a timeline for delivery specified. A progress report is published annually, which details comprehensive information on progress made under each of the actions. The progress reports conclude with a section on the key focus areas and expectations for the next year. The 2017 progress report refers to the SDGs twice in the context of how ocean observation programmes and data can contribute to SDG 13 ‘Climate Action’ and 14 ‘Life Below Water’ as well as the involvement of the Atlantic Ocean Research Alli­ ance in the UN Oceans conference, focused on SDG 14 [51]. Early ac­ tions on governance for 2012–2014 identified in HOOW [31] were to “develop an integrated approach to marine and coastal planning and licensing in order to maximise the potential for Ireland’s ocean econ­ omy; assist with managing our resources effectively and sustainably; manage potential conflicts; and ensure harmonisation with coast­ al/terrestrial planning”. These governance actions are still being pro­ gressed along with the design of Ireland’s first Marine Spatial Plan. Sectoral management is characterised by its short-term focus, spe­ cific focus with a limited number of actors, is specific to one-scale level and aimed at gradual change [52]. Prior to Ireland’s Integrated Marine Plan (HOOW), and in light of that described above, it was widely acknowledged that marine and coastal responsibilities were divided across a number of government departments, semi-state bodies and local authorities. This recognition gave rise to the creation of the Inter-Departmental Marine Coordination Group (MCG) in 2009, estab­ lished to improve coordination across sectors and decrease territorial

fragmentation. This Group has senior level representation from 10 government departments and three other institutions (Table 3). Whilst members of the MCG will have comprehensive understanding of their own policy and legal responsibilities, they may be less familiar with how this is influenced or potentially interacts with other policy domains, even those that rest within the same department. Each has their own perspective and interests. Understanding such interactions and in­ terdependencies, combined with the goal dependencies of each member is important for understanding evolutionary pathways of governance. It is also often the case that though a central government department is designated as the competent authority for a legal requirement or policy, the delivery of that policy may rely on a range of other actors. This can be demonstrated by the case of the MSFD which is the re­ sponsibility of DHPLG but implementation of the Programme of Mea­ sures will be in tandem with WFD implementation and MSP (both in different sections of the same department), Habitats Directive (DCHG/ NPWS), fisheries and aquaculture activities (DAFM with its agencies), waste management and environmental liability (Environmental Pro­ tection Agency) and environmental assessment requirements (local planning authorities/EPA) and other international legal requirements deriving from MARPOL (DTTS) and OSPAR (DHPLG). This is recognised more broadly as a critical junction of complexity on marine governance at many scales [44]. In addition, it brings to the fore the argument around policy convergence and the Europeanisation of policy areas [53]. 6. Discussion It is clear that coastal governance is complex and multi-faceted both regionally and at a national scale. Tracing the evolution of coastal and marine governance in Ireland indicates that there has been many changes in policy directions and responsibilities in a relatively short period, demonstrating a co-evolution of both actor/institution configu­ rations as well as power arrangements. This is within a single country, though the influence and supremacy of EU law is clearly a key driver. While multiple actors were considered during this governance analysis, the role of non-governmental actors was not discussed despite acknowledgement that many NGOs in Ireland conduct important ini­ tiatives such as the Blue Flag and Green Flag beach programmes, informal coastal clean-ups, coastal conservation programmes, marine mammal monitoring etc. Looking at developments in the EU, whilst there has been increasing policy on the marine and maritime dimensions in recent years, there is evidence that current governance paths could exacerbate the land-sea divide and actually inhibit the achievement of sustainable development [13,19,20,44]. While this analysis of the Ireland context demonstrates that dependencies and interdependencies play a key role in the co-evolution of existing governance paths, the contrast between different rule systems, for land, sea, and for the coast 9

A.M. O’Hagan et al.

Marine Policy xxx (xxxx) xxx

becoming more visible in coastal areas highlight changing ocean con­ ditions and the consequences this will have for human populations. Integration has many forms and degrees and is often dependent on the design of the actor/institution configuration (interdependence). The degree to which policy integration can be achieved with maximum positive effects hinges on leadership in both canonical and shadow in­ stitutions as well as existing power/knowledge and actor/institution configurations [54]. Policy integration at a modest level is coordination of actors and policies; this takes place against the background of co-evolution of actors and institutions. Whilst this evolution shapes all elements of integration, it doesn’t necessarily make new attempts at coordination simpler. In the context of Ireland, the consequences of current governance practices lead to three principle outcomes, namely that:

Table 3 Inter-departmental Marine Coordination Group members with marine and coastal responsibilities. Department/entity

Role

Department of the Taoiseach

Supports the work of the Taoiseach (head of government) Oversees implementation of the Programme for Government Sea fisheries policy and management, aquaculture licensing, fishing boat licensing, fishery harbours, foreshore licensing of aquaculture and sea fishery related activities Policy relating to natural resources (oil and gas, minerals, inland fisheries), climate change (adaptation and mitigation), waste management, air quality, energy policy (renewable and non-renewable) and sustainable development. Parent department of the Irish Naval Service who are responsible for fisheries monitoring, maritime surveillance, deterring intrusive or aggressive acts, ensuring right of passage, protecting marine assets, countering people or arms smuggling, illegal drugs interdiction, and providing the primary diving team in the State Protection of natural and cultural assets including biodiversity (through the National Parks and Wildlife Service/ NPWS). Transport including shipping and navigation, Search and Rescue, safety of shipping and the prevention of pollution of the marine environment from ship-based sources. National planning framework, Maritime Spatial Planning, foreshore consenting, local authorities, WFD and MSFD implementation, bathing water quality and shellfish waters Fund innovation, research and development, supports SMEs National Development Plan management, flood risk management (through the Office of Public Works) Law of the Sea, international relations and agreements, Northern Ireland relations State agency for marine research and development and provides scientific and technical advice to Government. Under the aegis of DAFM. Legal adviser to Government, drafts legislation and provides litigation services Part of the permanent representation of Ireland in the EU, under Dept. of Foreign Affairs, specialising in maritime affairs

Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine (DAFM)

Department of Communications, Climate Action and Environment (DCCAE)

Department of Defence

Department of Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht (DCHG) Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport (DTTS)

Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government (DHPLG)

Department of Business, Enterprise and Innovation Department of Public Expenditure and Reform Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFA) Marine Institute

Office of the Attorney General Maritime Affairs Attach�e

1. The often conflicting and contested competencies between EU and Irish legislative instruments compound the management ‘split’ be­ tween land and sea. 2. Legislation and policy have often been formulated towards perceived wide ranging management challenges and change (be it social and/ or environmental) and has consequently been very ambitious in terms of goals, which often lead to objectives that are contradictory, conflictory and/or overlapping both within individual pieces of legislation and/or between different legislative instruments. 3. An outcome of ‘ownership’ of legislative instruments by individual institutions has meant they are often implemented in a management vacuum with little, if any, interaction between implementing au­ thorities – despite in Ireland the existence of the Inter-Departmental Marine Coordination Group (MCG) and Harnessing Our Ocean Wealth, the integrated marine plan. The consequence of the outcomes is that there remains deep-seated sectoral interests leading to a strong land-sea divide with very little integrative national legislation. Principles of sustainable development, manifested by the UN Agenda 2030, are creating a hierarchy increas­ ingly driving policy evolution from an international perspective. Such a policy environment requires national governments to design and implement laws that are not substantive but procedural [55] in order to assist the achievement and delivery of international agendas thorough legislation that leads to development decisions that promote sustainable development [56]. The ultimate reality for managing land-sea interactions is that it will have to be achieved through existing policy instruments – a recom­ mendation to sweep away existing policy and bring in new policy that is more ‘fit-for-purpose’ is not an option. However, the coast is a ‘white line’ between land-based and sea-based legislation and this needs to become joined. So how can existing policy be made to work in a more holistic and integrated manner? The outcomes of this review is that in developing procedures and processes for the implementation of existing legislative instruments, at all scales, greater cognisance should be applied to address reconciliation of: [couplets of] boundaries (e.g. Ecosystem vs. administrative); scales of interest (e.g. between private, sectoral, economic, social); and interpretation of existing policy that reconciles the language and direction of land-based and sea-based legislation. A tentative proposal that may help to address these chal­ lenges would be a typology that focusses on features that coalesce and unite across different sectors and interests that would allow the appli­ cation of legislation and implementation of management towards a grouped and nested suite of activities rather than on a case-by-case basis. The continued use of an Evolutionary Governance Theory-based anal­ ysis as a flexible central tenet in this typology to analyse the codevelopment of Ireland’s coastal governance, will enable a unique approach to accessing solutions within these governance scaled spaces. Such an approach can redress imbalances that arise from viewing governance challenges at the coast as a contestation between hierarchies (legislative and/or administrative), but, rather, as an evolutionary

itself, remains marked. The Irish government has attempted to improve coordination efforts in relation to marine and maritime considerations but it may be the case that for land-sea interactions such efforts may need to be adapted to ensure the integration of both goal dependencies and reduced policy and effort fragmentation. The ‘coast’ cannot be considered as a line on a map anymore: international legal requirements for integration, best practice lessons highlighting benefits from increased coordination and the need to implement ecosystem-based management increase the need to oper­ ationalise integration. Dedicated marine and terrestrial policies are needed but so too is the strategic oversight to ensure these do not con­ flict or inhibit each other. There is a need to re-think management of the coast. Historically governance of the maritime space was weak as there was less activity and hence less actors but this is changing with many policies recognising the economic potentials presented by the marine space and its resources. Likewise the impacts of climate change are 10

A.M. O’Hagan et al.

Marine Policy xxx (xxxx) xxx

process that requires new approaches to link the various actors and in­ stitutions towards common and shared intents for the sustainable management of coastal zones and land-sea interactions.

[13] C. Leyshon, Finding the coast: environmental governance and the characterisation of land and sea, Area 50 (2) (2018) 150–158, https://doi.org/10.1111/area.12436. [14] ICSU, in: D.J. Griggs, M. Nilsson, A. Stevance, D. McCollum (Eds.), A Guide to SDG Interactions: from Science to Implementation, International Council for Science, Paris, 2017, https://doi.org/10.24948/2017.01. [15] S. Boyes, M. Elliott, A. Murillas-Maza, N. Papadopoulou, M. Uyarra, Is existing legislation fit-for-purpose to achieve Good Environmental Status in European seas? Mar. Pollut. Bull. 111 (1–2) (2016) 18–32, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. marpolbul.2016.06.079. [16] S.J. Boyes, M. Elliott, Marine legislation – the ultimate ‘horrendogram’: international law, European directives & national implementation, Mar. Pollut. Bull. 86 (1–2) (2014) 39–47, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.06.055. [17] R. Cormier, M. Elliott, A. Kannen, IEC/ISO Bow-tie analysis of marine legislation: a case study of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, in: ICES Cooperative Research Report No. 342, ICES, Copenhagen, Denmark, 2018, p. 56, https://doi. org/10.17895/ices.pub.4504. [18] F. Douvere, Marine Spatial Planning: Concepts, Current Practice and Linkages to Other Management Approaches, Ghent University, Belgium, 2010. https://biblio. ugent.be/publication/8509486/file/8509487. [19] B. Shipman, T. Stojanovic, Facts, fictions, and failures of integrated coastal zone management in Europe, Coast. Manag. 35 (2007) 375–398, https://doi.org/ 10.1080/08920750601169659. [20] J. Crawford, The construction of ‘coast’ in national planning policy, Town Plan. Rev. 90 (3) (2019), https://doi.org/10.3828/tpr.2019.20. [21] European Commission, Green Paper: towards a Future Maritime Policy for the Union: A European Vision for the Oceans and Seas (COM (2006) 275), 2006. European Commission, Brussels, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ TXT/?uri¼CELEX%3A52006DC0275%2802%29. [22] European Commission, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, 2012. Blue Growth: opportunities for marine and maritime sustainable growth (COM(2012) 494 final). European Commission, Brussels, https://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/sites/maritimeaffairs/files/docs /publications/blue-growth_en.pdf. [23] European Commission, Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council Establishing a Framework for Maritime Spatial Planning and Integrated Coastal Management {SWD(2013) 64 Final} {SWD(2013) 65 Final} (COM(2013) 133 Final), 2013. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/? uri¼CELEX:52013SC0065&from¼EN. [24] European Parliament Committee on Transport and Tourism, Report on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council Establishing a Framework for Maritime Spatial Planning and Integrated Coastal Management (COM(2013)0133 – C7-0065/2013 – 2013/0074(COD)), 2013. European Parliament A7-0379/2013, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pu bRef¼-//EP//NONSGMLþREPORTþA7-2013-0379þ0þDOCþPDFþV0//EN. (Accessed 6 May 2019). [25] S. Fletcher, R. Jefferson, G. Glegg, L. Rodwell, W. Dodds, England’s evolving marine and coastal governance framework, Mar. Policy 45 (2014) 261–268, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2013.09.007. [26] Kitsiou, D. and Karydis, M. Marine Spatial Planning: Methodologies, Environmental Issues and Current Trends. Nova Science Publishers, New York, USA. ISBN: 9781536121704. [27] C. Kelly, G. Ellis, W. Flannery, Unravelling persistent problems to transformative marine governance, Front. Mar. Sci. 6 (2019) 213, https://doi.org/10.3389/ fmars.2019.00213. [28] U. Collier, Sustainability, subsidiarity and deregulation: new directions in EU environmental policy, Environ. Pol. 6 (2) (1997) 1–23, https://doi.org/10.1080/ 09644019708414325. [29] A. Jordan, T. Jeppesen, EU environmental policy: adapting to the principle of subsidiarity? Eur. Environ. 10 (2000) 64–74, https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)10990976(200003/04)10:2%3C64::AID-EET219%3E3.0.CO;2-Z. [30] A.M. O’Hagan, R.C. Ballinger, Implementing integrated coastal zone management in a national policy vacuum: local case studies from Ireland, Ocean Coast. Manag. 53 (12) (2010) 750–759, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2010.10.014. [31] Government of Ireland/Marine Coordination Group, Harnessing Our Ocean Wealth: an Integrated Marine Plan for Ireland, Marine Institute, Galway, 2012. https://www.ouroceanwealth.ie/about-plan. [32] J. Crosbie, Coastal zone legislation in Ireland and the changes needed, in: M. Carroll, K. Dubsky (Eds.), Coastal Zone Management: from Needs to Action – Proceedings of a Conference, 3-6 September 1994, 1995, 0952332477. Dublin Castle, Dublin, Ireland. [33] J. McKenna, M. MacLeod, J. Power, A. Cooper, Rural Beach Management: A Good Practice Guide, Published by Donegal County Council with support of the EU’s LIFE Programme, 2000, p. 109. [34] A.M. O’Hagan, J.A.G. Cooper, Extant legal and jurisdictional constraints on Irish coastal management, Coast. Manag. 29 (2001) 73–90, https://doi.org/10.1080/ 089207501750069588. [35] Wexford County Council, Wexford County Development Plan 2013-2019. Volume 1 Written Statement, 2013. Wexford, Ireland, https://www.wexfordcoco.ie/plann ing/development-plans-and-local-area-plans/current-plans/wexford-county-deve lopment-plan-2013. (Accessed 13 July 2018). [36] Sligo County Council, Sligo County Development Plan 2017 – 2023 – Volume 1, Consolidated Draft þ Adopted Amendments, Sligo County Council, Sligo, Ireland, 2017, p. 179. http://www.sligococo.ie/media/SligoCountyCouncil2015/Services/ Planning/Downloads/SCDP20172023/CDP%202017-2023-Vol1full24August2 017.pdf. (Accessed 13 July 2018).

Declaration of competing interest None. Acknowledgements This research was conducted in the framework of COST action on “Ocean Governance for Sustainability - challenges, options and the role of science”, CA15217, within the Working Group “Land-Sea-In­ teractions.” We would like to thank COST www.cost.eu for the funding that made the cooperation amongst the authors, and thus this article, possible. The contribution of Anne Marie O’Hagan is based upon works supported by the Navigate project (Grant-Aid Agreement No. PBA/IPG/ 17/01), carried out with the support of the Marine Institute and funded under the Marine Research Programme by the Irish Government, and by Science Foundation Ireland (SFI) under Marine and Renewable Energy Ireland (MaREI) Centre (12/RC/2302). The authors also wish to thank the reviewers for their constructive comments on an earlier version of this paper. Appendix A. Supplementary data Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi. org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019.103715. References [1] K. Grip, International marine environmental governance: a review, Ambio 46 (4) (2017) 413–427, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-016-0847-9. [2] L. Mee, P. Cooper, A. Kannen, A.J. Gilbert, T. O’Higgins, Sustaining Europe’s seas as coupled social-ecological systems, Ecol. Soc. 20 (1) (2015) 1, https://doi.org/ 10.5751/ES-07143-200101. [3] K. van Assche, R. Beunen, M. Duineveld, Evolutionary Governance Theory: an Introduction, Springer International Publishing, Cham., New York, USA, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00984-1. [4] R. Beunen, M. Duineveld, K. Van Assche, Evolutionary governance theory and the adaptive capacity of the Dutch planning system, in: G. de Roo, L. Boelens (Eds.), Spatial Planning in A Complex Unpredictable World of Change: towards a Proactive Co-evolutionary Type of Planning within the Eurodelta, InPlanning, Groningen, The Netherlands, 2016, https://doi.org/10.17418/ B.2016.9789491937279. [5] M. Elliott, J.W. Day, R. Ramachandran, E. Wolanski, Synthesis: what is the future for coasts, estuaries, Deltas and other transitional Habitats in 2050 and beyond? in: E. Wolanski, J.W. Day, M. Elliott, R.B. Ramachandran (Eds.), Coasts and Estuaries: the Future Elsevier, 2019, pp. 1–28, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-8140031.00001-0. [6] R. Ramesh, Z. Chen, V. Cummins, J. Day, C. D’Elia, B. Dennison, D.L. Forbes, B. Glaeser, M. Glaser, B. Glavovic, H. Kremer, M. Lange, J.N. Larsen, M. Le Tissier, A. Newton, M. Pelling, R. Purvaja, E. Wolanski, Land–ocean interactions in the coastal zone: Past, present & future, Anthropocene 12 (2015) 85–98, https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ancene.2016.01.005. [7] A. Borja, M. Elliott, P.V.R. Snelgrove, M.C. Austen, T. Berg, S. Cochrane, J. Carstensen, R. Danovaro, S. Greenstreet, A.-S. Heiskanen, C.P. Lynam, M. Mea, A. Newton, J. Patrício, L. Uusitalo, M.C. Uyarra, C. Wilson, Bridging the gap between policy and science in assessing the health status of marine ecosystems, Front. Mar. Sci. 3 (175) (2016), https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2016.00175. [8] M. Visbeck, Ocean science research is key for a sustainable future, Nat. Commun. 9 (1) (2018) 690, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-03158-3. [9] D. Anthoff, R. Nicholls, R.J. Tol, The economic impact of substantial sea-level rise, Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Change 15 (4) (2010) 321–335, https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s11027-010-9220-7. Springer Netherlands. [10] J. Rochette, R. Bill�e, E.J. Molenaar, P. Drankier, L. Chabason, Regional oceans governance mechanisms: a review, Mar. Policy 60 (2015) 9–19, https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.marpol.2015.05.012. � [11] J.G. Alvarez-Romero, V.M. Adams, R.L. Pressey, M. Douglas, A.P. Dale, A.A. Aug� e, D. Ball, J. Childs, M. Digby, R. Dobbs, N. Gobius, D. Hinchley, I. Lancaster, M. Maughan, I. Perdrisat, Integrated cross-realm planning: a decision-makers’ perspective’, Biol. Conserv. 191 (2015) 799–808, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. biocon.2015.07.003. [12] K. Reuter, D. Juhn, H. Grantham, Integrated land-sea management: recommendations for planning, implementation and management, Environ. Conserv. 43 (2) (2016) 181–198, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892916000023.

11

A.M. O’Hagan et al.

Marine Policy xxx (xxxx) xxx [47] Joint Oireachtas Committee on Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Planning and Developing (Amendment) Regulations 2008: Motion. Debate on Tuesday, 2008, 1 July 2008, http://debatesarchive.oireachtas.ie/debates%20auth oring/debateswebpack.nsf/committeetakes/ENJ2008070100003?opendocument. [48] Department of Environment, Community and Local Government (DECLG), A New Planning and Consent Architecture for Development in the Marine Area, 2013 consultation paper, http://www.environ. ie/en/Publications/DevelopmentandHousing/Foreshore/FileDownLoad,32268,en. pdf. (Accessed 1 January 2013). [49] Department of the environment, community and local government. 2013. General scheme of maritime area and foreshore (amendment) Bill 2013. http://www. environ.ie/en/Foreshore/PublicationsDocuments/FileDownLoad,34315,en.pdf. (Accessed 21 October 2013). [50] C. Kelly, G. Ellis, W. Flannery, Exploring transition pathways as an alternative approach for the integrated management of Irish estuaries and coasts, in: C. P. Heidkamp, J. Morrissey (Eds.), Towards Coastal Resilience and Sustainability, Routledge, London, 2018, pp. 57–78, https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429463723. [51] Marine Coordination Group, Harnessing Our Ocean Wealth: an Integrated Marine Plan for Ireland. Review of Progress 2017, Marine Institute, Galway, 2018. htt ps://www.ouroceanwealth.ie/publications. [52] R. van der Brugge, J. Rotmans, D. Loorbach, The transition in Dutch water management, Reg. Environ. Chang. 5 (4) (2005) 164–176, https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10113-004-0086-7. [53] S. Ladi, Europeanization and Environmental Policy Change: A Research Design for the Study of South Europe, Paper presented at the ECPR Joint Sessions, Granada, 14-20 April 2005, 2005. [54] M. Pelling, C. High, J. Dearing, D. Smith, Shadow spaces for social learning: a relational understanding of adaptive capacity to climate change within organisations, Environ. Plan. A: Econ. Space 40 (4) (2008) 867–884, https://doi. org/10.1068/a39148. [55] A. Boyle, D. Freestone (Eds.), International Law and Sustainable Development Past Achievements and Future Challenges, Oxford University Press, Oxford, England, 1999. [56] International Law Association (ILA), in: Committee on International Law and Sustainable Development Seventy-First Report from the Berlin Conference, 2004. http://www.ila-hq.org/index.php/committees (documents).

[37] Waterford County Council, Waterford County Development Plan 2011 – 2017, Chapter 8 Environment and Heritage, Waterford County Council, Waterford, Ireland, 2017, p. 118, http://www.waterfordcouncil.ie/media/plans-strategies/de velopment-plan/county/index.htm. (Accessed 13 July 2018). [38] Brady Shipman Martin, Coastal Zone Management—A Draft Policy for Ireland (Main Report), Government of Ireland, Dublin, 1997. [39] Government of Ireland, River Basin Management Plan for Ireland 2018-2021. Prepared by the Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government, 2017. https://www.housing.gov.ie/water/water-quality/river-basin-management-plan s/river-basin-management-plan-2018-2021. [40] Department of Environment, Community and Local Government/Marine Institute, Ireland’s Marine Strategy Framework Directive Article 19 Report: Initial Assessment, GES and Targets and Indicators, DECLG, Dublin, 2013. https://www. housing.gov.ie/water/water-quality/marine-strategy/article-19-report-initial-asse ssment. [41] Department of Environment, Community, Local Government, Marine Strategy Framework Directive Ireland Programme of Measures: Summary Report, DECLG, Dublin, 2016. https://www.housing.gov.ie/water/water-quality/marine-strate gy/marine-strategy-framework-directive-msfd%20. [42] European Commission, Commission Notice: Commission Guidance Document on Streamlining Environmental Assessments Conducted under Article 2(3) of the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive (Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, as Amended by Directive 2014/52/EU), 2016. OJEU 2016 C273/01, 27.7.2016, https://eur-lex.europa. eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri¼CELEX:52016XC0727(01)&from¼GA. � [43] D� ail Eireann, Private members’ business: vote 35: marine. Tuesday, 9 June 1987, � D� ail Eireann Debates 373 (4) (1987) 1094–1095. https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/ debates/debate/dail/1987-06-09/19/. [44] K. Soma, J. van Tatenhove, J. van Leeuwen, Marine Governance in a European context: regionalization, integration and cooperation for ecosystem-based management, Ocean Coast. Manag. 117 (2015) 4–13, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ocecoaman.2015.03.010. [45] Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (DAFF), Coughlan Welcomes the Establishment of the New Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, DAFF press release, 2007, 14 September 2007, https://www.agriculture.gov. ie/press/pressreleases/2007/september/title,13297,en.html. [46] Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Foreshore and Dumping at Sea (Amendment) Bill 2009: Regulatory Impact Analysis, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Dublin, 2009. November 2009.

12