Coastal Zone Management

The Coastal Zone - broadly defined as the strip of land in which terrestrial and marine environments interact, covers less than 15% of the surface of the Earth (Carter, 1988). It is a highly dynamic environment that has been created and shaped by a range of different ocean and terrestrial processes that are themselves driven by complex weather systems. Current debates about the phenomena of global warming and sea level rise (http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/climate; Greenpeace, (1990); Wigley and Raper (1992); Parry and Duncan (1995); Mannion (1997); Oburthur and Hermann (1999); Harvey (2000)), are taking place at a time when the need to protect our coastlines is increasing as more people choose to live and work in the coastal zone.

The Coastal Zone is one of the most heavily populated areas of the Earth’s surface, and in the UK no-one lives more than 84 miles from the coast (Howe, 1992). People demand that the Coastal Zone be protected for their own use, whether that is housing, leisure, industry or habitat conservation, and this presents us with a difficult management challenge (Parry and Duncan, 1995).

According to French, (1997) “The problems which we can observe at the coast today all arise out of the fact that humans have, in some form, affected the natural processes.” He concludes that management strategies based on a process approach are the best way to proceed. Lee et al. (1993) confirm this view. Lee cites many references detailing examples of coastal management that, although successful in the short term, have been shown in the long term to have created their own problems by changing the way coastal processes interact with the coastline (Keay, 1941; Clayton, 1990; Brunsden, 1991). It is not enough to analyse an historical database relating to a particular piece of coast for a specific localised problem, and then expect this strategy to fit neatly into any other larger scale management plan for the area. Coastal processes need to be understood and integrated into the overall management strategy in order for it to have any chance of success in the long term.

As far back as the 16* Century and until relatively recently, the Civil Engineering community was responsible for all aspects of coast protection (Carter, 1988). This led to the development of hard defences such as seawalls and other concrete structures designed to protect the position of the existing shoreline. Although visually intrusive, these structures could be seen to offer protection against the incoming waves. Over time, as seawalls and other hard defences started to fail, and were shown to create new problems further down drift along the coasts, other professionals started to take note of what was happening. An edition of Geotimes (published in December 1981) carried a position paper signed by several leading Geologists which stated “the price we pay for the installation and maintenance of a stabilised shoreline, whether in aesthetic [5/c], or fiscal

It was becoming apparent that short-term coastal management solutions did not necessarily translate into long-term success. In the words of Carter (1988), “failure to appreciate the complex nature of cause and effect, often widely separated in time and space, has spawned a legion of examples of coastal mismanagement”. In the early 1990s the ethos of ‘protection at all costs’, was starting to be overtaken by the introduction of ‘soft’ management strategies encompassing ideas of beach recharge and managed retreat (French, 1997).

An additional consideration for people involved in coastal defence is the heightened awareness of the general public of their right to be involved with developments in their local area. Increasingly, successful coastal zone management requires not only the assessment and implementation of the ‘best’ management scheme, but it also requires that the need for the change and its benefits are successfully communicated to the local population.

There is little doubt that coastal zone management will be needed wherever the oceans threaten the land margins. Under current environmental conditions this is likely to be an ever more common occurrence, and this situation will continue into the foreseeable future.

2.2.1 Policy and Implementation in England and Wales

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), the new organisation that replaced The Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food (MAFF) in June 2001, is the government body with policy responsibility for flood and coastal defence in England. (The National Assembly for Wales, Environment, Planning and Transport Committee took responsibility for Wales in March 2000). The aim of their programme is to reduce the risks from flooding and coastal erosion to people and the developed and natural environment (http://www.maff.gov.uk). This is facilitated through three main channels:

• Through the provision of financial support to the flood and coastal defence operating authorities (local authorities, the Environment Agency and the Internal Drainage Boards).

• Through the provision of published advice and guidance to these operating authorities, which is designed to encourage proper consideration of technical, economic and environmental issues when flood and coastal defence schemes are being planned, designed and implemented.

• Through the funding of a research programme which is aimed at improving understanding of the natural processes involved in flooding and coastal erosion, by examining techniques for the design and management of defences and furthering of environmental interests.

It is the responsibility of the flood and coastal defence operating authorities to identify the need for defences in their area and to consider a range of management options in consultation with local interest groups. Schemes are considered for a government grant if they meet technical, economic and environmental criteria, and also achieve an appropriate priority score. This score is based on ministerial priorities, urgency, and the cost/benefit ratio of the proposal. Once a scheme is approved by DEFRA, the operating authorities are responsible for the construction, maintenance and operation of the works. The importance of DEFRA’s role is underlined by the size of allocated budgets. In the period from 2000 - 2001, £76 million was spent on flood and coastal defence. This budget is set to increase by 50% to £114 million for the period up to 2004. The need for such increased funding can be found in a recent report (MAFF, 2000) which outlines the results of an appraisal of national assets considered to be at risk from flooding and coastal erosion in England, which are considerable.

In the current era of concern about global environmental change, there is a need for continual and increasing involvement in flood and coastal defence operations in England. Recent extreme flooding events have highlighted the need to speed up the maintenance and development of river defences which accounts for the majority of short term spending, but the threat from coastal erosion presents a larger ongoing management

2.2.2 Shoreline Management Plans

Long term strategic planning for the UK coastline is underpinned by the ‘Shoreline Management Plan’ (SMP) initiative which was set up by MAFF in 1995 (MAFF, 1995). The main aim of this system is to strengthen coastal defence policy by ensuring a strategic approach to coastal defence and coastal management is taken by the responsible authorities. It is based on a series of sediment cells around the coastline of England and Wales that were identified by HR Wallingford in 1995 (Figure 2.1).

The cell boundaries are positioned so that the area defined by any two is self-contained in terms of sediment movement, i.e. there should be no significant movement of sediment across a boundary. In practice, this means that any coastal defence policies implemented within a sediment cell should have minimal impact on cells further up or down the coast. The success of the scheme depends on the responsible authorities within a sediment cell working together to implement sustainable policies.

The document designed to promote close collaboration and partnership between the different authorities within a sediment cell is the SMP. A SMP sets out the strategy for coastal defence for a specified length of coast. A sediment cell is split into a number of smaller sub-cells and management units that produce their own SMP in collaboration with other authorities within their sediment cell. In this way, small projects that reap benefits for a local problem but impact negatively on adjacent coastal areas can be avoided.

Flam borough H ead S o lw a y Fir:h / T he W ash B a rc sey S ou n d The T h a m es I ■*—— 5 Land's End ^ S e ls e y 8 Portland SuD-cel' Boundary Major ceil Boundary

Figure 2.1 D efin ition o f sedim ent cells around the coastlin e o f England and W ales (M A FF, 1995)

A ssistan ce for the preparation for the first generation o f SM Ps was available to coastal authorities from M A FF in the form o f their docum ent “Shoreline M anagem ent Plans: A guide o f coastal defence authorities” (19 95 ). This docum ent set out the aim s and ob jectives o f the plans and g ives guidance on data co llectio n , analysis, plan preparation and grant aid. In terms o f the relevant data required on which to base a coastal d efence

p olicy, this docum ent identifies 32 p ossib le separate issues under the four headings o f Coastal Processes, Coastal D efen ces, Land U se and the Human and B uilt Environm ent, and the Natural Environment. Local authorities were encouraged to undertake w ide- ranging investigation s into all the parameters that could effect or be effected by future coast protection sch em es. In an acknow ledgem ent o f the difficulty o f keeping such a database updated, the use o f GIS was encouraged. “W herever p ossib le, this inform ation should be mapped for p ossib le future use in geographical information sy stem s” (M AFF, 1995). B y adopting such an approach more effec tiv e data m anagem ent w ould be ensured.

The majority o f su b-cells around the coast now have a w orking SM P in place. S o m e were com pleted as early as Septem ber 1996, whereas others still have plans on ly partly im plem ented at the end o f 2000. A summary o f the present situation is show n in Table

2.1. Full details are presented in A ppendix 1. (Terry O akes A sso ciates

(http://w w w .terryoakes.com /coastal/shoreline.htm ))

Sediment

Cg/ZATo

No. o f No. o f plans in

place No. of Lead Authorities No. of Consultants /Vo. q/" Coastal Groups 1 4 4 (1 9 9 7 -1 9 9 9 ) 4 3 2 2 4 4 ( 1 9 9 6 - 1 9 9 8 ) 2 1 2 3 4 4 (1 9 9 6 - 1 9 9 7 ) 4 2 1 4 4 3 ( 1 9 9 6 - ) 3 3 2 5 7 5 ( 1 9 9 6 - ) 6 3 1 6 5 4 ( 1 9 9 5 - ) 3 4 2 7 5 5 ( 1 9 9 8 - ) 3 3 3 8 5 3 ( 1 9 9 9 - ) 2 5 5 9 4 3 ( 1 9 9 7 - ) 3 1 1 10 3 1 ( 1 9 9 8 - ) 1 1 2 11 5 5 (19 9 9 ) 5 1 2 Isles o f S cilly 1 1 1

Table 2.1 SM P Im plem entation in England and W ales to D ecem ber 2 0 0 0 (Source:

Terry O akes A sso cia tes (http://w w w .terryoakes.com /coastal/shoreline.htm ))

Table 2.1 illustrates the large number of different groups involved in the production of SMPs both across England as a whole and even within single sediment cells. Although the aims of each SMP is the same, it is not surprising that numerous areas for improvement were highlighted in a recent appraisal of first generation SMPs, in the document “ A review of Shoreline Management Plans: 1996 - 1999” (MAFF, 2000).

This report firstly discusses the many positive outcomes of SMP development. On a general level it highlights:

• The collation and development of the knowledge base in each area. • The encouragement of collaborative working practices.

• The encouragement of long term strategic planning.

• Improved communication between local and central agencies.

More specifically it refers to:

• The significantly improved appreciation amongst coastal managers of the importance of coastal processes in decision making.

• The identification of gaps in understanding of coastal response which has led to proposals for future monitoring and field studies to gather more information.

The main weaknesses identified arise from the problems of co-ordinating the activities of so many disparate groups in the development process.

• Lack of consistency of approach. • Lack of national guidance.

• Uncertainty in definition and application of certain concepts. • Bureaucratic and procedural barriers.

All these contribute to a plethora of plans of different types and styles which are difficult to coordinate and implement. Another key area for concern is the different approaches taken by groups with regard to the use of coastal process modelling to simulate and predict shoreline change in the future. Some of the south coast SMPs were based on high

quality information involving the use of numerical modelling, geomorphological studies and long term monitoring data, and “the insights afforded, offer improved strategic development and lend greater confidence and authority to plan outputs”. These observations have led to the conclusion that “All SMPs require a strong foundation of coastal process knowledge upon which to develop strategic policy”. The review recommends that all second generation SMPs should include a prediction of coastal evolution for the next 100 years.

There is a requirement that all SMPs should be regularly updated and reviewed. The SMP review (MAFF, 2000), acknowledges the use of GIS by almost all the consultants involved in the original plan definitions. However, instead of emphasising the advantages that were gained as a result, it concentrates on the problems that are caused when clients don’t have the same GIS, or when a different consultant with a different GIS is employed to review the document at a later date. It is clear that there is a role for GIS in the development and archiving of SMP data because most of the consultants work in this way. It is unfortunate, that whilst emphasising the need for more data, more modelling and more revision of policies, the future role of GIS is not discussed in the recommendations in this report. As discussed in section 2.4, there have been many recent developments in generic GIS data structures and ‘Open GIS’ spearheaded by the ‘Open GIS Consortium’ (OGC) (http://www.opwngis.org). The OGC are putting considerable emphasis on the development of open format GIS packages and recent developments in client/server web-based architectures that could solve data format problems giving improved access to anyone wishing to use or update GIS data.

2.2.3 Summary

Issues surrounding flood and coastal defence are likely to play an increasingly prominent role in coastal zone management in the future. Coastal managers are using the system of SMPs to develop a long-term strategic defence policy involving all local authorities and responsible bodies. They are encouraging the collection of local data and the use of numerical models to predict shoreline response in local areas for the next 100 years. Consultants are keen to use GIS as a tool to help with the development and production of

these plans, although it would seem that their true potential for future use has been somewhat overlooked by the governing body. Maintaining and expanding the use of modern GIS in these procedures will not only enable improved relationships between the consultants and the coastal managers on the ground, but also will also greatly facilitate the dissemination of information from local managers out to the general public.