Worlds Marine And Coastal Environment

Published Date: 02 Nov 2017

Introduction

In recent years, there has been an increase in the use of marine spatial planning (henceforth MSPs) as a tool to protect the world’s marine and coastal environment. However there has been little research done to look into any conflicts which maybe caused through implementing these strategies, this assignment examines how these procedures may cause conflict and their consequent impact upon the global environment; both natural and manmade.

This shall be done by firstly exploring why there was a need to develop MSPs and looking at human uses of the coastal zone as addressed in ‘The water’s Edge, Critical problems of the Coastal Zone’ by B,H Ketchum, 1972. Then after assessing global examples of MSPs which have already been implemented and analysing the effects they had caused, though this maybe be difficult as many MSPs lack any form of an evaluation which may be used and knowledge learnt from (Fletcher et al, 2013).

Discussion

The marine environment globally is being impacted by a comprehensive range of interacting anthropogenic uses; with coastal regions predominantly being overwhelmed, (Parravicini et al, 2012) this is because the ocean is a valuable resource which the global population depends upon to provide vital goods and services, (Halpern et al, 2008a). Just some of the goods that come from the coastal zone include food, chemicals, ornaments and several construction materials (Ketchum, 1972).The implications from these demands are numerous including the loss of marine biodiversity, habitat fragmentation and climate change; these impacts are magnified in coastal regions as it is subjected to threats on land as well as those of the ocean, (Halpern et al, 2008b). These actions not only individually impact the environment; but as a combination these pressures amalgamate causing an accumulative effect; their full impact remain unidentified, (Crain et al, 2008).

The anthropogenic uses of the coastal zone to meet and supply these resources not only causes environmental degradation, but multiple uses in such a limited space can cause conflict between the users.

Table 1 Uses of the coastal zone

Activities

1

Living space and recreation

2

Industrial and Commercial

3

Waste Disposal

4

Food Production

5

Natural Preserves

6

Special Government Uses

(Ketchum, 1972. p, 13)

Table 1 shows the six categories of human uses in the coastal zone that were theorized by Ketchum in his 1972 book ‘The water’s Edge, Critical problems of the Coastal Zone’, it is through the undertaking of these activities in a confined space within the coastal zone which causes conflict, Ketchum believed to implement effective management an understanding of these categories and recognition of the constraints caused by their interrelationships would need to be known to control the user conflicts.

As a result of conflict and degradation of the marine environment the British Government passed the Marine Coastal Access Act in 2009; this legislation outlined a new system of development, which formed tools such as Marine Spatial Planning (MSPs) which help create plans for the coastal zone by constructing a more coherent organisation of space and users interaction in the marine environment to not only protect the diversity but also meet both social and economic demands, (Maes, 2008) most MSPs only extend to the territorial limit of 12 nautical miles, though in some countries it has been lengthened as far as 200 nautical miles into their economic zones (Portman, 2011). Though MSPs have been implemented as a tool to help plan the coastal zone it may still be difficult to allocate designated zones as many resources are considerable in size, do not keep to a specific location hence are migratory and therefore cannot be designated to specific geographic boundaries, (Degnbol et al 2008).

In addition to MSPs the act also established a Marine Protected Area (MPAs) these include a wide range of designations; which individually protect the environment for a variety of different special features.

Table 2 Types of Marine designations in Wales

Designations

Purpose

Marine Conservation Zones (MCZs)

Designated for their flora, fauna, habitats and geomorphological features in the regions of territorial and offshore waters, (McVittie, 2010)

Special Protection Areas (SPAs)

Areas of vital habitat designated for listed Birds under the European Union Habitat Directive, (JNCC, n.d).

Special Areas of Conservation (SACs)

Important rare or endangered habitat designated under the European Habitat Directive, (JNCC, n.d).

Sites of Special Scientific Interests (SSSI)

National sites important for their flora, fauna, or geological or physiographical features, (JNCC, n.d).

Natural Nature Reserves (NNR)

National sites designated for their natural or semi-natural ecosystem, (JNCC, n.d).

Ramsar

Designation for the protection of national important Wetlands, (JNCC, n.d).

(CCW n.d)

Table 2 shows all of the various marine designations applied in Wales the designation form an extended range along the coast and covers approximately 40% of the Welsh national waters, (CCW n.d).

Though both the formation of MSPs and SPAs were created to help resolve conflict effectively while averting the formation of new differences arising; this can only be achieved successfully if integration of the tools is properly undertaken. To achieve this the authorities which are in charge in England being the Marine Management Organisation (MMO) in Wales falls to the Welsh Assembly Government, these organisation will execute the implementation of MSPs and SPAs in addition to other marine planning systems in the UK waters need to carry out methods such as integrated coastal-zone management (henceforth ICZM) or ecosystem-based management (hereafter EBM), (Portman, 2011) which both study group users and there interactions in the marine environment as well as taking into account their accumulative effects, (Levin et al, 2009) this knowledge of distribution of pressures caused by human activities is required for the MSPs to be successful, (Eastwood et al, 2007).

Though many MSPs have been undertaken globally there is still no precise agreement on how to carry out the process the most efficiently and according to Fletcher et al, (2013) most MSPs processes are deficient in an available evaluation from which knowledge may be gained and more effective practices may be learnt. Delineating zones to specific activities in the marine environment is more complicated than that on land, (Stelzenmüller, 2013) especially as the marine environment crosses multiple boundaries including ecological, social and political, (Levin et al, 2009) thus making the involvement of group users vital to help resolve these issues. Though the MSPs process is ultimately aimed to resolve conflict the allocation and division of these resources into separate districts may cause conflicts, (Portman, 2011), however it should be noted that zoning is only part of the tool used in the formation of a spatial plan, (Stelzenmüller, 2013).

The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (GBRMP) in Australia is an example whereby MSPs has been successfully integrated, the park covers an area of approximately 345,000km² it is built up from numerous different habitats, with an extensive range of biodiversity and is a major economic resource for Australia. This extensive area has been protected under the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act since 1975 which has conserved this area by using various management tools including zoning this has been used extensively in the park and across other Australian Protected areas, (Day, 2002). Though the park has overall been a major success further knowledge has been able to be gathered from their use of zoning which has allowed for amendments to occur including the need for progressive changes between boundaries, not applying zones of the same type with small variations can cause confusion again, ‘split zoning’ confuses the general public as well as zone boundary markers not being clear (Day, 2002). Though there are still some downfalls to the scheme; it has been championed as an example of one of the best MSPs and MPAs to date.

The GBRMP covers a large area and some valuable endangered species are not fully protected such as the species Dugong (Dugong dugon) which has approximately 60% of its high priority habitat remaining outside the parks designation; even though the population of these species has been recorded to be decreasing the park aimed to have at least 50% of their habitat protected by 2003, (Dobbs et al, 2008) this shows that even if a no-take and zoning is instigated if it is not situated in the correct or best location it shall little to no impact on protecting the species.

Marine Planning alone cannot protect a location unless the surrounding area and human activities are fully understood; if this is not achieved then the expense and effort put into forming the plan may consequently be a waste of time. When the GBRMP was first formed the deficiency in incorporate or studying the surrounding and adjacent coastline and its use placed the highly protected reefs at serious risk; land next to the park was being used as agricultural farmland on a large scale which included crops such as Sugar Cane, from fertilizers spread across the land containing chemicals such as nitrates and phosphates leaching and run off infiltrated and enter the nearby streams slowly reaching the ocean resulting in algal blooms and eutrophication forming which could cause serious degradation to the naturally alkaline coral reefs, (Agardy et al 2011) though later this was realized and consequently amended.

This was also seen for sewage outlet treatments; permission is required before sewage from within the park is allowed be discharged into the marine environment; however resorts which are situated adjacent to the park do not fall within the jurisdiction and therefore are able to flush there sewage directly into the ocean the impact from sewage include eutrophication, accumulations of heavy metals, alteration in the composition of species and degradation to coral and sea grass communities, (Brodie et al 2012).

Even though the government of Australia recognized that the implications of initiating MPAs and MSPs would impact different users at varying levels especially the fishing industry to whom they offered compensation for loss of revenues (Agardy et al, 2011); fisheries still remain cynical towards the formation of MSPs. This distrust may make it difficult to further expand the uses of MSPs as for it to be effective all stakeholders need to be engaged, however they could not prevent illegal fishing that was reported to occur as a result of these restrictions (Jones, 2006).

In addition to the fisheries reluctance to engage in the MSPs process generally; globally decision process for selecting certain zones for fishing activities is difficult. This is due to variation of fishing from season to season, meeting quotas, days spent at seas, and market prices, control over what type of gear is allowed to be used in addition to a varying number of different fishing activities all having different requirements, (Degnbol et al 2008 and Agardy et al, 2011 ). The formation of MSPs and MPAs can have consequential effects on the human uses of the marine environment though it cannot be argued the largest impacts occur to the fishing industry whether it is recreational or commercial. The parameters restrict the use of fishing resources and implications may cause instability to both social and economic development of the industry and thus cause conflict amongst varying users, such as from clashes over space and possible gear entanglement, (Sanchirico, et al 2002). Effects of placing restriction on fishing activities to a particular zone will not reduce the amount of fishing activity at sea if anything it may concentrate the environmental impacts caused by fishing in a small location. The formation of MPAs in the Philippines meant that the spill over effect from the population increases from inside the protected location, this meant fishing became concentrated around the border of the designated zone thus concentrating the environmental impacts to that location, (Christie et al, 2002) as well as reducing the amount able to be caught over time and with longer term restriction slowing the progress and development of the industry (Abernethy et al, 2010).

This was seen in the designation of MPAs in Germany where 31% of Natura 2000 sites which have been nominated fall within the German Exclusive Economic Zones (henceforth EEZ), (Degnbol et al 2008) this is an important fishing location which will be lost to the German fisheries and shall only be increased as Germany’s government current objectives for offshore wind farms is to achieve energy equal to 25 000 MW by 2030, with five primary locations falling within the EEZ locations that have not already been designated, ground shall be taken away from fisheries especially again as shipping vessel are prohibited from entering within the 500 metres buffer zone of the wind farms, (Berkenhagen et al, 2010).

The limitation of selecting zones for specific uses may mean that fishing vessels shall have to travel further afield to reach their new allowed designated locations, thus causing an economic loss to the industry as more time shall have to be spent reaching the site; and there may even be the cost of learning new techniques and acquiring new maps for the new area, (Agardy et al, 2011) as well as a higher level of vessel congestion increasing the amount spent on fuel, thus forcing the fisheries to increase their catch numbers to help generate a profit to counteract the loss but this could consequently cause more environmental damage, (Sanchirico, et al 2002) and may even change the breed of fish caught in the area placing pressure upon new species (Sanchirico, 2000). All of these limitations are taken into account before knowledge of how climate change influences the marine zone; and the consequences that shall be formed from it (Katsanevakis et al, 2011).

In locations designated as multi use MPAs, the secondary activity may harm the conservation efforts of the designation; such as was seen in the United States and Japan whereby the recreational activity of scuba diving was impacting the natural environment and was recorded to of been reducing the amenity value of the site, (Davis et al 1995). From research undertaken in the GBRMP the results showed tourism have an impact upon the environment this includes anchoring recreational boats both as the anchor and chain has the ability to damage, fracturing coral colonies as it descends to the ocean floor, (Brodie et al 2012). It should also be noted that by applying environmental protection to a location promotes the recreational opportunities of that site; though this may have positive economic influences is does not take into account the pressure from high tourism, as recreation has the potential for creating unwanted impacts such as environmental degradation causing a decline for coastal communities and there quality of life (O’Mahony, et al 2009) and does not take into account the economic cost of creating new facilities along the coastline to meet the increased amount of tourists, (Ruiz-Frau et al 2013).

From the pilot study of an MSP undertaken in Irish Sea outlined that a multi-dimensional MSP, this is because the varying human activities impact the seas at different dimensions for example Submarine cables shall only impact below and upon the sea bed and will have no impact upon air space compared to industries such as oil and gas which shall cause serious damage at all dimensions (Kidd, 2013) in the same way dredging and waste disposal have the largest impacts upon the sea floor though some may occur beneath the ocean floor in suitable geological structures such as that of radioactive waste in the Irish Sea (NIREX, 2005).It is also important to take into account that though some activities such as renewable energy in the form of wind farms are spatially fixed (Kidd, 2013) compared to recreational activities such as boating which is influenced by multiple factors including attitudes to the destinations, weather, seasons and the locations of nearby amenities, (Gray et al, 2011).

For the case of Belgium the imperative drive was to meet the criteria of national objectives for the development of offshore wind farms to meet energy demands and to develop environmental designated sites such as SACs and SPAs which led to Belgium creating a spatial plan for their portion of the North Sea, (Douvere et al 2009) also while developing the MSPs awareness was highlighted to the fact that a need for both politicians and scientist to work together for the MSP to work and be integrated successfully, (Plasman, 2008). The plan was initiated in 2003, and since negative impacts have been acknowledged. Such as the designation of winds farm which the turbines in any locations will cause some impact to the environment including noise pollution, shadow flickering, a disruption to animals and their habitats; and injuries to bats and birds which can collide with the blades, these impacts are likely to occur wherever the turbine is situated though certain locations are likely to have larger impacts than other and thus the selection of space is vital, (Punt, et al 2009). The designation of these structures also causes loss of ground for aggregate extraction and possibly causing interference with military radars, whilst along the coast creation of coastal defences has caused disturbance and loss of habitats, (Maes et al 2005).

In Boston the application of an MSP in to shipping lanes 2007 of an area which was known for having a high population of Whales, meant that a greater distance had to be travelled to reach ports; which added an extra 10-20 minutes onto journey time, though this cut the risk of collision with Whales by approximately 60% it does not take into account the finical implications of more fuel being spent; a wide area of ocean being exposed to shipping vessels or the increase in emissions which are likely to occur, (Patraiko et al 2012).

MSPs have the capability to be able to accelerate selected marine activities in the EU especially when concerning Aquaculture, (European Union, 2011) though this has positive economic implications if applied then an increase in the environmental pollution would occur from in forms of effluences, nutrients and chemical which will alter the natural pH and nutrient levels of the ocean (Maes et al 2005).

Though MSPs is tool to try and organises anthropogenic activities in the marine zone it will be implausible for co-existence to occur with selected uses; therefore one such activity will be at a naturally loss, such as for the case of Oil and Gas which cannot co-inside with aquaculture or tourism and Carbon Capture and Storage with wave and tidal power, (European Union, 2011).

The military is another human user activity that is covered in MSPs though there is little information available on the effects and impacts upon the environment that can occur due to these plans, though the activity in itself does cause degradation to the coastal zone.

Overall the MSPs process has been formed to plan the spatial and time users of the coastal zone and it should be fully understood that this does not stop the environmental impacts which may be caused by these activities which may carry on at the same rate it is simply a tool to organise where the activities occur.

3. Conclusion

The aim of this assignment was to develop an understanding of the forms of conflicts that may arise from implementing MPS and to understanding how the results may impact upon the environment. It is clear that the MSPs process is vital to resolve any conflict which can arise between the various anthropogenic uses of the coastal zone, the six categories which are highlighted by Ketchum, and whilst the process is ultimately aimed to resolve conflict from looking at various examples of these plans it can be seen that conflict can still arise even after plans have been implement. Such as was seen for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park which even though being heralded as one of the best MSPs to date and highlighted as a good example to learn and follow from there has seen issues with eutrophication, sewage, poor species protect and user confusion.

Though there are numerous literatures on the process of how to develop the plans and information on how successfully they are in achieving resolving conflict there is little that actually addresses this direct issue of conflict caused whilst developing plans, this may be due to the early stage to which Marine Spatial Planning is at globally.