England's evolving marine and coastal governance framework

Marine Policy 45 (2014) 261–268

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

England's evolving marine and coastal governance framework Stephen Fletcher n, Rebecca Jefferson, Gillian Glegg, Lynda Rodwell, Wendy Dodds Centre for Marine and Coastal Policy Research, Plymouth University, Drake Circus, Plymouth, PL4 8AA, United Kingdom

art ic l e i nf o

a b s t r a c t

Available online 8 October 2013

This paper reviews the principal marine and coastal policy changes in England since 1999. The key changes identified are the establishment of a strategic national marine and coastal policy direction, new marine legislation and institutions, the emergence of a marine planning framework, the consolidation of Integrated Coastal Zone Management approaches to coastal governance, the establishment of a Marine Protected Area network, and the decline of coastal partnerships. The European Union, UK National Government, and devolved administrations are identified as key influences on the governance evolution and their relative contributions are discussed. It is concluded that the English marine and coastal governance context has evolved significantly since 1999 and that the new framework, if implemented successfully, represents a genuine step towards an integrated governance framework for England's coasts and seas. & 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Marine planning Marine conservation ICZM Governance England

1. Introduction This paper identifies and discusses key changes to the marine and coastal governance arrangements in England since 1999. This datum point was selected as it was when the last special issue of Marine Policy focused on the United Kingdom (UK) was published. The papers in the 1999 special issue collectively form a commentary on the marine and coastal governance arrangements in the UK at that time. Of particular note was an article within the special issue authored by Rhoda Ballinger entitled “The evolving organisational framework for Integrated Coastal Management (ICM) in England and Wales”, which presented a review of the main components of the then prevailing coastal (and to a lesser extent marine) governance framework [1]. The article examined factors promoting and constraining coastal integration and articulated a prognosis for integrated coastal and marine governance in England and Wales. It concluded that the 1999 coastal governance framework was unlikely to deliver an integrated approach due to: complex national-level coastal governance arrangements; piecemeal development of legislation; a lack of coordination between land and marine governance; weak horizontal integration at the local level; and limited European influence. However, the author expressed ambitions for local-level partnerships to engender greater integration and improvements in governance amongst coastal practitioners and stakeholders more widely [1]. The English marine and coastal policy landscape has evolved considerably since 1999, as evidenced by the enactment of the Marine and Coastal Access Act (2009), the publication of the UK

n

Corresponding author. Tel.: þ 44 1752 5 8 6177. E-mail address: steve.fl[email protected] (S. Fletcher).

0308-597X/$ - see front matter & 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2013.09.007

Marine Policy Statement and the English national Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) Strategy, the establishment of a marine spatial planning1 system, and an evolving Marine Protected Area (MPA) network. The influence of the European Union on marine and coastal governance in England has strengthened to become a dominant driver, particularly in relation to ICZM, marine spatial planning, marine conservation, and environmental standards, including through the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC), Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC), the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (2008/56/EC), ICZM Recommendation, and European Maritime Spatial Planning Roadmap. The Common Fisheries Policy has remained the dominant influence on fisheries management since 1999 and despite past reforms, its efficacy continues to prompt contentious debate [2,3]. Whilst acknowledging that the views of Ballinger (and other authors) on the status of marine and coastal governance in England have changed since 1999 [4–9], this date remains a useful baseline against which to consider marine and coastal governance evolution in England. The selection of marine and coastal governance changes included in this paper initially reflected topics discussed at the Marine and Coastal Policy Forum held in Plymouth in 2011, but evolved through subsequent discussion between the authors, practitioners, and policy-makers. In the final selection, there is an emphasis towards governance changes that are cross-sectoral rather than those that affect a single sector. There is also a degree of consistency between the governance changes presented in this paper with the key research questions identified for marine and coastal policy in the

1 Marine Spatial Planning is referred to as ‘marine planning’ in the UK and shall be referred to as such in this article.

262

S. Fletcher et al. / Marine Policy 45 (2014) 261–268

UK in a recent paper by Rees et.al. [10]. The key governance changes considered in this paper are:

 The development and implementation of new strategic marine    

and The The The The

coastal governance legislation and policy. emergence of a marine planning framework. consolidation of ICZM. emergence of a Marine Protected Areas (MPA) network. decline of coastal partnerships.

Although this paper is focused on England, discussion of governance evolution at other spatial scales is selectively included, as it is impossible to examine English marine and coastal governance without considering the policy framework and political priorities at the UK, European and global scales. Moreover, the need to take an ecosystembased approach necessitates wider spatial considerations of the shared management and governance challenges facing UK seas. It should also be noted that since 1999, the UK government has gradually devolved a range of powers to new democratic bodies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Each country has subsequently developed a customised approach to marine and coastal governance that reflects the specific circumstances and priorities that apply to its marine and coastal area. This presents additional governance complexity where these jurisdictions meet. It should therefore not be assumed that any observations in this paper related to England can be applied equally to Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland.

2. Marine and coastal governance evolution in England since 1999 2.1. New legislation and strategic policy direction The most notable change in England's marine and coastal governance framework since 1999 has been the enactment of the Marine and Coastal Access Act, 2009. The key drivers for the Act were rooted in the increasing density and diversity of marine activities, including increased demands for recreation, extractive industries and renewable energy generation, alongside new European and internationally driven conservation requirements. These drivers were set within a wider context of government reviews and discourse concerning the need to improve and strengthen marine management in the UK. Legislative development also reflected considerable effort by a range of sectoral stakeholders, particularly environmental non-governmental organisations, to publicly campaign and lobby government for an improved framework to support marine conservation and the rational planning of marine space [11,12]. Particular emphasis was placed on the need to establish an MPA network to deliver marine conservation benefits and the introduction of a system to facilitate the development of the offshore renewable energy industry. More broadly, the Marine and Coastal Access Act responded to recognition that England required an updated marine and coastal governance framework better suited to the challenges of the 21st century and able to facilitate the sustainable development of the UK seas. The aspiration to enhance marine-oriented socio-economic activity accords strongly with the European Integrated Maritime Strategy which identified the development of the ‘Blue Economy’ as a priority for European member states [13]. The Marine and Coastal Access Act, 2009 sets out the statutory basis for a new ecosystem-based plan-led system for marine activities intended to achieve sustainable development in the UK marine area. As part of this new governance agenda the Marine Management Organisation (MMO) was established and instituted changes including the development of a marine planning framework, a streamlined marine licensing system, the requirement for a network of MPAs, the replacement of Sea Fisheries Committees with more environmentally

focused Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authorities (IFCAs), enhanced standards of coastal access, greater provision of and access to marine environmental data and information, and support for coastal and estuary management. The Act has been described unfavourably as a “missed opportunity” with respect to its marine conservation measures [14] and a “hornet's nest” with respect to the role of IFCAs, loopholes in the implementation of marine planning, and a lack of concrete targets for highly protected marine reserves [15]. However, despite these criticisms, its enactment represents an important milestone in the evolution of coastal and marine governance in England as it is the UK's first piece of comprehensive legislation focused on the governance of the marine and coastal environment. Also in 2009, the UK government and the three devolved administrations (Northern Ireland Executive, Welsh Assembly Government and the Scottish Government) adopted a set of high level marine objectives to steer their efforts and ensure consistency in approach towards the UK government vision for “clean, healthy, safe, productive and biologically diverse oceans and seas” [16]. This clear government charter was reinforced and supplemented with greater policy articulation in the form of the UK-wide Marine Policy Statement, which was adopted by all four administrations in March 2011 [16]. The policies within the UK Marine Policy Statement are to be applied through primary legislation including the Marine and Coastal Access Act (2009) for England and Wales, the Marine Act (Scotland) (2010) and the Northern Ireland Draft Marine Bill. Marine planning has emerged as the dominant approach for the governance of marine space and the resources therein. Adoption of the UK Marine Policy Statement places a statutory obligation to develop marine plans, with each devolved administration developing its own marine planning arrangements and delivery mechanisms. Although the approaches of marine planning authorities, such as the Welsh Government and Marine Scotland, may vary to reflect the specificities of their seas and local approaches to marine governance, all marine plans within the UK must be consistent with the Marine Policy Statement. 2.2. Emergence of a marine planning framework Marine planning is a framework that aims to assist “public authorities and stakeholders to coordinate their action and optimise the use of marine space to benefit economic development and the marine environment” [17]. The Marine Policy Statement notes that in the UK, the process of marine planning will “contribute to the achievement and integration of sectoral/activity-specific policy objectives within a framework of economic, social and environmental considerations in order to deliver the high level marine objectives” [16]. Furthermore, marine plans will have an important role in informing marine licensing decisions, in particular generating clarity for developers in relation to where new activities can be located and to ensure consenting decisions contribute towards sustainable development in the marine area and the wider context. The European Union has published guidance and advice on maritime spatial planning, including the European Roadmap for Maritime Spatial Planning [17], presented a summary of its progress towards Marine Spatial Planning [18], and has recently consulted on a joint Maritime Spatial Planning and ICZM Directive. UNESCO has also promoted improved marine governance and published the influential step-by-step guide to Marine Spatial Planning [19]. The current status of marine planning in a number of countries was reported in a special issue of this journal in 2008 [20]. Since then, the ongoing sharing of global experience of marine planning has indicated that a range of models of marine planning exist and that each marine planning system has adapted to the specific needs and context of each country [21–23] and that “one size won't fit all” [24]. Many of the existing marine plans address intensively-used but relatively small geographic areas (e.g. Belgium [25]) or large areas

S. Fletcher et al. / Marine Policy 45 (2014) 261–268

focussing on securing objectives for a single sector (e.g. the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park [26]). The UK government's approach to marine planning is more holistic, integrating environmental, social and economic concerns for all sectoral interests to achieve the sustainable development of UK seas [27]. In England, marine plans will be produced at a regional scale, with a total of 11 marine plan areas identified by the MMO. These are defined as being either inshore (0–12 nm) or offshore (from 12 nm to the limit of the Exclusive Economic Zone), with full coverage of England's marine area expected to be achieved by 2021. The development of marine plans in England is the responsibility of the MMO as the leading delivery body in the marine environment. The national roll-out of marine planning has been informed by a number of UKbased pilot studies. The first was the Irish Sea Pilot Project which developed a spatial database of the marine uses of the Irish Sea and identified the need for, and potential benefits available from, marine planning [28]. Subsequent pilot studies have taken place in the Solent and Dorset areas of the South of England to evaluate the process of marine planning, including specific data needs, data management, data presentation methods, and stakeholder engagement methods [24,29–33]. Other local pilots have also been conducted to test various aspects of management and planning, such as the Scottish Sustainable Marine Environment Initiative that undertook four pilots. Findings from these pilots highlight the importance of an inclusive and well-led process, based on sound evidence, and that is well resourced for both participants and process organisers [32,34]. The first marine plans to be prepared are those covering the East inshore and East offshore areas, which are located off the Eastern English coast between Flamborough Head in the East Riding of Yorkshire and Felixstowe in Suffolk. The decision by the MMO to plan these areas first was made using seven decisionmaking streams and public consultation, to determine which areas would provide the greatest contribution to the achievement of sustainable development within the UK marine area. The East inshore and offshore plan areas represent a combined area of 58,700 km2. This area incorporates significant concentrations of marine activity, including the majority of England’s oil and gas production and proposed renewable energy generation capacity (particularly offshore wind), and large areas designated for their conservation value. Although the inshore and offshore plan areas are separate, they are being developed through a single process since the MMO expects the same stakeholder groups to be engaged in each plan. As the boundary of the East offshore plan area has a shared boundary with the marine areas of the Netherlands, France and Belgium, there is also an international dimension to these plans which places a legal requirement to consult with these jurisdictions. The production of the first marine plans is likely to be the most challenging as the evidence base is being constructed for the first time, stakeholders and statutory consultees are unfamiliar with the process including its constraints and its implications, and it is possible that there will be variable levels of support for the resultant plan. The lessons that emerge from the first application of the statutory marine planning processes will be important to capture in order that the marine planning process itself can adapt. Monitoring of, and critical reflection upon, marine spatial plans has a record of being rather weak [23], therefore it is important that the MMO undertake this rigorously and objectively. The production of each marine plan will be strongly driven by the need to meet the objectives expressed in the Marine Policy Statement but these will need to be balanced against the needs of local communities within the marine plan areas. The mechanisms for public involvement are set out in a Statement of Public Participation, which must be agreed by the Secretary of State for the Environment. The key purpose of public involvement is to understand the aspirations of the local community so that the

263

marine plans can deliver meaningful local and regional benefits and generate local buy-in to support enforcement of the plans. However, the extent to which the public will engage in marine planning is untested and a risk, particularly as research suggests that the public have a poor understanding of the science and management of the marine environment in the UK and elsewhere [35–37]. It will be a major challenge to ensure that marine plans mesh with the existing terrestrial planning framework [38]. Land-sea integration was identified as a key challenge by Ballinger in 1999 [1], was a focus for the attention of NGOs campaigning for improved coastal governance in the early 1990s [39–41], and a priority identified by the House of Commons Environment Select Committee in 1992 [42]. The operating guidelines of the MMO require that each marine plan should be compatible with the policies within terrestrial Local Development Frameworks; however it is not a reciprocal requirement upon Local Development Frameworks to be compatible with marine plans. The onus is therefore on the MMO to identify the relevant marine policies within each Local Development Framework and make links with terrestrial planning authorities to ensure an integrated approach exists across the land-sea boundary. The introduction of marine planning is the single most significant change to England's marine governance arrangements since 1999 as it provides a decision-making framework in line with the government's vision for UK seas that can be used to deliver any desired level of development or protection, within legal limits, of England's marine area. The effectiveness of marine planning at balancing the conservation and development pressures on the marine environment presents a fundamental test for the new system, as does its capacity to determine compatible co-location combinations, to connect land and sea planning effectively, to build sufficient capacity amongst stakeholders and marine planning professionals, and more broadly, to weigh the needs of a diffuse community of local stakeholders against national priorities.

2.3. Consolidation of ICZM In 1993, the UK government rejected a House of Commons Environment Select Committee recommendation to establish a statutory framework for ICZM in the UK [43]. From that point forward, ICZM progressed as a non-statutory activity, largely focused on voluntary multi-sector partnerships, with modest governmental input. The key initiator of ICZM at the national level in England was the European Commission when, in 2002, it published the European Recommendation on ICZM [44]. The European ICZM Recommendation is non-statutory advice from the European Commission to Member States regarding the implementation of ICZM. The Recommendation defined eight principles of ICZM (Table 1) and provided the first formal guidance to Member States on the desirable characteristics of ICZM. The Recommendation also set out a two-stage process that Member States should follow to deliver a national ICZM framework. This involved a stocktake of all relevant coastal governance measures followed by the formulation of a national-level ICZM strategy. In the UK, a separate ICZM strategy was developed for each devolved administration (Table 2). The English ICZM strategy focused on partnership working to support ICZM [45], however, the extent to which it has been actively pursued is limited, particularly as marine planning has emerged as a powerful competing priority. Similarly in Wales, the creation of a strategy in 2007, ‘Making the Most of Wales Coast’, despite containing a series of actions and commitments, such as to review progress and refresh the strategy in 2010, the strategy and momentum surrounding ICZM has become moribund and eclipsed by the legislative and policy developments associated with the Marine and Coastal Access Act, 2009. Despite this weakness and other criticisms [46], the ICZM Recommendation nevertheless represented

264

S. Fletcher et al. / Marine Policy 45 (2014) 261–268

Table 1 Principles of ICZM [44]. In formulating national strategies and measures based on these strategies, member states should follow the principles of integrated coastal zone management: (a) a broad overall perspective (thematic and geographic) which will take into account the interdependence and disparity of natural systems and human activities with an impact on coastal areas; (b) a long-term perspective which will take into account the precautionary principle and the needs of present and future generations; (c) adaptive management during a gradual process which will facilitate adjustment as problems and knowledge develop. This implies the need for a sound scientific basis concerning the evolution of the coastal zone; (d) local specificity and the great diversity of European coastal zones, which will make it possible to respond to their practical needs with specific solutions and flexible measures; (e) working with natural processes and respecting the carrying capacity of ecosystems, which will make human activities more environmentally friendly, socially responsible and economically sound in the long run; (f) involving all the parties concerned(economic and social partners, the organisations representing coastal zone residents, non-governmental organisations and the business sector) in the management process, for example by means of agreements and based on shared responsibility; (g) support and involvement of relevant administrative bodies at national, regional and local level between which appropriate links should be established or maintained with the aim of improved coordination of the various existing policies. Partnership with and between regional and local authorities should apply when appropriate; (h) use of a combination of instruments designed to facilitate coherence between sectoral policy objectives and coherence between planning and management.

Table 2 ICZM strategies in the UK. Country

Date

Author

Title

England Northern Ireland Scotland Wales

2009 2006 2005 2007

Defra Northern Ireland Assembly Scottish Executive The Welsh Assembly Government

A strategy for promoting an integrated approach to the management of coastal areas in England An integrated coastal zone management strategy for Northern Ireland 2006–2026 Seas the opportunity: a strategy for the long term sustainability of Scotland's coasts and seas Making the most of Wales' coast.

a significant evolution in political support, if not practical action, for ICZM in England [47]. A formal evaluation of the European ICZM Recommendation in 2009 concluded that “the substance of the Recommendation, its approach and principles, remained valid” but that “the European Union policy context has significantly changed” [48]. The report identified differential levels of implementation of the ICZM Recommendation between Member States and mixed success of national ICZM strategies, findings consistent with recent research [5,49]. The decision of the European Commission to consider maritime spatial planning2 as a policy approach in the mid-2000s has also clouded the ICZM agenda, with the attention of government and statutory agencies focused on the development of the formal marine planning system rather than non-statutory ICZM. The shortfall in ICZM implementation across Europe caused the European Commission to comment that “in order to be effective and maintained in the long-term, ICZM should be based on a clearly focused and visible instrument” [48]. A consultation was initiated in 2010 to consider the options for strengthening ICZM in Europe within the context of the emergence of marine planning. The consultation found that respondents were in favour of a legally binding but flexible joint approach to ICZM and marine planning [47] which, it appears likely, will take the form of a framework directive. Regardless of the specific approach to be taken, the consolidation of ICZM as a policy arena in the European Union and its Member States is clear. It also appears certain that European policy will remain a key influence on ICZM policy and practice in England for the foreseeable future. 2.4. Emergence of a national MPA network The Marine and Coastal Access Act, 2009, Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC), the OSPAR Convention, and the Convention of Biological Diversity all require the development of an ecologically coherent network of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). Furthermore, pressure from the European Commission to designate a full 2

The European Commission chooses to use the phrase ‘Maritime Spatial Planning’ to refer to ‘Marine Spatial Planning’.

Natural 20003 network of protected areas, including at sea, supported the need for an MPA network. There is evidence that, in general, MPA networks offer greater benefits than single MPAs and that MPA networks have successfully been used for both fisheries management and to increase social and environmental welfare [50–54]. In the UK, the network will consist of Special Areas of Conservation (designated under the Habitats Directive, 1992), Special Protection Areas (designated under the Birds Directive, 1979), Sites of Special Scientific Interest (designated under the Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981), Ramsar sites (designated under the Ramsar Convention, 1971), and new Marine Conservation Zone (MCZ) designations (designated under the Marine and Coastal Access Act, 2009) [55]. The Marine and Coastal Access Act, 2009 defined the aim of MCZs as “conserving areas of our seas to protect rare, threatened and representative habitats and species and help to ensure long-term sustainability of marine resources” [56]. MCZs differ from existing MPA designations as their identification has, where possible, taken into account social and economic uses of the marine environment. In English inshore and offshore waters and parts the Welsh offshore area, stakeholders were responsible for recommending to Government the location and size of MCZs. The process to achieve this was delivered by four Regional MCZ Projects set up by the UK statutory nature conservation agencies, Natural England and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) and overseen by the national MCZ Project [57]. Based on Ecological Network Guidance which defined targets for the inclusion of specific marine features within MCZs, each Regional Project delivered a stakeholder orientated process to identify recommended MCZ sites that met a range of ecological criteria [58]. In total 127 recommended MCZ sites were submitted to Government in September 2011. In December 2012, subject to a public consultation process, an initial tranche of 31 recommended MCZs were identified by Defra as “good candidates for designation” in 2013 [59].

3 The Natura 2000 Network is the collective term to describe protected areas designated under the Birds Directive (Special Protection Areas) and the Habitats Directive (Special Areas of Conservation).

S. Fletcher et al. / Marine Policy 45 (2014) 261–268

Regarding the MCZ process itself, its success is as yet unproven. There are uncertainties concerning the representativeness of stakeholder involvement, the extent to which the wider stakeholder community was truly engaged with the MCZ process, and the manner in which scientific evidence was combined with stakeholder opinion to identify the recommended MCZ sites. For example, were tensions between ensuring ecological coherence of the MCZ network and local level user demands balanced adequately? Each of these uncertainties has the potential to undermine the credibility and effectiveness of the MCZs designated. The commitment to stakeholder involvement in the development of the MCZ network was unprecedented, but the subsequent closure of the four Regional Projects, raises challenging questions. First, there is the risk that the capacity developed within the Regional Projects and the identity they developed as an information source and communication body will be lost. Second, there is uncertainty over how (or if) stakeholder engagement in individual MCZs and at the regional scale will be maintained now that the Regional Projects have closed. Third, if recommended sites are not adopted, there is a risk that the stakeholders who contributed significant time and effort to the MCZ process will be alienated from future efforts to seek their engagement in marine governance. MCZs will be a permanent feature of the marine landscape and will have ecological and socio-economic implications for the communities that use them. Therefore MCZs are a long term commitment. Stakeholders have been heavily involved in the MCZ recommendation phase but it is as yet unknown how they will be engaged in understanding and responding to future changes and in the ongoing governance of the sites. Future stakeholder input to the MCZ network is important, as community and stakeholder support is widely cited as an important element in the success of any individual MPA, MPA network and the recovery of marine ecosystems [60,61]. A notable element of the emergent MPA network in England is the emphasis placed on incorporating economic considerations into marine conservation policy through ecosystem service valuation. In broad terms, the consideration of economic, social and ecological values in decision making by identifying ecosystem services has become a fundamental component of marine conservation planning and policy in the UK [16,62]. Marine and coastal ecosystems provide essential ecosystem services which support and maintain human well-being, such as climate regulation and food provision. They also provide us with services that support economic activity such as leisure and recreation. Research has been undertaken to identify the ecosystem services provided by the marine habitats and species likely to be protected by MCZs [55], the likely impacts on the ecosystem services provided by MCZs subjected to different management measures [63] and in more general terms the economic value of the UK's marine environment [64,65]. There is also a growing research literature on the economic considerations of MPAs [54,66] and the social and spiritual value of marine and coastal protected areas [67,68]. A key challenge is identifying methods of valuing ecosystem services in both financial and non-financial terms that produce results useful to policy makers. Some ecosystem services can be valued to an extent through market activity, such as leisure and recreation [69] and food provision. Services more easily valued often result from the short-term implications of environmental protection, such as tourism [70]. However other services such as climate regulation and aesthetic benefits are more problematic to value with any degree of accuracy. Significant challenges exist in identifying a consistent and coherent classification of marine ecosystem services, identifying what ecosystem services are provided by the marine environment, how ecosystem services can be valued, how those values can be communicated to the public to encourage support for improved marine conservation, and then successfully integrating such considerations into longer term MPA and marine planning policy.

265

2.5. The decline of coastal partnerships Throughout England, coastal partnerships (which seek to deliver ICZM at the local or regional scale through voluntary partnership working between coastal and marine stakeholders) remain in existence [4,71,72], however the hope placed in them by Ballinger [1] and many others that they would deliver coastal integration has not been achieved. Their voluntary status, limited geographical coverage, and informal role in the overall coastal governance framework, has required each partnership to develop a specific niche in its local governance context to demonstrate its value, with mixed success. Partnerships are typically funded by voluntary contributions from local stakeholders to employ an officer who undertakes a range of activities to support co-ordinated coastal and estuarine governance. However, financial constraints in recent years have forced stakeholders within some partnerships to reduce or withdraw their funding contributions, which has led to the closure of some partnerships, for others to seek mission-peripheral funding simply to survive [4,5], and for others to reduce their activities to those that are affordable. To stabilise their finances, some partnerships have instituted a business focused approach in which charges are levied in return for the services offered by the partnership [73]. However, there are concerns over the representativeness and accountability of coastal partnerships, which compounds their financial weakness [74,75]. During the development of the Marine and Coastal Access Act, 2009, the Coastal Partnerships Working Group4 (CPWG) was formed to provide an umbrella organisation to support coastal partnerships and to provide a single voice to lobby government for a formal role for coastal partnerships in the delivery of ICZM and marine planning within England. This was reasonably successful with respect to ICZM as coastal partnerships were recognised as a key delivery partner in the ICZM strategy for England [45]. Similarly, partnerships have been identified as useful to the delivery of marine planning in England, particularly as a mechanism to foster stakeholder involvement and information sharing [76]. Initial evidence from the marine planning pilot sites in the South of England suggests that where partnerships are long established and trusted, they do have a potentially useful communication, facilitation and leadership role to play in the delivery of marine planning [30–32]. However, no formal role for coastal partnerships was identified in the Marine and Coastal Access Act,2009, therefore the ambiguous position of coastal partnerships in the marine and coastal governance framework in England remains. In contrast, the Marine (Scotland) Act, 2010 gave the Scottish Government the power to create Scottish Marine Regions and to delegate planning powers to the regional level, with coastal partnerships being considered for this role.

3. Discussion: key influences 3.1. Global The principal influences acting upon England's marine and coastal governance framework since 1999 have originated at the European and national scale. However, global drivers continue to shape England's coastal and marine governance framework through setting the guiding context. An example is the influence of the Convention on Biological Diversity [77] which forms a strong rationale for the development of a network of MPAs in the UK (mediated through commitments under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive and OSPAR Convention). Similarly, global studies such as The Economics of Ecology and Biodiversity (TEEB) project [78] 4 The CPWG has evolved into the Coastal Partnership Network which acts as a hub for communication between coastal partnerships and a window to showcase the services that coastal partnerships can offer.

266

S. Fletcher et al. / Marine Policy 45 (2014) 261–268

have influenced the UK government to consider ecosystem services and economic and non-economic ecosystem valuation techniques when planning MPAs and MPA networks. The role of environmental NGOs should also not be underestimated, particularly their role in lobbying and working with governments and international (and national) agencies to halt marine biodiversity loss through improved marine and coastal governance. The precise level of global influence on English coastal and marine governance is difficult to determine definitively, as there are indirect links between global rhetoric and national policy. Therefore the remainder of the discussion will focus on the more tangible influences felt on the English marine and coastal governance framework from European and national sources since 1999.

3.2. European In 1999, Ballinger argued that European influence on coastal and marine governance in the UK was limited, due to “the piecemeal development of European Commission environmental policy and legislation” [1]. In contrast, it is clear that the European Commission is now a key influence on marine and coastal governance change in England. In particular, the Marine Strategy Framework Directive is having a notable influence on marine and coastal policy in the UK. This directive poses a significant opportunity for Member States to extend environmental protection to the whole sea area (not just to protected areas or species) which is a necessity to reverse declining biodiversity as documented in the last UK government assessment of UK seas [79]. Early indications suggest that the Marine and Coastal Access Act, 2009 will be the primary delivery mechanism, with associated policy being shaped by the need to achieve Good Environment Status. The European Commission is leading a progressive ‘blue agenda’ focused on developing frameworks for marine planning, ICZM, setting and monitoring marine environmental standards, and the development of the blue economy. As coastal and marine matters are strategic considerations, policy initiatives at the European scale are considered appropriate to deliver the blue agenda. At present, European marine planning and ICZM policy is not legally binding, however, the future shape of this policy arena will be controlled to some extent by the outcome of the current policy review. A potential result of the review is a more formal system of ICZM and marine planning which is likely to deliver greater panEuropean consistency in approach and outcomes. European aspirations for improved marine environmental standards are already in place through the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, Water Framework Directive, and the Common Fisheries Policy, which fundamentally influence the governance of activities in the English coastal and marine environment. The various influences exerted by the European Commission are not independent of each other, but are mutually reinforcing in most cases, which is in direct contrast to observations made in 1999 [1]. For example, the need for regional marine strategies under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive implies a need for rational marine governance or planning, which is defined in the European Maritime Spatial Planning Roadmap. Similarly, the requirements within the Habitats Directive imply a need for a system of coastal governance that can address the competing claims for coastal space. This is supported by the ICZM Recommendation and English ICZM strategy. The European policy context appears to promote a consistent message of integrated coastal and marine governance within a framework that supports regionally tailored approaches. The European policy agenda for the marine environment has therefore created a suite of governance mechanisms which have fundamentally re-shaped the English coastal and marine governance framework.

3.3. National In 1999, Ballinger noted that “the UK's arrangements for national governance of coastal affairs are complex” which was blamed upon “the piecemeal development of sectoral legislation” [1]. Although considerable sectoral legislation remains, the marine and coastal governance framework in England has evolved significantly since 1999 and has become considerably more streamlined and reduced in complexity. The most significant driver of change has been the enactment of legislation specifically designed to deliver a reformed approach to marine and coastal governance in the devolved administrations. This has already delivered a new organisation tasked with undertaking key marine governance operations (the MMO), an entirely new framework for the spatial governance of marine activities (marine planning), an improved system of marine licensing, and the establishment of a national MPA network, amongst other things. The marine planning framework in particular represents a potentially major step towards a holistic and integrated marine and coastal governance framework for England. The Marine Policy Statement provides the vital political direction for the revised governance framework. Significantly, this is the first time the UK has had a national coastal or marine policy, and this is itself therefore a major change since 1999. In practice, the High Level Marine Objectives within the Marine Policy Statement will drive the content of marine and coastal governance decisions for the foreseeable future, but these may be difficult to translate into meaningful sub-national or local policy. This may be compounded by the MMO being a new institution with a significant remit but limited resources, operating in a climate of reduced government budgets. The new institutional and regulatory landscape itself may present a challenge until new systems and regimes are fully embedded and refined. More broadly, there is uncertainty over how aspects of the new marine and coastal governance framework in the UK will perform. For example, in England (and much of the rest of Europe), marine planning is largely untested therefore there is a need to reflect carefully at each stage of its implementation to consider its effectiveness, including implications for stakeholders and the marine environment. Obtaining ongoing stakeholder engagement with marine planning is likely to present a significant difficulty, particularly public input, as the marine environment, especially beyond coastal waters, is a low priority for many people. The implementation of the MCZ network may also present problems once sites are formally designated, management measures initiated, and impacts upon stakeholders and sectors, particularly of an economic nature, experienced. Some longstanding problems also remain, such as how to effectively integrate marine and terrestrial governance, how to engage stakeholders in a way that assures effective representation, the extent to which enforcement will be resourced, and how the success of marine and coastal governance is monitored. Many of these questions have also been identified as UK marine and coastal policy research priorities by Rees et.al. [10]. The observation in 1999 that local level “community based coastal initiatives provide a promising framework for ICM development” has proven largely unfounded and the “weak horizontal integration” at the local level observed in 1999 largely remains [1]. Without formally defined responsibilities, many coastal partnerships have struggled to define a credible role, yet their contribution to the ICZM gap established in the early 1990s when the UK Government rejected the recommendation for a statutory system of ICZM should not be underestimated. The role of coastal partnerships in the current marine and coastal governance framework is uncertain and more partnerships risk closure if attention and funding moves towards the statutory marine planning process. It may be that with the advent of marine planning at the national level, the role played by coastal partnerships since the

S. Fletcher et al. / Marine Policy 45 (2014) 261–268

1990s is no longer necessary and their significance will continue to decline. Experience from the South of England suggests that coastal partnerships can play a facilitative role in marine planning and the MMO appears willing to consider how partnerships could play that role. It may also be, that given their broad membership, coastal partnerships could provide the missing governance link between terrestrial and marine planning systems that was described as “a major shortcoming” in 1999 [1] and which remains a key challenge today. In summary, it is clear that the drivers of change identified in this paper are focused upon encouraging more integrated approaches to marine and coastal governance in England. This trend is consistent with global and European policy drivers which are explicitly seeking to deliver a sustainable combination of environmental protection, ‘blue’ economic growth and social well-being. The European influence appears dominant in re-casting the main elements of the governance structure, in particular with respect to marine planning, the establishment of an MPA network, and the ongoing ICZM effort. However, the detailed definition of these structures has been tailored to the English context through national-level measures, primarily the Marine and Coastal Access Act, 2009. Although the implementation of the new marine and coastal governance framework in England presents significant challenges, it is important to recognise that the challenges now exist within a more cohesive governance and policy context than existed in 1999. As such, the challenges are likely to be more tractable than in the past.

4. Conclusion The UK marine and coastal policy framework has evolved significantly from that described in 1999 [1] and has entered a new era. Today, the framework has clear political drivers, articulated within the Marine Policy Statement which is delivered through new marine legislation and institutions. Marine planning and ICZM are now mainstream government policy ideas which was not the case in 1999. The driving force behind these changes has largely, although not exclusively, been from Europe, but national influence has also been significant in tailoring those approaches. In the years since 1999, the UK marine and coastal governance framework has radically evolved, from a system that “fails to deliver anything approaching a systemsbased approach” [1] to the current approach which, if implemented successfully, represents a genuine attempt to provide an integrated governance framework for England's coasts and seas. References [1] Ballinger RC. The evolving organisational framework for Integrated Coastal Management in England and Wales. Marine Policy 1999;23:501–23. [2] European Commission. Green Paper on Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy. Brussels; 2009. [3] Khalilian S, Froese R, Proelss A, Requate T. Designed for failure: a critique of the common fisheries policy of the European union. Marine Policy 2010;34:1178–82. [4] Stojanovic TA, Ballinger RC. Integrated coastal management: a comparative analysis of four UK initiatives. Applied Geography 2009;29:49–62. [5] Ballinger R, Cummins V, Smith H. Implementing ICZM: the experience of Northwest Europe. Ocean and Coastal Management 2010;53:725–6. [6] Ballinger R, Stojanovic T. Policy development and the estuary environment: a severn estuary case study. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2010;61:132–45. [7] Fletcher S, Potts J. Coastal and marine governance in the United Kingdom editorial. Geographical Journal 2008;174:295–8. [8] Milligan J, O’riordan T. Governance for sustainable coastal futures. Coastal Management 2007;35:499–509. [9] Ballinger RC. Coastal management in the UK: evolution and devolution. In: Smith H, Potts JS, editors. Managing Britain's Marine and Coastal Environment: Towards a Sustainable Future. Abingdon: Routledge and National Maritime Museum; 2005. p. 186–216. [10] Rees S, Fletcher S, Glegg G, Marshall C, Rodwell L, Jefferson R, et al. Priority questions to shape the marine and coastal policy research agenda in the United Kingdom. Marine Policy 2013;38:531–7.

267

[11] Sellers D. Mobilising the Marine Act. Implementing marine spatial planning in the UK: lessons learned from international case studies. WWF-UK in conjunction with the Marine Conservation Society. RSPB and The Wildlife Trusts; 2010. [12] Calado H, Bentz J, Ng K, Zivian A, Schaefer N, Pringle C, et al. NGO involvement in marine spatial planning: a way forward? Marine Policy 2012;36:382–8. [13] European Commission. An integrated maritime policy for the European Union. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Brussels; 2007. [14] Gauci GM. The U.K. marine and coastal access bill — a missed opportunity to enhance protection from marine environmental pollution? Marine Policy 2010;34:498–505. [15] Appleby T, Jones PJS. The marine and coastal access act — a hornets' nest. Marine Policy 2012;36:73–7. [16] HM Government. Marine Policy statement. London: HMSO; 2011. [17] Commission of the European Communities. Communication from the commission – roadmap for maritime spatial planning: achieving common principles in the EU. Brussels; 2008. [18] European Commission. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Maritime spatial planning in the EU – achievements and future development. Brussels; 2010. [19] Dahl R, Ehler C, Douvere F. Marine spatial planning, a step-by-step approach toward ecosystem-based management. IOC Manuals and Guides 2009. [20] Ehler C. Conclusions: benefits, lessons learned, and future challenges of marine spatial planning. Marine Policy 2008;32:840–3. [21] Suárez de Vivero JL, Rodríguez Mateos JC, Florido del Corral D. Geopolitical factors of maritime policies and marine spatial planning: state, regions, and geographical planning scope. Marine Policy 2009;33:624–34. [22] Flannery W, Ó Cinnéide M. Marine spatial planning from the perspective of a small seaside community in Ireland. Marine Policy 2008;32:980–7. [23] Carneiro G. Evaluation of marine spatial planning. Marine Policy 2013;37:214–29. [24] Dorset Coast Forum. Why one size won’t fit all – marine spatial planning in Belgium and Dorset: a summary of key messages from the C-SCOPE project. Dorset Coast Forum: Dorchester; 2012. [25] Douvere F, Maes F, Vanhulle A, Schrijvers J. The role of marine spatial planning in sea use management: The Belgian case. Marine Policy 2007;31:182–91. [26] Dobbs K, Day J, Skeat H, Baldwin J, Molloy F, McCook L, et al. Developing a long-term outlook for the Great Barrier Reef, Australia: A framework for adaptive management reporting underpinning an ecosystem-based management approach. Marine Policy 2011;35:233–40. [27] Gilliland PM, Laffoley D. Key elements and steps in the process of developing ecosystem-based marine spatial planning. Marine Policy 2008;32:787–96. [28] ABP Marine Environmental Research Ltd. Marine Spatial Planning Pilot Consortium. Marine spatial planning pilot: final report. Southampton; 2006. [29] Solent Forum. Towards marine planning in the solent final project report: evaluation and recommendations. Solent Forum, Winchester; 2011. [30] Maguire B, Potts J, Fletcher S. Who when, and how? Marine planning stakeholder involvement preferences — a case study of the Solent, United Kingdom Marine Pollution Bulletin 2011;62:2288–92. [31] Maguire B, Potts J, Fletcher S. The role of stakeholders in the marine planning process — stakeholder analysis within the Solent, United Kingdom. Marine Policy 2012;36:246–57. [32] Fletcher S, McKinley E, Buchan K, Smith N, McHugh K. Effective practice in marine spatial planning: a participatory evaluation of experience in Southern England. Marine Policy 2013;39:341–8. [33] C-SCOPE. Dorset C-SCOPE: combining sea and coastal planning in Europe briefing note. Dorchester; 2008. [34] Marine Scotland. Scottish sustainable marine environment initiative: project evaluation; 2010. [35] Rose C, Dade P, Scott J. Qualitative and quantitative research into public engagement with the undersea landscape in England. Natural England 2008. [36] Natural England. Marine protected areas, qualitative value mode research. Natural England; 2008. [37] Jefferson RL, Bailey I, d′A. Laffoley D, Richards JP, Attrill MJ. Public perceptions of the UK marine environment. Marine Policy 2014;43:327–37. [38] Smith HD, Maes F, Stojanovic TA, Ballinger RC. The integration of land and marine spatial planning. Journal of Coastal Conservation 2011;15:291–303. [39] Gubbay SA. Future for the coast? Proposals for a UK Coastal Zone Management Plan: a report for the World Wide Fund for nature from the Marine Conservation Society. Marine Conservation Society; 1990. [40] Gubbay S. A definition of the ‘coastal zone’ for UK coastal zone Management Programmes. Marine Conservation Society discussion paper CZM/1; 1991. [41] Gubbay S. How far have we come? — The need for a new agenda. In: Proceedings of the national coasts and estuaries advisory group conference, CZM: the new agenda; 1996. [42] House of Commons Environment Committee. Coastal ZoneProtection and Planning (Second Report). London: HMSO 1992. [43] Department of the Environment. Government’s response to the second report from the House of Commons Select Committee on the environment: Coastal Zone Planning and Management. London: HMSO; 1992. [44] European Commission. Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2002, concerning the implementation of Integrated Coastal Zone Management in Europe; 2002. [45] Defra. A strategy for promoting an integrated approach to the management of coastal areas in England. London: Defra; 2009.

268

S. Fletcher et al. / Marine Policy 45 (2014) 261–268

[46] McKenna J, Cooper A, O’Hagan AM. Managing by principle: a critical analysis of the European principles of integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM). Marine Policy 2008;32:941–55. [47] European Commission. Public consultation “possible way forward for maritime spatial planning and integrated coastal zone management in the EU” ICZM component – provisional results of the web-based consultation 23/3 – 20/5 2011. Brussels: European Commission; 2011. [48] European Commission. Report from the working group follow-up to the EU ICZM Recommendation European Commission. Brussels: European Commission; 2009. [49] O’Hagan AM, Ballinger RC. Implementing integrated coastal zone management in a national policy vacuum: local case studies from Ireland. Ocean and Coastal Management 2010;53:750–9. [50] Pitchford JW, Codling EA, Psarra D. Uncertainty and sustainability in fisheries and the benefit of marine protected areas. Ecological Modelling 2007;207: 286–92. [51] Halpern BS, Warner RR. Marine reserves have rapid and lasting effects. Ecology Letters 2002;5:361–6. [52] Hall S, Mainprize B. Towards ecosystem-based fisheries management. Fish and Fisheries 2004;5:1–20. [53] Pomeroy RS, Watson LM, Parks JE, Cid GA. How is your MPA doing? A methodology for evaluating the management effectiveness of marine protected areas Ocean and Coastal Management 2005;48:485–502. [54] Fletcher S, Rees S, Gall S Jackson E, Friedrich L, Rodwell R. Securing the benefits of the Marine Conservation Zone Network. A report to The Wildlife Trusts. Centre for Marine and Coastal Policy Research. Plymouth University; 2012. [55] Fletcher S, Saunders J, Herbert R. Description of the ecosystem services provided by broad-scale habitats and features of conservation importance that are likely to be protected by marine protected areas in the marine conservation zone project area. Natural England 2011. [56] The Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Defra, Natural England. Marine Conservation Zone Project. Peterborough, UK. London; 2010. [57] The Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Defra, Natural England. The Marine Conservation Zone Project: Project Delivery Guidance on the process to select Marine Conservation Zones. Sheffield and Peterborough, UK: Natural England and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee; 2010. [58] Ashworth J, Stoker B. Delivering the marine protected area network. Ecological Network Guidance to regional stakeholder groups on identifying Marine Conservation Zones. Natural England and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee; 2010. [59] Defra. Marine conservation zones: consultation on proposals for designation in 2013. London; 2012. [60] IUCN-WCPA. Establishing Marine Protected Area Networks – making it happen. Washington, D.C. IUCN-WCPA. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Nature Conservancy; 2008.

[61] Lotze HK, Coll M, Magera AM, Ward-Paige C, Airoldi L. Recovery of marine animal populations and ecosystems. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 2011;26:595–605. [62] OSPAR Commission. OSPAR Recommendation 2003/3 on a Network of Marine Protected Areas. OSPAR Commission; 2003. [63] Herbert R, Saunders J, Fletcher S. The impacts of marine protected areas on the provision of marine ecosystem services in UK waters. Joint Nature Conservation Committee 2011. [64] Saunders J, Tinch R. Valuing the marine estate and UK seas: an ecosystem services framework. The Crown Estate 2010. [65] Austen MC, Malcolm SJ. Marine The UK national ecosystem assessment technical report. UNEP-WCMC. UNEP-WCMC; 2011. [66] Rees SE, Attrill MJ, Austen MC, Mangi SC, Rodwell LD. A thematic cost-benefit analysis of a marine protected area. Journal of Environmental Management 2013;114:476–85. [67] Pike K, Johnson D, Fletcher S, Wright P, Lee B. Social value of marine and coastal protected areas in England and Wales. Coastal Management 2010;38:412–32. [68] Pike K, Johnson D, Fletcher S, Wright P. Seeking spirituality: respecting the social value of coastal recreation resources in England and Wales. Journal of Coastal Research 2011;61:194–204. [69] Rees SE, Rodwell LD, Attrill MJ, Austen MC, Mangi SC. The value of marine biodiversity to the leisure and recreation industry and its application to marine spatial planning. Marine Policy 2010;34:868–75. [70] Mangi SC, Austen MC. Perceptions of stakeholders towards objectives and zoning of marine-protected areas in southern Europe. Journal for Nature Conservation 2008;16:271–80. [71] Stojanovic TIM, Barker N. Improving governance through local coastal partnerships in the UK. Geographical Journal 2008;174:344–60. [72] Shipman B, Stojanovic T. Facts, fictions, and failures of integrated coastal zone management in Europe. Coastal Management 2007;35:375–98. [73] Hewett T, Fletcher S. The emergence of service-based integrated coastal management in the UK. Area 2010;42:313–27. [74] Fletcher S. Stakeholder representation and the democratic basis of coastal partnerships in the UK. Marine Policy 2003;27:229–40. [75] McKenna J, Cooper A. Sacred cows in coastal management: the need for a ‘cheap and transitory’ model. Area 2006;38:421–31. [76] Stojanovic T, Green DR, Lymbery G. Approaches to knowledge sharing and capacity building: the role of local information systems in marine and coastal management. Ocean and Coastal Management 2010;53:805–15. [77] United Nations. Convention on biological diversity. United Nations; 1992. [78] Sukhdev P, Wittmer H, Schröter-Schlaack C, Nesshöver C, Bishop J, Brink P., et al. The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: mainstreaming the economics of nature: a synthesis of the approach, conclusions and recommendations of TEEB: TEEB; 2010. [79] U.K. Marine Monitoring and Assessment Strategy Community. Charting progress 2. Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs; 2010.