18
S.D.King
difficult to identify, and the concept hard to apply. This is especially true for finer
sediment, as no one can be sure of its exact movements. Lee (1993) also argues that
sediment cells will not be relevant to all aspects of coastal management, particularly
where landward geomorphological systems are concerned. The ability of plans based
entirely on sediment cells to integrate management strategies, may, therefore, be
questioned; any framework not bringing all issues together is not totally integrating
them.
Another dilemma faced by the SMP initiative is that it is non-statutory,
although Jemmett (1995) argues that there are some advantages to this system. He
suggests that it “places the responsibility for addressing individual issues on those
affected by them and it fosters greater awareness and ownership” (Jemmett, 1995, p.
449). In other words, the plans, while based on national policy, can become very site
specific, geared towards particular needs. However, he also acknowledges that some
conflicts will only be resolved by statutory control (Jemmett, 1995). Also, being nonstatutory, local authorities and consulting agencies do not have to initiate them, and
even if they do, they remain little more than advisory measures that can only be
enforced if made law within planning documents. Coastal management still relies
heavily on the planning system that is less than adequate to deal with all its intricacies.
There is still a lot of room for improvement before it can be said that Britain
has a framework for the wise use of the coast, its sustainable development, and
maintenance of its biodiversity. The formation of voluntary coastal groups and nonstatutory management plans are certainly a start, yet it has been seen how, based only on
sediment cells, these may not account for all coastal issues. The other problem is that
SMPs are not the only type of management plan, in force, at the coast. There are also
estuary, heritage coast, and AONB management plans, which may all overlap. Thus,
two different methods of management and planning could be applied to the same area.
Ultimately, this gives the impression that coastal management still lacks a co-ordinating
body with responsibility for all issues.
Lee (1993) concludes that effective management in the future should be able to
resolve conflicts between alternative demands on resources, and ensure that human
activity does not significantly affect coastal systems or ecosystems. Carter, (1990)
argues that the best way of achieving this will be through a framework which provides
consistency and ease of communications. He suggests imposing a new structure, lying
across existing areas of responsibility, hence, providing a lead group through which all
existing interest groups can be co-ordinated. This is, perhaps, the best way of bridging
the gap originally created by the division of coastal defence and protection.
On the other hand, it is hard to see how one body could possibly control the
shear volume of work, and conflicts, arising from the many interests at the coast. The
main problem with coastal management in the past is that it has been very reactionary.
There has been little in the way of planned response, and new ideas have only come
about with hindsight. This is partly why there are so many voluntary groups,
management plans and conservation designations in operation. Perhaps now is the time
to take stock of the situation and clarify positions. It may be that there is now a need for
Coastal Authorities based on the boundaries of sediment cells, with statutory powers to
govern the coast, but in close liaison with existing Local Authorities and their planners.
In addition, new Acts of Parliament should bring coastal legislation up to date,
S.D.King
difficult to identify, and the concept hard to apply. This is especially true for finer
sediment, as no one can be sure of its exact movements. Lee (1993) also argues that
sediment cells will not be relevant to all aspects of coastal management, particularly
where landward geomorphological systems are concerned. The ability of plans based
entirely on sediment cells to integrate management strategies, may, therefore, be
questioned; any framework not bringing all issues together is not totally integrating
them.
Another dilemma faced by the SMP initiative is that it is non-statutory,
although Jemmett (1995) argues that there are some advantages to this system. He
suggests that it “places the responsibility for addressing individual issues on those
affected by them and it fosters greater awareness and ownership” (Jemmett, 1995, p.
449). In other words, the plans, while based on national policy, can become very site
specific, geared towards particular needs. However, he also acknowledges that some
conflicts will only be resolved by statutory control (Jemmett, 1995). Also, being nonstatutory, local authorities and consulting agencies do not have to initiate them, and
even if they do, they remain little more than advisory measures that can only be
enforced if made law within planning documents. Coastal management still relies
heavily on the planning system that is less than adequate to deal with all its intricacies.
There is still a lot of room for improvement before it can be said that Britain
has a framework for the wise use of the coast, its sustainable development, and
maintenance of its biodiversity. The formation of voluntary coastal groups and nonstatutory management plans are certainly a start, yet it has been seen how, based only on
sediment cells, these may not account for all coastal issues. The other problem is that
SMPs are not the only type of management plan, in force, at the coast. There are also
estuary, heritage coast, and AONB management plans, which may all overlap. Thus,
two different methods of management and planning could be applied to the same area.
Ultimately, this gives the impression that coastal management still lacks a co-ordinating
body with responsibility for all issues.
Lee (1993) concludes that effective management in the future should be able to
resolve conflicts between alternative demands on resources, and ensure that human
activity does not significantly affect coastal systems or ecosystems. Carter, (1990)
argues that the best way of achieving this will be through a framework which provides
consistency and ease of communications. He suggests imposing a new structure, lying
across existing areas of responsibility, hence, providing a lead group through which all
existing interest groups can be co-ordinated. This is, perhaps, the best way of bridging
the gap originally created by the division of coastal defence and protection.
On the other hand, it is hard to see how one body could possibly control the
shear volume of work, and conflicts, arising from the many interests at the coast. The
main problem with coastal management in the past is that it has been very reactionary.
There has been little in the way of planned response, and new ideas have only come
about with hindsight. This is partly why there are so many voluntary groups,
management plans and conservation designations in operation. Perhaps now is the time
to take stock of the situation and clarify positions. It may be that there is now a need for
Coastal Authorities based on the boundaries of sediment cells, with statutory powers to
govern the coast, but in close liaison with existing Local Authorities and their planners.
In addition, new Acts of Parliament should bring coastal legislation up to date,