The Hamble Estuary Partnership and Solent Forum: Duplication or integration?

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Marine Policy 31 (2007) 619–627 www.elsevier.com/locate/marpol

The Hamble Estuary Partnership and Solent Forum: Duplication or integration? Stephen Fletchera,, Emma Beagleyb, Tracey Hewettc, Alan Williamsd, Karen McHughe a

School of Conservation Sciences, Bournemouth University, Christchurch House, Talbot Campus, Fern Barrow, Poole, Dorset BH12 5BB, UK b Marina Projects Limited, Unit 12 Cooperage Green, Weevil Lane, Gosport, Hampshire PO12 1FY, UK c Solent Forum, Hampshire County Council, Environment Department, Winchester, Hampshire SO23 8UD, UK d Environment Department, Hampshire County Council, Winchester, Hampshire SO23 8UD, UK e Environment Agency, Colverdene Court, Wessex Way, Colden Common SO21 1WP, UK

Abstract This paper considers the role of the Hamble Estuary Partnership, a local voluntary coastal stakeholder partnership that is focused on the coordinated management of a small estuary in the Solent. More specifically, the paper critically examines the relationship between the Hamble Estuary Partnership and Solent Forum in order to determine evidence of duplication or integration between the two partnerships. It was found that the aspirations and working principles of the two partnerships were consistent and the methods of working and focus of activity of each partnership were distinctive yet complementary. However, it was also found that evidence of vertical policy integration was limited. It was concluded that although the two-tier partnership model presented an opportunity to deliver vertically integrated policies in the Hamble estuary, this opportunity was yet to be fully realised. r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Hamble Estuary Partnership; Solent Forum; Coastal partnership; Integrated coastal management

1. Introduction Coastal partnerships are consortia of coastal stakeholders that ‘‘broadly aim to achieve a more integrated approach to coastal issues by facilitating co-operation between different organisations, raising awareness of local issues, collecting and distributing information, and discussing issues of local concern’’ [1]. Considerable research has been undertaken into coastal partnerships including their evolution and current status, their contribution to the delivery of integrated coastal management (ICM), their funding arrangements, their democratic and operational basis, and their overall effectiveness (for example, see [2–12]). Within this literature, there is a degree of consensus about the role and value of coastal partnerships. This Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 1202 966737; fax: +44 1202 965255.

E-mail addresses: sfl[email protected] (S. Fletcher), [email protected] (E. Beagley), [email protected] (T. Hewett), [email protected] (A. Williams), [email protected] (K. McHugh). 0308-597X/$ - see front matter r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2007.03.007

includes consensus that partnerships are typically poorly resourced, suffer from high staff turnover, adopt weak democratic and representative processes, often have limited monitoring systems, and suffer due to their informal role within the prevailing coastal policy framework. Despite these difficulties, there is also consensus that partnerships provide an important opportunity for coastal stakeholders to discuss coastal issues and to develop more coordinated approaches to managing coastal areas. There is considerable variation in practice amongst coastal partnerships in the UK [13], primarily due to the absence of a strategic framework for ICM in the UK, which has resulted in the development of coastal partnerships in a somewhat laissez faire manner. In practice, coastal partnerships have, for the last 15 years, provided the primary mechanism for ICM in the UK. However, coastal partnerships are not universal in the UK; they tend to be focused on estuarine areas and on a small number of stretches of open coast. They also exhibit variation in their size, organisational structure, and internal governance processes.

ARTICLE IN PRESS 620

S. Fletcher et al. / Marine Policy 31 (2007) 619–627

In terms of their connection to ICM theory, coastal partnerships are examples of what has been referred to as a ‘‘coordinating mechanism’’ required for the delivery of integration [14]. Similarly, they are examples of governance structures that provide the ‘‘glue’’ that connects coastal stakeholders [15]. These connections reflect the role of coastal partnerships in facilitating communication between stakeholders and, in doing so, assisting in the establishment of more coordinated (and ultimately integrated) management of coastal areas. Coastal partnerships also offer opportunities to deliver horizontal integration.1 This is integration that occurs at the same level of governance between stakeholders. Ecological and physical process integration occurs through the definition of the area covered by the partnership. Most UK partnerships define their area based on coherent ecosystem or physical units (most commonly estuaries), although these are sometimes tempered by practical constraints. Partnerships operate at a variety of scales, with some focusing on local issues whilst others adopt a more strategic sub-regional or regional approach. This variation creates difficulties when seeking to categorise coastal partnerships, as although they generally adopt a similar working philosophy and aspirations, their practical implementation methods vary considerably. In the debate concerning the future role of coastal partnerships in the UK coastal management framework this is problematic as simply using the term ‘‘coastal partnership’’ does not necessarily imply a coherent group of similar organisations. In this context, understanding the diversity of, and relationship between, partnerships becomes important. The area covered by the Solent Forum provides a useful opportunity to consider the relationship between partnerships operating at differing scales as there are a number of distinctive more locally focused coastal partnerships operating within the Solent. These include the Isle of Wight Estuaries Initiative, Chichester Harbour Conservancy, and Hamble Estuary Partnership. The Isle of Wight Estuaries Initiative encompasses all of the estuaries on the Isle of Wight and is administered by the Isle of Wight Council. In contrast, Chichester Harbour Conservancy was established by the Chichester Harbour Conservancy Act 1971 and provides a legal basis for the management of Chichester Harbour through a partnership based on its Area of Outstanding Beauty designation. The Hamble Estuary Partnership, which forms the focus of this paper, is more typical of locally focused voluntary coastal partnerships in the UK. There are, therefore, two main rationales for this paper. First is that previous research into coastal partnerships has generally focused on individual coastal partnerships rather than the relationship between partnerships. This paper seeks to explore the latter issue through considering the relationship between two coastal partnerships that operate within the same geographic area: the Solent Forum and the 1

For further discussion on integration in ICM theory see [16–19].

Hamble Estuary Partnership. The second main rationale for this paper relates to the changing policy context of ICM in the UK and the associated uncertainty surrounding the future of coastal partnerships in the formal coastal and marine management framework. A particular point of contention is where multiple partnerships exist in the same geographic area, which could be presented as a waste of resources and duplication of effort. Since the Hamble Estuary Partnership is entirely within the area of the Solent Forum, this paper offers a helpful insight into this issue. Although this paper seeks to consider the relationship between the Solent Forum and Hamble Estuary Partnership specifically, it is important to consider practice elsewhere in the UK in relation to geographically overlapping partnerships. Overlap appears to be most prevalent in large estuaries or estuarine complexes with several semidiscrete areas, although some examples of partnership overlap do exist in open coast areas. Two examples of overlapping coastal partnerships are briefly presented here to illustrate differing approaches to addressing the issues raised by overlapping partnerships. The first example is the Moray Firth Partnership in North-East Scotland, one of the largest coastal partnerships in the UK, which overlapped with the Cromarty Firth Liaison Group (that coordinated management in a small firth feeding into the main Moray Firth). In order to address resource demands and duplication of effort, the Cromarty Firth Liaison Group was absorbed into the administration of the Moray Firth Partnershsip in 2002 [13]. In contrast, in 2005 Devon County Council in the south-west of England launched the Devon Maritime Forum to provide a strategic networking organisation for stakeholders on the Devon coast. This supplemented a number of more locally focused coastal partnerships already existing within Devon, including the Exe Estuary Partnership, the Teign Estuary Partnership, and the Dart Forum. Across the UK there is little pattern to practice with respect to overlapping coastal partnership coverage, therefore there is no expected model or recognised approach to this issue. The paper, which is informed by discussion with officers and stakeholders, focuses on the Hamble Estuary Partnership initially in order to establish adequate context for the remainder of the paper. The human and physical characteristics of the Hamble estuary are presented in association with the prevailing management framework, including the establishment and work of the Hamble Estuary Partnership. The equivalent narrative for the Solent Forum is well documented, not least elsewhere in this issue, therefore requires less emphasis in this paper. The paper then presents a structural and functional comparison of the two partnerships before considering their relationship. 2. The Hamble estuary The Hamble estuary discharges into Southampton Water approximately 6 km south-east of the city of Southampton (see Fig. 1). The estuary has almost 200 ha

ARTICLE IN PRESS S. Fletcher et al. / Marine Policy 31 (2007) 619–627

of mudflats and saltmarsh along its 8 km tidal length, the majority of which is protected by national and international designations (including Special Protection Area, Special Area of Conservation, Ramsar Site, Site of Special Scientific Interest, Site of Importance for Nature Conservation, and Local Nature Reserve). The estuary has a long maritime history and was the site of major boat building between the 14th and 19th centuries and is of regional and national archaeological significance. The estuary can be characterised as consisting of two distinctive sections—the upper and the lower Hamble. The lower Hamble, as well as being important for nature conservation, is one of the largest recreational boating centres in Europe, with 14 boatyards and marinas and over 3000 river moorings. It is also the focus of residential and commercial development in the estuary, incorporating the villages of Warsash and Hamble, as well as numerous marine businesses, including boat building, maintenance, and chandelry facilities. In contrast, the upper Hamble is rural in character, has few moorings, comparatively little recreational use, and very little development; there are also areas of semi-ancient woodland in the upper Hamble

Fig. 1. The location of the Hamble estuary within the context of the Solent.

621

catchment. Adjacent to the west bank of the upper Hamble is the Manor Farm Country Park, which provides opportunities for quiet land-based recreation. Although reasonably small in geographical terms, the River Hamble is a complex area to manage, largely as a result of the numerous organisations that have a responsibility or interest in how the river is managed. These organisations are commonly involved in the management of specific sectors, including navigational safety, nature conservation, water quality, tourism, water-based recreation, marine and terrestrial heritage, town and country planning, transport planning, and so on. The Crown Estate is the principal owner of the tidal stretches of the estuary’s riverbed and grants licenses for moorings and other developments involving the riverbed. Table 1 lists the main organisations with responsibility for aspects of management in the Hamble estuary. 3. Coordination of the management of the Hamble estuary In the UK, there is no statutory requirement for coastal stakeholders to work together, therefore in order to coordinate the activities of each coastal sector and to enhance the overall management of the estuary, the River Hamble Harbour Authority initiated the development of an estuary management plan on behalf of all estuary stakeholders. Estuary management plans are commonly developed by coastal partnerships in the UK to determine collective priorities for an area and to develop a pattern of working that respects the notion that coordinated working is better than working in isolation—in doing so, the estuary management plan seeks to embody the principles of ICM. The estuary management plan is a non-statutory plan and does not seek to replace any existing statutory decisionmaking process, but does serve to provide a mechanism to coordinate existing policies related to the management of a coastal area. This typically leads to the development of new policies to fill existing policy gaps and the elimination or reduction of duplication between stakeholders. The policies and actions contained within an estuary management plan

Table 1 Organisations with responsibilities within the Hamble estuary Organisation

Responsibility

Crown Estate Department of Food and Rural Affairs Department of Transport Eastleigh Borough Council English Heritage Environment Agency Fareham Borough Council Hampshire County Council Natural England Parish Councils River Hamble Harbour Authority Southern Water Winchester City Council

Owner of sub-tidal land Disposal of minerals at sea, marine construction Marine construction Planning authority to mean low water Archaeological heritage Pollution control and flood defence Planning authority to mean low water Landowner and strategic planning Nature conservation Local government Statutory harbour authority Sewerage and water supply Planning authority to mean low water

ARTICLE IN PRESS 622

S. Fletcher et al. / Marine Policy 31 (2007) 619–627

can only be delivered if the stakeholders who adopt the plan follow through on their commitments. This represents both the key strength and weakness of an estuary management plan. The weakness is that there is no way to enforce the implementation of the policies within the plan and many stakeholders often lack the resources to successfully implement actions. However, the strength is that having gone through the participatory process to develop the plan, the plan should be ‘‘owned’’ by all stakeholders and present an expression of collective management priorities for a coastal area. A further advantage is that the voluntary nature of the plans allows stakeholders to go further than satisfying minimum legislative requirements by providing wider or more stringent targets and goals. Experience suggests that voluntary commitment provides a strong impetus for implementation, in some circumstances perhaps more than a more formal structure might. The Hamble Estuary Management Plan [16] was developed with the active participation of local, subregional, and regional stakeholders through a process initiated in 2001. The process was guided by a steering committee that consisted of statutory and non-statutory groups that reflected the range of key management issues within the estuary (eventually, this group formed the nucleus of the Hamble Estuary Partnership). The process to develop the plan, determined by the Steering Group, was as follows: first, in order to establish the key management issues, a scoping survey was sent to 75 individuals and/or organisations with an interest in the estuary. Each management issue identified through the scoping process was evaluated by a topic group consisting of representatives with an interest in the activity sector to which the issue related. Each topic group developed specific proposals in response to the management issues identified. These were collated and circulated as a draft estuary management plan in 2002. In order to gain wider input to the proposed policies and to both obtain validation of the proposals and to ratify the draft aims, policies, and actions, a participatory stakeholder meeting was held. Following the meeting, the estuary management plan was refined and formally adopted and launched in 2003. 4. The Hamble Estuary Partnership In association with the Hamble Estuary Management Plan, the Hamble Estuary Partnership2 was launched in 2003 in order to facilitate and monitor the implementation of the estuary management plan. The partnership sought to provide an ongoing forum in which representatives of all stakeholders could discuss management issues arising since the publication of the estuary management plan and exchange information and updates on existing or new

Table 2 Membership of the Hamble Estuary Partnership Associated British Ports Marine Environmental Research Associated British Ports Southampton Association of River Hamble Yacht Clubs Eastleigh Borough Council Natural England Environment Agency Fareham Borough Council Hamble River Boatyard and Marina Operators Association Hampshire County Council Hampshire and Wight Trust for Maritime Archaeology Hampshire County Council Countryside Service Marine Developments Limited Berth Holders Association National Farmers Union National Federation of Sea Anglers River Hamble Harbour Authority River Hamble Mooring Holders Association Solent Forum The Crown Estate Warsash Maritime Academy

initiatives affecting the estuary. The Hamble Estuary Partnership meets once every 6 months and is administered by an officer employed by the River Hamble Harbour Authority. In common with other coastal partnerships in the UK, the Hamble Estuary Partnership has no statutory powers but benefits from the support of local stakeholders. The membership of the Hamble Estuary Partnership is presented in Table 2. The Hamble Estuary Partnership has become involved in a range of initiatives since its inception, largely adopting an integrating role in relation to specific local issues, some examples of which are presented in Table 3. The partnership has one sub-group convened specifically to discuss issues surrounding the provision of educational resources and information related to the estuary; the membership of this group is presented in Table 4. 5. Relationship between the Hamble Estuary Partnership and Solent Forum It is interesting to note that both the Hamble Estuary Partnership and Solent Forum are considered in many formal documents as essentially the same type of coastal partnership. Whilst both are varieties of coastal partnership, the reality is that each has a very different focus and scale. The relationship between the Hamble Estuary Partnership and Solent Forum is explored in the remainder of this paper. In order to begin that evaluation, the major structural and functional characteristics of the Hamble Estuary Partnership and Solent Forum are outlined in Tables 5 and 6, respectively, and discussed in the following sections. 5.1. Structural comparison

2

The original title of the group was the River Hamble Estuary Management Plan Implementation Forum. This title was changed in 2006 to the Hamble Estuary Partnership.

The most obvious difference between the Solent Forum and Hamble Estuary Partnership is the geographic scale at

ARTICLE IN PRESS S. Fletcher et al. / Marine Policy 31 (2007) 619–627

623

Table 3 Selected initiatives of the Hamble Estuary Partnership Addressing runoff from the M27 road bridge The M27 motorway bridge, when constructed in the 1970s, was not fitted with runoff interceptors, therefore any surface liquids on the motorway drain directly into the river rather than being diverted into an alternative drainage or storage system. The ongoing impact of the M27 runoff on the river is somewhat uncertain; however, elevated heavy metal concentrations have been noted in the mudflats under and adjacent to the bridge. However, it is the threat of a large-scale spill that most concerns the members of the partnership. On behalf of the Hamble Estuary Partnership, this issue was taken forward by the Environment Agency with the Highways Agency The future management of Bunny Meadows Bunny Meadows is an area of saltmarsh separated from the main river channel by a raised bank. Water is allowed to flow through the bank via culverts (locally known as ‘‘bunnies’’) on top of which runs a public footpath. The management challenge arises from erosion and overtopping of the raised bank and the potential changes to the ecology of the meadows and the viability (and safety) of the public footpath. Members of the partnership considered that a collective approach to the management of that area was needed. It was also recognised that limited information on the physical processes and management options was available. The partnership will contribute to the work being undertaken by the site’s owners to establish future management approaches to the site Coordination of Hamble-related information and learning materials The Education Sub-Group was established to coordinate the development of educational materials and publicly available information related to the estuary. The work of this group has focused in two areas. First is the development of a website (in collaboration with Southampton Solent University) that provides a single portal for links related to the River Hamble (www.hamblevalley.org.uk). Second is the development of a series of interpretation boards around the Hamble estuary, which have a consistent appearance and coherent set of messages. The coordination role provided by the sub-group has meant that the fragmentation of messages and design, so common in interpretation provision, has been avoided Student Research Fund The Student Research Fund was established to encourage local universities and their students to take an active role in providing research to underpin and refine the policies and management practices related to the Hamble estuary. Students from Bournemouth University, Southampton Solent University, University of Portsmouth, and University of Southampton have utilised the fund to date; projects have included:  Metal pollution in the Hamble estuary and its effects on the growth of Spartina anglica  Concentration of heavy metals in the estuary near to the M27 road bridge  An evaluation of maritime leisure conflict in the estuary  A study to evaluate the attitude and practices that the users of the River Hamble have adopted in respect to waste disposal and pollution prevention The existence of enhanced connections to the local university network has proved to be a useful source of advice and research expertise for the Hamble Estuary Partnership. The Student Research Fund is thought to be unique in the UK and has been included in a national good practice listing of coastal management activity. Individual stakeholder organisations have been encouraged to suggest research topics to support their own management efforts

Table 4 Members of the Education Sub-Group Environment Agency Fareham Borough Council Countryside Service Hampshire and Wight Trust for Maritime Archaeology Hampshire and Wight Wildlife Trust Hampshire County Council Countryside Service River Hamble Harbour Authority Royal Yachting Association Southampton Solent University Walking Distance Solent Forum Eastleigh Borough Council

which each partnership operates. The Solent Forum covers an estuarine complex that incorporates three counties and 373 km of coast (see introductory paper to this issue), whereas the Hamble Estuary Partnership is focused on a single estuary, is entirely within one county, and covers only approximately 22 km of coast. As well as the scale, the geography of each partnership area is also contrasting. The Solent has a highly developed coast, featuring heavy industry and significant infrastructure, including major

settlements and ports, a naval dockyard, internationally important waterways, the New Forest National Park, and internationally important nature conservation interests. The geographical area of the Hamble Estuary Partnership is much less developed, with the Hamble valley forming something of a less developed corridor in comparison to much of the Solent’s developed coast. However, the Hamble does share some of the other characteristics of the Solent, including areas of international nature conservation importance and pressure from recreational use. Despite these similarities, the Hamble is less managerially complex than the Solent, with management issues largely focused on a limited number of topic areas, most notably nature conservation, navigational safety, local economy, and recreation. Both partnerships were established as a result of a need identified by a local management authority, neither has legal status, instead choosing to establish consensus voluntarily, and both partnerships are chaired independently. The Hamble Estuary Partnership has no direct funding apart from limited contributions to a Student Research Fund, with officer support being provided by the River Hamble Harbour Authority. In contrast, the Solent Forum is funded by voluntary contributions by almost all members of the partnership,

ARTICLE IN PRESS 624

S. Fletcher et al. / Marine Policy 31 (2007) 619–627

Table 5 Structural comparison between the Solent Forum and Hamble Estuary Partnership Hamble Estuary Partnership

Solent Forum

Scale Length of coastline (km) Geographic character Management focus Membership Date of establishment Origins

Local 22 (approx.) Single estuary Site specific 19 organisations 2003 The River Hamble Harbour Authority acknowledged the requirement for partnership working to manage the estuary, therefore initiated a process to develop an estuary management plan, which ultimately led to the development of the Hamble Estuary Partnership

Legal status Frequency of meetings Funding

None 6 months Funding is provided in kind by the River Hamble Harbour Authority through an allocation of staff time to administer the Hamble Estuary Partnership. All other members provide their time free of charge Information-based www.hants.gov.uk/hambleharbour/ emp.html Independent chairperson Education Sub-group

Sub-regional 373 Estuarine complex Strategic 67 organisations 1992 The need for partnership working was recognised in Hampshire County Council’s Strategy for Hampshire’s Coast published in 1991. This document attempted to look strategically and comprehensively at the issues affecting the county’s coastline and to integrate the planning and management of coastal land and associated inshore waters. This led to the Solent Forum being established in 1992 with a dedicated officer from 1995 None 6 months Funding and support in kind is provided by nearly all member organisations

Website Organisational structure

Officer status

Employee of member organisation with time allocation to administer and coordinate Hamble Estuary Partnership activities

Network focused www.solentforum.hants.org.uk Independent chairperson Steering Group Topic groups Independent officers funded solely by and for the Solent Forum and hosted by a partner organisation

Table 6 Functional comparison between the Solent Forum and Hamble Estuary Partnership

Governance document(s) Policy framework Research support

Monitoring framework

Communication Policy formulation

Hamble Estuary Partnership

Solent Forum

Terms of reference Estuary management plan [20] A Student Research Fund was established to support the information needs of the partnership. Research is supported that is relevant to the management of the Hamble estuary There is no formal indicator set for the Hamble estuary. At the time of writing, the first review of the Hamble Estuary Management Plan is under way

Constitution Strategic guidance for the Solent [21] A Virtual Research Group was established to bring local academic institutions and consultancies together to work collectively on Solent-related projects or individual issues The Solent Forum has established a set of indicators to monitor the health of the Solent. The indicators are updated annually and a ‘‘State of the Solent’’ report published every 3 years. The Solent Forum also monitors its business plan and work programme Forum events, newsletters, and officer e-mail communication Policy is expressed through the strategic guidance for the Solent. This was formulated through an inclusive and consensus-based process that included all members of the partnership. Other strategic plans and policies were considered. At the time of development, the Hamble Estuary Partnership was not in existence

Formal meetings and occasional officer e-mails. There is no regular newsletter Policy is expressed through the estuary management plan. This was formulated through an inclusive and consensus-based process that included all members of the partnership. Whilst other plans existing at the same scale were considered in the development of the estuary management plan, more strategic plans were less of a consideration

with additional funding provided for specific projects. The Solent Forum also seeks external funding to undertake specific projects, which the Hamble Estuary Partnership has not sought to do.

5.2. Functional comparison In functional terms, significant distinctiveness exists between the Solent Forum and Hamble Estuary Partner-

ARTICLE IN PRESS S. Fletcher et al. / Marine Policy 31 (2007) 619–627

ship in relation to the purpose and operation of the two partnerships. The Solent Forum takes a strategic view of coastal management in the Solent and therefore tends to address strategic policy and issues at a sub-regional scale. It also monitors and considers regional and national policy developments relevant to members of the Solent Forum and disseminates relevant information at Solent Forum meetings and at specially convened workshops or conferences. As such, in its daily operation, the Solent Forum would not become involved in specific local issues ‘‘on the ground’’ preferring to provide a network for communication. For example, the Solent Forum generally does not engage with individual members of the public or local stakeholders over specific issues. In contrast, the Hamble Estuary Partnership is entirely focused on specific and local issues concerning the Hamble. The Hamble Estuary Partnership officer commonly engages with individual members of the public and local stakeholders. The Hamble Estuary Partnership does not tend to hold special events, but does disseminate relevant information to members through its usual meeting schedule and occasional e-mails. Although the Hamble Estuary Partnership has a website, it is not used for communication. In contrast the Solent Forum communicates with its members through a variety of channels, including its formal meetings, regular e-mails, newsletter, and its comprehensive website. The communication mechanisms of the two partnerships clearly reflect their contrasting approaches—the Solent Forum as a sub-regional coastal network that requires a range of communication channels and the Hamble Estuary Partnership as a more functional body dependent upon personal communication. Despite these differences in focus, the purpose of both partnerships is very closely aligned, with both seeking to coordinate existing management efforts at their respective scales of operation through adopting the principles of ICM as their guiding ethos. In this respect, the two partnerships are functionally aligned and could be said to offer some potential for vertical integration between their respective levels of governance. However, to date, both partnerships have operated entirely independently of each other with policies developed in isolation, therefore in no way is the Hamble Estuary Partnership seeking to implement the policies of the Solent Forum, nor the Solent Forum seeking to provide the policy framework for the Hamble Estuary Partnership. The distinctiveness between two partnerships is demonstrated less starkly in their organisational structure and administration. The Solent Forum has a structure that consists of a steering group of key stakeholders, a forum held every 6 months, and a number of topic groups that form to conduct specific work and then dissolve upon its completion. This structure is administered by two full time members of staff. The Hamble Estuary Partnership does not have a steering group, with all members invited to attend 6 monthly Hamble Estuary Partnership meetings. The Hamble Estuary Partnership has one sub-group,

625

focused on education, with research issues considered at full Hamble Estuary Partnership meetings. This structure is administered by an employee of the River Hamble Harbour Authority whose time is allocated by the Harbour Authority. The administrative support for each partnership is therefore distinctive but reflects the contrasting breadth of interests and activities undertaken by each partnership. 5.3. Connections between the Hamble Estuary Partnership and Solent Forum The Solent Forum and Hamble Estuary Partnership are connected by a number of formal and informal links. The most significant formal link between the partnerships is through the respective partnership officers who seek to coordinate their activities as and when appropriate. This has mutual benefits as the strategic approach of the Solent Forum allows issues of wider relevance to Hamble Estuary Partnership members to be identified and fed into Hamble Estuary Partnership meetings, whilst the specific issues related to the Hamble provide an insight into how strategic issues unfold locally and help to identify management challenges that require a strategic management approach more aligned with the work of the Solent Forum. For example, the issue of obtaining marine consents has been highlighted by members of the Hamble Estuary Partnership. Since this is an issue that affects certain decisionmakers throughout the Solent, the Solent Forum will host a workshop to examine the issue in order to share information and expertise. As such, there is a two-way mutually beneficial information flow between the partnerships. An additional formal link is that the chairperson of the Hamble Estuary Partnership is a member of the Solent Forum and an officer of the Solent Forum is invited to all Hamble Estuary Partnership meetings. More informally, there are a number of individuals, most commonly from competent authorities, who are members of both partnerships, which provide an exchange of information and expertise. The Solent Forum has also used the Hamble Estuary Partnership to extend its communication reach, primarily through using Hamble Estuary Partnership meetings as an additional dissemination channel. It is notable that with regard to policy formulation processes, there is little formal connection between the Hamble Estuary Partnership and the Solent Forum, with each partnership appearing to focus on its own constituency. The differing functional horizons of the two partnerships almost certainly contribute to this observation, in which the Solent Forum seeks to look at its place within the region strategically, whilst the Hamble Estuary Partnership is more concerned with local issues. The timings of the policy formulation processes of each partnership are also unconnected, giving little opportunity for mutually supportive and aligned policy-making. Similarly, it is not, at present, the responsibility of any of the partnership officers concerned to ensure consistency between partnerships, rather, there is greater focus, understandably, on internal

ARTICLE IN PRESS 626

S. Fletcher et al. / Marine Policy 31 (2007) 619–627

consistency within the policy programme of each coastal partnership. It would appear therefore that within the Solent sub-region there have been limited attempts to coordinate coastal policies at differing levels of governance, although it is suspected that this is an observation that would apply to most of the UK coast. For clarity, it should also be noted that policy integration within functional coastal stakeholder sectors is long established and well embedded (for example, within coastal defence, development planning, and nature conservation sectors where hierarchical and interdependent plans are typical). Rather, the observation in this paper is that opportunities to coordinate coastal policy between particular geographic scales (and levels of governance) through coastal partnerships have not been taken. It is possible to argue that this is not the role of coastal partnerships, as each reflects a specific and unique suite of coastal issues. Whilst this is a credible argument for areas with a single coastal partnership, the argument is less robust where a multi-tier arrangement of partnerships exists, as the claim of ICM must be evidenced by vertical policy integration between the partnerships in question.

realised. In considering the reason for the lack of policy coordination, it is important to recognise the independence of the partnerships, differing policy cycles, differing periods of establishment, and perhaps most importantly the absence of a formal policy framework for the UK coast (at least as far as integrated policy is concerned) through which the work of the partnerships could be coordinated. This is a historical feature of the UK coastal governance landscape and individual partnerships cannot be held accountable for the overall framework in which they operate. However, this issue does perhaps represent a significant challenge for areas where multiple coastal partnerships exist and how such governance structures may develop in the future. Finally, this also presents a challenge for how the success of coastal partnerships is measured. Both the Hamble Estuary Partnership and Solent Forum would consider themselves, with good reason, to be successful coastal partnerships within the context of their own targets and aspirations. Yet when considered through the lens of a more holistic view of ICM, and of the Solent as a coherent system, their lack of policy connection potentially presents a more challenging appraisal.

6. Conclusion References Of particular significance to the management of the Solent is the relationship between the Solent Forum and more locally focused coastal partnerships within its area, as this offers the potential to connect a strategic view of coastal issues with local expertise in a nested ICM framework. The connectivity between partnerships is an important issue as the future role of coastal partnerships is somewhat uncertain due to anticipated changes in the management framework of the coastal and marine environment in the UK. One criticism of the current distribution of coastal partnerships is that some stretches of coast have no partnership coverage at all, whereas other areas have multiple partnerships operating in the same area, albeit generally at different geographic scales or levels of governance. In the first instance, it would appear that having multiple partnerships covering the same stretch of coast creates duplication of activity. However, through the consideration of the relationship between the Solent Forum and the Hamble Estuary Partnership it was clear that there was significant functional distinctiveness between the two partnerships. Indeed, a notable feature of the comparison was that the processes and approaches of the two partnerships were complementary rather than conflicting and that a mutually supportive and useful relationship had developed and maintained between the partnerships. However, despite their complementary approaches, dayto-day working, and subscription to the principles of ICM, it was apparent that the policy-making processes of the two partnerships are unconnected and that there was little evidence of intentional policy alignment. As such, the potential for vertical integration between the sub-regional and local levels of coastal governance is not currently being

[1] Defra. Promoting an integrated approach to management of the coastal zone (ICZM) in England. London: HMSO; 2006. [2] Burbridge PR. Lessons learned from local coastal management partnerships: a report to the Scottish Coastal Forum Scottish Coastal Forum Research Report No 3. The Scottish Executive and Scottish Natural Heritage: Edinburgh; 2001. [3] Edwards SD, Jones PJS, Nowell DE. Participation in coastal zone management initiatives: review and analysis of examples from the UK. Ocean and Coastal Management 1997;36:143–65. [4] King G, Galloway J. Participation in coastal zone management— mechanisms, procedures and European developments. In: Proceedings of Littoral 1998, 1998. p. 123–31. [5] Masters D. Action centred networks: the key to decision-making in coastal zone management. In: Healy S, Doody P, editors. Directions in European coastal management. Cardigan: Samara Publishing Limited; 1995. [6] McGlashan DJ. Funding in integrated coastal zone management partnerships. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2003;46:393–6. [7] McGlashen DJ, Williams E. Stakeholder involvement in coastal decision-making processes. Local Environment 2003;8:85–94. [8] McGlashan DJ, Barker N. The partnership approach to integrated coastal management in Britain. In: Smith HD, Potts JS, editors. Managing Britain’s marine and coastal environment: towards a sustainable future. Abingdon, London: Routledge and National Maritime Museum; 2005. [9] Fletcher S. Stakeholder representation and the democratic basis of coastal partnerships in the UK. Marine Policy 2003;27:229–40. [10] Fletcher S. Influences on stakeholder representation in participatory coastal management programmes. Ocean and Coastal Management, in press, doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2006.11.003. [11] Fletcher S. The funding of coastal partnerships in the United Kingdom: contrasting expectations of funders and Partnerships. London: The Crown Estate; 2005. [12] Gallagher A, Johnson DE, Glegg G, Trier C. Constructs of sustainability in coastal management. Marine Policy 2004;28:249–55. [13] Fletcher S. Representing stakeholder interests in partnership approaches to coastal management: experiences from the United

ARTICLE IN PRESS S. Fletcher et al. / Marine Policy 31 (2007) 619–627 Kingdom. Ocean and Coastal Management, in press, doi:10.1016/j. ocecoaman.2006.09.006. [14] Cicin-Sain B, Knecht RW. Integrated coastal and ocean management: concepts and practice. Washington, DC: Island Press; 1998. [15] Olsen SB. Will integrated coastal management programs be sustainable?—the constituency problem. Ocean and Coastal Management 1993;21:201–25. [16] Underdahl A. Integrated marine policy: what? why? how? Marine Policy 1980:159–69.

627

[17] Cicin-Sain B. Sustainable development and integrated coastal management. Ocean and Coastal Management 1993;21:11–43. [18] Thia-Eng C. Essential elements of integrated coastal zone management. Ocean and Coastal Management 1993;21:81–108. [19] Vallega A. Fundamentals of integrated coastal management. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 1999. [20] River Hamble Harbour Authority. Hamble estuary management plan. Winchester: Hampshire County Council; 2002. [21] Solent Forum. Strategic guidance for the Solent. Winchester: Solent Forum; 1997.