Pressures on the Marine Environment:
A Summery
The view of the ocean as a bottomless pit of profit and an indestructible dumping ground for the unwanted terrestrial waste has changed. The marine environment is now seen as the vital resource it is, and is being show by science to demonstrate the importance in environmental systems and the fragility of it too.
Pressures place upon the marine environment from anthroprological needs have placed the ocean in the middle of arguments as to how best to manage it. The needs of the human in and next to the marine;
- Space for living
- Recourses (fishing, dredging, sewage waste disposal)
- Energy production (wind & wave farms, oil rigs)
- Industrial Development (wind & wave farms, wave hubs, fish farms, shellfish farms)
- Shipping & Transport
- Tourism (beach use, capital dredging, pleasure boating)
- Conservation & Science (divers, nature enthusiasts, environmentalists)
- Climate Change (sea level rise, ocean acidification, extreme weather increase
With current changes in the energy requirement in today’s society, these conflicts of interest will become evermore contentious. The needs of the UK energy industry will push the energy industry more and more into the marine environment. The UK Government hope to achieve not only a good foothold in the European marine market place, but also wants to achieve this by taking an efficient, holistic and profitable attitude towards managing the marine activities. It wishes to do this by the forthcoming Marine Bill. Argued as being more industrial over conservational, it never-the-less is the first piece of European Legislation to attempt this. This is a major advantage for all UK stakeholders in the Marine sector.
One of the main issues that will develop from this increased expansion into the marine world will be the increase in conflicts and these will need conflict resolution between the different stakeholders. This will be the job of the Coastal Zone Manager. Mediation between the different needs and necessities will start by the bringing together of the different parties, and placing them on a level playing field where all the issues can be discussed and hopefully solved. Groups like the Devon Maritime Forum have leaded the way in this type of conflict resolution. Using simple and yet effect means to;
- educate
- inform
- acquire information
- present this information
is the only way that true progress can be achieved. Coastal managers have to incorporate all the demands of all the interested parties, in a fair an equal manner. The needs of all elements, both natural and economical together are the only way of achieving this process. The development of true coastal zone management is the development of needs and the balance between them.
Thursday, 5 June 2008
Monday, 12 May 2008
Coastal Zone Managment (Falmouth Harbour Development)
Dredging Falmouth
The South west Regional Development Agency (RDA) and Objective One Funding Program for Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly will have put forward plans to dredge the Fal River to allow larger cruise liners into the port of Falmouth and develop the wharf with new terminals and site facilities, docks and coaching. The project is expected to cost £41 thousand with an environmental study of £117 thousand.
Falmouth is a site already heavily involved in maritime culture for centuries. Darwin after his famous time trip to the Galapagos Islands returned to Falmouth, as did Ellen MacArthur after she broke the record for sailing round the world in the fastest time. Falmouth at present is one of the busiest docks in Britain, with both small and large shipping and yachting. There is also Falmouth Docks (A&P), a world renowned business and Falmouth already supports a small amount of Cruise Liners already. The port is also the third largest natural deep water port in the world (for more on the dock click here) with the Tall Ships Festival happening in the town on a semi regular basis.
Falmouth the town would benefit heavily for the influx of tourists. As would too the rest of Cornwall, a Duchy already economically restrained economically.
The current plans aside from the rejuvenation project, requires the removal of the silt built up in the Fal River leading into the port. This dredging is broken between two separate areas, with some of the dredged material being reclaimed for beneficial use in creation schemes and filling schemes, with the rest of the unwanted material being disposed of at sea (for a complete survey in a Environmental Scoping Study click here).
The actions of dredging come under certain legal authoritive powers;
The Falmouth Docks act 1959 gives the powers to the A&P group to carry out improvements under section 7 (relating to maintenance and improvements) & section 26 (carry out dredging)
&
The Falmouth Harbour Act 1870 that defines the harbour limits and establishes the statutory powers for the Falmouth Harbour Commissioners
The dredging will need the appropriate assessment and legal requirements to be carried out;
Coastal Protection Act 1949 in regards to safety of shipping navigation and the potential towards the environment (see EIA).
Food & Environment Protection Act 1985 (under part II of the act) regards the effect to health standards that may affect other water users. Mussel farmers and fishermen also beach managers such as local councils.
An Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) will need to be carried out to establish the threats to the natural environment that could be affected by the project. The requirement for EIA is established by European Directive 85/33/EEC as amended by 97/11/EC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (the EIA Directive).
The EIA for Falmouth is already in progress.
One of the main areas of concern will be effects to the Falmouth SAC.
Falmouth SAC is a protected area designated under the EC Habitats Directive. It is not only a valuable habitat for a plethora of species, but also part of the attraction to Falmouth and the local areas.
Main areas of concern towards impacts come for direct actions from the dredging itself (air quality impacts, noise impacts, water quality impacts, waste management implications, ecological impact, fisheries impacts, plus visual and landscape impacts), but also indirect actions such as the influx in shipping, suspended particles in the water system, ship to ship transfers and habitat loss (although this can be reclaimed). There could also be risks to mineral depositing and movement. The assessment of the two would require major hydrological mapping and tracking.
The Contract for the EIA was given to Royal Haskoning’s Exeter team (at £500,000) and the assessment is set to be completed by the end of July 2008. The project when completed will allow the entrance of some of the world’s largest ships into Cornwall providing economic improvements, but the impacts of the environment and the un-estimatable value of the natural environment have also to taken into consideration in a precautionary and holistic approach.
For a more in depth article on the dredging practice click here
For an article from Marine SAC about effects from dredging click here
Falmouth is a site already heavily involved in maritime culture for centuries. Darwin after his famous time trip to the Galapagos Islands returned to Falmouth, as did Ellen MacArthur after she broke the record for sailing round the world in the fastest time. Falmouth at present is one of the busiest docks in Britain, with both small and large shipping and yachting. There is also Falmouth Docks (A&P), a world renowned business and Falmouth already supports a small amount of Cruise Liners already. The port is also the third largest natural deep water port in the world (for more on the dock click here) with the Tall Ships Festival happening in the town on a semi regular basis.
Falmouth the town would benefit heavily for the influx of tourists. As would too the rest of Cornwall, a Duchy already economically restrained economically.
The current plans aside from the rejuvenation project, requires the removal of the silt built up in the Fal River leading into the port. This dredging is broken between two separate areas, with some of the dredged material being reclaimed for beneficial use in creation schemes and filling schemes, with the rest of the unwanted material being disposed of at sea (for a complete survey in a Environmental Scoping Study click here).
The actions of dredging come under certain legal authoritive powers;
The Falmouth Docks act 1959 gives the powers to the A&P group to carry out improvements under section 7 (relating to maintenance and improvements) & section 26 (carry out dredging)
&
The Falmouth Harbour Act 1870 that defines the harbour limits and establishes the statutory powers for the Falmouth Harbour Commissioners
The dredging will need the appropriate assessment and legal requirements to be carried out;
Coastal Protection Act 1949 in regards to safety of shipping navigation and the potential towards the environment (see EIA).
Food & Environment Protection Act 1985 (under part II of the act) regards the effect to health standards that may affect other water users. Mussel farmers and fishermen also beach managers such as local councils.
An Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) will need to be carried out to establish the threats to the natural environment that could be affected by the project. The requirement for EIA is established by European Directive 85/33/EEC as amended by 97/11/EC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (the EIA Directive).
The EIA for Falmouth is already in progress.
One of the main areas of concern will be effects to the Falmouth SAC.
Falmouth SAC is a protected area designated under the EC Habitats Directive. It is not only a valuable habitat for a plethora of species, but also part of the attraction to Falmouth and the local areas.
Main areas of concern towards impacts come for direct actions from the dredging itself (air quality impacts, noise impacts, water quality impacts, waste management implications, ecological impact, fisheries impacts, plus visual and landscape impacts), but also indirect actions such as the influx in shipping, suspended particles in the water system, ship to ship transfers and habitat loss (although this can be reclaimed). There could also be risks to mineral depositing and movement. The assessment of the two would require major hydrological mapping and tracking.
The Contract for the EIA was given to Royal Haskoning’s Exeter team (at £500,000) and the assessment is set to be completed by the end of July 2008. The project when completed will allow the entrance of some of the world’s largest ships into Cornwall providing economic improvements, but the impacts of the environment and the un-estimatable value of the natural environment have also to taken into consideration in a precautionary and holistic approach.
For a more in depth article on the dredging practice click here
For an article from Marine SAC about effects from dredging click here
Coastal Zone Managment (UNCLOS)
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
The international agreement for States division of the ocean environment was a conference that convened in New York in 1973. It ended nine years later with the adoption in 1982 of a constitution for the seas - the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The ending result was a global diplomatic effort to regulate and write rules for all ocean areas, all uses of the seas and all of its resources that came into force on November 14th 1994.
Coastal Zoning through the Treaty
Map showing the breakdown of International Rights from the UNCLOS.
Image: Wikipedia, 28.02.2007
Internal Waters
Those waters that are on the landward side of the baseline* from which the breadth of the territorial waters are measured are defined as internal waters (UNCLOS, art 8). Within this territory, a State has absolute sovereignty. It may however have obligations to emit foreign vessels into its ports (Gibson 2008).
* The normal baseline for territorial seas is defined as the low water line along the coast as marked on large-scale charts officially recognised by the coastal State under UNCLOS article 5. These can incorporate straight lines between bays, islands or internal waters up to 24 nautical miles (nm) belonging to said State (UNCLOS, art 9) (Gibson 2008). This does not incorporate rocks that do not support human habitation or economic life (i.e. Rockall).
Territorial Sea
Sovereignty of a State still applies in the Territorial Seas (UNCLOS, art 2). However, foreign vessels have rights of “innocent passage” (UNCLOS, art 17) within this zone. Passage is deemed innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State (Gibson 2008).
The zone extends 12 nm from the baseline (UNCLOS, art 3), in the absence of mutual agreement or what is defined as a median line (UNCLOS, art 15) between two or more States with coasts opposing, or adjacent to each other.
Although the molesting of foreign ships in innocent transit is forbidden within the territorial zone, the State is allowed to regulate the manner in which the right is exercised. Moreover, under article 21 of UNCLOS, the State is encouraged to enforce legislation that heightens navigation safety, ocean resources, protection from pollution, fiscal, immigration security and scientific exploration (Gibson, 2008).
Contiguous Zone
Originally placed at 12 nm from baseline by the Territorial Sea Convention, later by UNCLOS this optional zone was increased to 24 nm.
Its purpose was to create a zone adjacent to the territorial zone (UNCLOS, art 13) to increase to the practice of custom, fiscal, immigration and sanitary laws.
Exclusive Economic Zone
The Exclusive Economic Zone or EEZ is a zone that extends 200 nm from the established baseline in articles 55 and 57 of UNCLOS.
The zone provides sovereignty to the Sate within this area, giving it sole rights to resources within the established zone (UNCLOS, art 56). Within the zone other States have the ability, as in territorial waters, to move through these waters and, if allowed by the occupying State, the right to benefit from the occupiers resources or area (i.e. lying of underwater cables) through licensing, leasing etc.
EEZ’s have been described as one of the most beneficial, politically challenging and contentious parts of the UNCLOS with negligible results. It is reasonably accurate to say that virtually all the various sections of UNCLOS relate, more or less, to the EEZ. The EEZ is, in effect, the hub of a wheel, with many spokes radiating out from it (Applebaum, 2008).
It should also be noted that Brittan, as part of the European Economic Community (EEC), have ceded jurisdiction over fisheries within the EEC, and can only impose restrictions towards its own fishing persons (Gibson, 2008).
Continental Shelf
Geologists refer to the continental shelf as the margin between the shoreline and the shelf break into the deep water.
In regards to the law, UNCLOS article 76 defines it as;
The submerged prolongation of the land territory of the coastal State - the seabed and subsoil of the submarine areas that extend beyond its territorial sea to the outer edge of the continental margin, or to a distance of 200 nautical miles where the outer edge of the continental margin does not extend up to that distance (UN 2008).
According to the same article;
The coastal State may establish the outer limits of its juridical continental shelf wherever the continental margin extends beyond 200 nautical miles by establishing the foot of the continental slope, by meeting the requirements stated for the thickness of sedimentary rocks, by satisfying geomorphological requirements and by meeting distance and depth criteria, or by any combination of these methods (Article 76, paragraphs 4 - 7) (UN 2008).
Sovereign rights of the State apply to this zone too, especially for the purpose of exploring for scientific benefits and hydro-carbon exploitation, like the Challenger Group for Natural Environment Research Council (NERC). The exploitation of the natural resources however is confined to mineral and non-living resources including sedimentary species of living organisms (UNCLOS, art 76).
Again, the interference towards other States oceanic transit is forbidden, but the control within the zone is limited to control over resources and dumping of wastes (UNCLOS 210).
In practice the continental shelf is more of an extension on the EEZ, a wider jurisdiction for Sates with an un-declared EEZ, or an extension for states where their continental shelf extends beyond 200 nm zone (Gibson 2008).
The total legal perimeter established and accepted by the U.K. through UNCLOS amounts to approximately 867,400 km2 of U.K. waters (161,200 km2 territorial and 706,200 km2 offshore, excluding territorial waters of Isle of Mann and the Channel Isles) (JNCC 2008)
Map of Total Defined Territorial U.K. Waters Image: Defra, 2002
Department for Food Environment & Rural Affairs (Defra), 2002, Safeguarding Our Seas, A Strategy for the Conservation and Sustainable Development of Our Sea, Crown Copyright, 2002, London
Gibson J. (23.03.2008) UK Coastal Zone Law Notes, Institute of Marine and Environmental Law, University of Cape Town, 2001, updated 21.02.07, available at http://web.uct.ac.za/depts/pbl/jgibson/iczm/notes/note1.htm#sect2.1
Applebaum B. (22.03.2008). Outline of UNCLOS, Law of the Sea – The Exclusive Economic Zone, 2001, Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation, last updated 03.03.2001, available at http://www.civilization.ca/hist/lifelines/apple6e.html
United Nations (UN). (01.02.2008). Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) The continental shelf, Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea, Office of Legal Affairs, United Nations, 2006, available at http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/continental_shelf_description.htm
Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC), 14.02.2008) 1.6.4 Selection of offshore sites, JOCK website, available at http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page-1478
Sunday, 11 May 2008
Coastal Zone Managment (Dredging in Falmouth)
Dredging in the Fal River in Cornwall
In 2003, the BBC reported on the pressure posed upon the scallop fishermen by the environmentalist wanting to reduce or ban the fishing practice within Carrick Roads in Cornwall.
By the end of 2007, the Marine Conservation Society (MCS) threatened to complain to Brussels as they believed the threat to the marine environment by the industry was significant enough to warrant grave concern.
In the Telegraph, Jean-Luc Solandt of the MCS stated,
“We are giving the Cornwall Sea Fisheries Committee and Defra nine months to act to protect the threatened marine life in the Fal and Helford, an area designated for its internationally important marine habitats”.
As a Special Area of Conservation (SAC), an area protected under EU law designated under the European Union Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora. The MCS have gone on to say
“If Defra does not take action to put an immediate stop to these activities, we will be forced to inform the European Commission that in our opinion, UK authorities are acting unlawfully under European law”.
The UK governmental group, the Department for the Environment and Rural Affairs (Defra), could face huge fines if found in breach.
Defra responded by saying,
"There is a long standing management agreement in place to protect the site that was agreed between Natural England, the local Sea Fisheries Committee and other interested parties”.
The local authority responsible for the control of the industry is Cornwall Sea Fisheries Committee (CSFC) who re-opened the fishery in November after reaching an agreement with the local scallop fishermen on working dates and times.
Since this reversal, dredging for scallops within the Carrick Roads water system has bought a lot of attention.
Scallop dredging, which dates back 30 years or so within the Cornish fishing communities, is one of the diminishing industries in Cornwall, a Dutcy, that is already infected by low employment, low wages and high house prises.
Scallop dredging however, is damaging the bathology, and the benthic ecosystem associated with it, and Defra, employed an consultation with CSFC with reported, “they (maerl beds) are susceptible to damage from scallop dredging and other towed bottom gears, which in turn may threaten the conservation objectives of the SAC”
Natural England (NE) Wildlife & Countryside Link (WCL) and again with the MCS with a press release press release in March 2008 advised that Defra close the fishery.
Recently, Defra and the SCFC have taken into consultation
toward the banning of the industry to maintain and protect the SAC.
This would be a brave step in the movement towards environmental damage limitation within the SAC and surrounding areas of Falmouth. But, what it has install for the local community is another question.
Some useful links:
http://www.whitbyseaanglers.co.uk/north-east-fishing-news/fal-bay-trawling-ban
http://db.cornwall.gov.uk/documents/download.aspx?doc=327028
http://www.saveourseabirdscharitabletrust.org.uk/gulls_towns.htm
mailto:betty@chy-an-golvanas.wanadoo.co.uk
In 2003, the BBC reported on the pressure posed upon the scallop fishermen by the environmentalist wanting to reduce or ban the fishing practice within Carrick Roads in Cornwall.
By the end of 2007, the Marine Conservation Society (MCS) threatened to complain to Brussels as they believed the threat to the marine environment by the industry was significant enough to warrant grave concern.
In the Telegraph, Jean-Luc Solandt of the MCS stated,
“We are giving the Cornwall Sea Fisheries Committee and Defra nine months to act to protect the threatened marine life in the Fal and Helford, an area designated for its internationally important marine habitats”.
As a Special Area of Conservation (SAC), an area protected under EU law designated under the European Union Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora. The MCS have gone on to say
“If Defra does not take action to put an immediate stop to these activities, we will be forced to inform the European Commission that in our opinion, UK authorities are acting unlawfully under European law”.
The UK governmental group, the Department for the Environment and Rural Affairs (Defra), could face huge fines if found in breach.
Defra responded by saying,
"There is a long standing management agreement in place to protect the site that was agreed between Natural England, the local Sea Fisheries Committee and other interested parties”.
The local authority responsible for the control of the industry is Cornwall Sea Fisheries Committee (CSFC) who re-opened the fishery in November after reaching an agreement with the local scallop fishermen on working dates and times.
Since this reversal, dredging for scallops within the Carrick Roads water system has bought a lot of attention.
Scallop dredging, which dates back 30 years or so within the Cornish fishing communities, is one of the diminishing industries in Cornwall, a Dutcy, that is already infected by low employment, low wages and high house prises.
Scallop dredging however, is damaging the bathology, and the benthic ecosystem associated with it, and Defra, employed an consultation with CSFC with reported, “they (maerl beds) are susceptible to damage from scallop dredging and other towed bottom gears, which in turn may threaten the conservation objectives of the SAC”
Natural England (NE) Wildlife & Countryside Link (WCL) and again with the MCS with a press release press release in March 2008 advised that Defra close the fishery.
Recently, Defra and the SCFC have taken into consultation
toward the banning of the industry to maintain and protect the SAC.
This would be a brave step in the movement towards environmental damage limitation within the SAC and surrounding areas of Falmouth. But, what it has install for the local community is another question.
Some useful links:
http://www.whitbyseaanglers.co.uk/north-east-fishing-news/fal-bay-trawling-ban
http://db.cornwall.gov.uk/documents/download.aspx?doc=327028
http://www.saveourseabirdscharitabletrust.org.uk/gulls_towns.htm
mailto:betty@chy-an-golvanas.wanadoo.co.uk
Wednesday, 7 May 2008
Coastal Zone Managment (Sea Level Rise)
Sea Level Rise and the National Trust
Geomorphic changes to our coastal environment are inevitable. For an in-detail and informative article by Spencer Weart go here.
With this change in mind, stakeholders in the marine environment have to plan for future changes and adaptations to morph with the changes ahead.
“To help plan for the future the
Trust commissioned research to
assess how the coastline is likely to
change over the next 100 years.
The results suggest that many of the
Trust’s important sites are at risk from
coastal erosion and flooding”
(Shifting Shores: Living with a changing coastline, The National Trust 2005)
Places such as Mullion Harbour in Cornwall are such places under threat. This old and beautiful harbour, which forms part of the village of mullion is expected to be gone within the next couple of hundred years or less.
So what is to be done about it? In short, nothing!
The Environment Agency have installed operations in place to asses the damage (go here), but the real adaptation comes in the form of societies ability to relax in the way of un-controllable forces.
Go and have a look here to see where your house will be in a few years.
But it’s not all that bad. As one thing is removed, another is created.
Assessing the full damage of climate change and sea level rise, will only really be possible when the sea starts to drop. Until then, society has to develop the tools to adapt to changes in the environment, and install operations to minimise damage.
For a fuller more detailed analysis go to “Or Go Buy a Snorkel” down this page.
For a fuller more detailed analysis, go to “Or Go Buy a Snorkel” down this page.
To see Mullion Harbours reaction to the changes ahead, go here.
Geomorphic changes to our coastal environment are inevitable. For an in-detail and informative article by Spencer Weart go here.
With this change in mind, stakeholders in the marine environment have to plan for future changes and adaptations to morph with the changes ahead.
“To help plan for the future the
Trust commissioned research to
assess how the coastline is likely to
change over the next 100 years.
The results suggest that many of the
Trust’s important sites are at risk from
coastal erosion and flooding”
(Shifting Shores: Living with a changing coastline, The National Trust 2005)
Places such as Mullion Harbour in Cornwall are such places under threat. This old and beautiful harbour, which forms part of the village of mullion is expected to be gone within the next couple of hundred years or less.
So what is to be done about it? In short, nothing!
The Environment Agency have installed operations in place to asses the damage (go here), but the real adaptation comes in the form of societies ability to relax in the way of un-controllable forces.
Go and have a look here to see where your house will be in a few years.
But it’s not all that bad. As one thing is removed, another is created.
Assessing the full damage of climate change and sea level rise, will only really be possible when the sea starts to drop. Until then, society has to develop the tools to adapt to changes in the environment, and install operations to minimise damage.
For a fuller more detailed analysis go to “Or Go Buy a Snorkel” down this page.
For a fuller more detailed analysis, go to “Or Go Buy a Snorkel” down this page.
To see Mullion Harbours reaction to the changes ahead, go here.
Tuesday, 6 May 2008
Coastal Zone Managment (MPA's)
Marine Protected Areas
OSPARS System of MPA’s http://www.ngo.grida.no/wwfneap/Projects/MPAmap.htm
A robust tool for the protection of the marine environment is the Marine Protected Area, or the MPA.
The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (INCN) has defined this as;
“Any area of inter-tidal or sub-tidal terrain, together with it’s overlying water and associated flora, fauna, historical and cultural features, which has been reserved by law [De Jure] or other means [De Facto] to protect part or all of the enclosed environment”.
Resolution 17.38 of the 17th General Assembly of the INCN, 1988
Through this, six categories of protected zones are defined.
Go here. http://www.mcsuk.org/downloads/policy/marine_bill/WCL_Marine_Protected_Areas_26Aug05_Final.pdf
Marine Nature Reserves (MNR) are designated under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. There main purpose is to conserve marine flora and or fauna, geological and physical features of special interest. Within these zones activties like fishing can still take place, but are regulated by Sea Fisheries Committees.
More here.
http://www.defra.gov.uk/fish/sea/others/sfc.htm
Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) are established for the protection of specific habitats and species of European importance under the Habitats Directive. Similarly, Special Protected Areas (SPA) were established for the sites of migratory birds including maritime birds.
They are referred as European Marine Sites (EMS).
More here.
http://www.ukmarinesac.org.uk/publications.htm
http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page-4215
Highly Protected Marine Reserves (HPMR) can be defined as, areas in which all extractive activities are prohibited. Sometimes referred to as “No Take zones”, all activities consisting of the removal of living, and non-living resources for the said site is forbidden.
More here.
http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page-1572
&
Go here.
http://www.marinereservesnow.org.uk/
Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) (sometimes said as, “Triple S I’s”), are typically terrestrial zones. However, this does incorporate coastal zones such as cliffs and sand dunes systems extending to the low-water mark. An SSSI is an area that has been notified as being of special interest and is protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.
Voluntary Marine Conservation Areas (VMCA) are areas where local communities and area users develop codes of practice for the zone.
OSPARS System of MPA’s http://www.ngo.grida.no/wwfneap/Projects/MPAmap.htm
A robust tool for the protection of the marine environment is the Marine Protected Area, or the MPA.
The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (INCN) has defined this as;
“Any area of inter-tidal or sub-tidal terrain, together with it’s overlying water and associated flora, fauna, historical and cultural features, which has been reserved by law [De Jure] or other means [De Facto] to protect part or all of the enclosed environment”.
Resolution 17.38 of the 17th General Assembly of the INCN, 1988
Through this, six categories of protected zones are defined.
Go here. http://www.mcsuk.org/downloads/policy/marine_bill/WCL_Marine_Protected_Areas_26Aug05_Final.pdf
Marine Nature Reserves (MNR) are designated under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. There main purpose is to conserve marine flora and or fauna, geological and physical features of special interest. Within these zones activties like fishing can still take place, but are regulated by Sea Fisheries Committees.
More here.
http://www.defra.gov.uk/fish/sea/others/sfc.htm
Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) are established for the protection of specific habitats and species of European importance under the Habitats Directive. Similarly, Special Protected Areas (SPA) were established for the sites of migratory birds including maritime birds.
They are referred as European Marine Sites (EMS).
More here.
http://www.ukmarinesac.org.uk/publications.htm
http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page-4215
Highly Protected Marine Reserves (HPMR) can be defined as, areas in which all extractive activities are prohibited. Sometimes referred to as “No Take zones”, all activities consisting of the removal of living, and non-living resources for the said site is forbidden.
More here.
http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page-1572
&
Go here.
http://www.marinereservesnow.org.uk/
Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) (sometimes said as, “Triple S I’s”), are typically terrestrial zones. However, this does incorporate coastal zones such as cliffs and sand dunes systems extending to the low-water mark. An SSSI is an area that has been notified as being of special interest and is protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.
Voluntary Marine Conservation Areas (VMCA) are areas where local communities and area users develop codes of practice for the zone.
Go here.
http://www.helfordvmca.co.uk/
http://www.devonwildlifetrust.org/index.php?section=home
http://www.sevensisters.org.uk/rte.asp?id=42
Marine National Parks (MNP) are an evolvement from the terrestrial National Park similar to Pembrokeshire in Wales. Plans are under way to develop a MNP in Scotland (http://www.wwf.org.uk/news/scotland/n_0000002113.asp)
More here.
http://www.snh.org.uk/strategy/CMNP/sr-adnp01.asp
http://www.nationalparks.gov.uk/
http://www.helfordvmca.co.uk/
http://www.devonwildlifetrust.org/index.php?section=home
http://www.sevensisters.org.uk/rte.asp?id=42
Marine National Parks (MNP) are an evolvement from the terrestrial National Park similar to Pembrokeshire in Wales. Plans are under way to develop a MNP in Scotland (http://www.wwf.org.uk/news/scotland/n_0000002113.asp)
More here.
http://www.snh.org.uk/strategy/CMNP/sr-adnp01.asp
http://www.nationalparks.gov.uk/
Thursday, 24 April 2008
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP)
1. Abstract
The introduction of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), is the instigation of the correct and planned method for a effective response towards marine pollution from an oil spill incident. It is pertinent to consider these aspects of a planned response to ultimate the level of response, and install the mechanics towards limiting and reducing effects to the wider marine environment during an incident.
In regards to the prosecution towards the compensatory necessities for a person or organisation The incident must be scrutinised to insure the relevant facts are established, and, where there is legitimate claim, the UK and International Community has in place legally bindings rules and regulations that not only allow for the plaintiff to obtain compensation, but also the reduction in incident occurring.
2. National Contingency Plan
The National Contingency Plan (NCP) states;
After saving human life, the key purpose of responding to a maritime incident is to protect human health, and the marine and terrestrial environment (p. 7. MCA. 2008).
The powers for the implementing of the emergency provision is found in the Merchant Shipping and Maritime Security Act 1997 (the “1995 Act”) where it states within Chapter 28, 8(2)b, Safety Regulations;
“for securing the safety of other ships and persons on them while they are within United Kingdom waters and for protecting the health of persons on ships other than United Kingdom ships while they are within United Kingdom waters.”
And, under 12(3A) of the same act;
“provision imposing on local authorities responsibilities in relation to the preparation, review and implementation of any plans”.
This allows the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and Regions (DETR) the function of litigating and minimising pollution effects to the marine environment by powers of intervention (normally controlled by the Secretary of State’s Representative (SOSREP)).
Figure 1.
The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and Regions, RT Hon. John Prescott MP.
Image: http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm42/4273/etr.htm
The DETR is responsible for eight agencies, one of them being The Maritime & Coastguard Agency (MCA). Created on 1st April 1998, currently under Chief Executive is Maurice Story. The MCA main responsibilities are minimising loss of life amongst seafarers and marine users, responding in marine emergencies (24hours a day), developing and promoting marine safety to minimise effects form pollution to preserve UK interests.
The NCP also for fills the UKs wider obligations under International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Co-operation 1990 (the “OPRC Convention”). This international convention, harnessed by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) and came into force in May 1995, requires agreeing states to implement and establish measures for pollution incidents (the NCP), as well as, the provision for ships to carry ship-board pollution emergency plans and the necessity to report pollution incidents.
A pollution incident can result as from spills from vessels cargo whether carried as bulk or packages. Also, the ships bunkers as well as leaks from oil/gas installations and pipe lines. At this point, the NCP serves as a methodical and calculated response to ensure a timely and effective response to the incident. The NCP takes over, when the ships response capabilities no longer suffice (NCP. 2008). The NCP also sets out the MCAs’ management plans for the assets it uses to tackle problems arising within the marine environment.
Incidents occurring (within UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), defined UK waters), and as a problem arises, the nature of the incident is filtered to the correct parties be that HM Coastguard (HMCG), Habour Master or HM Coastguards Maritime Rescue Co-Ordination Centre (MRCC) for Scottish Offshore operations. It will also be necessary to inform the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR) Oil and Gas Division (previously DTi). From here, the NCP moves the MCA through the systematic response management by ascertaining the;
o Details of the incident including,
· location of vessel
· owner of vessel
· weather and tidal conditions
· information on vessel
· control measure already in place
o Level of response necessary
o The setting up of response units
o Salvage rights
o Sea response unit
o Harbour and coastal response units
o Environmental monitoring and advice
o Media interaction
o Finance and Prosecution
o Roles and Responsibilities of Stakeholders and key organisations
· including contact details for said organisation
o International Assistance and Cooperation
o Legal and obligatory rulings and powers
In short, the purpose of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) is to provide the organizational structure and procedures for preparing for and responding to discharges of oil and releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, and contaminants.
The introduction of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), is the instigation of the correct and planned method for a effective response towards marine pollution from an oil spill incident. It is pertinent to consider these aspects of a planned response to ultimate the level of response, and install the mechanics towards limiting and reducing effects to the wider marine environment during an incident.
In regards to the prosecution towards the compensatory necessities for a person or organisation The incident must be scrutinised to insure the relevant facts are established, and, where there is legitimate claim, the UK and International Community has in place legally bindings rules and regulations that not only allow for the plaintiff to obtain compensation, but also the reduction in incident occurring.
2. National Contingency Plan
The National Contingency Plan (NCP) states;
After saving human life, the key purpose of responding to a maritime incident is to protect human health, and the marine and terrestrial environment (p. 7. MCA. 2008).
The powers for the implementing of the emergency provision is found in the Merchant Shipping and Maritime Security Act 1997 (the “1995 Act”) where it states within Chapter 28, 8(2)b, Safety Regulations;
“for securing the safety of other ships and persons on them while they are within United Kingdom waters and for protecting the health of persons on ships other than United Kingdom ships while they are within United Kingdom waters.”
And, under 12(3A) of the same act;
“provision imposing on local authorities responsibilities in relation to the preparation, review and implementation of any plans”.
This allows the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and Regions (DETR) the function of litigating and minimising pollution effects to the marine environment by powers of intervention (normally controlled by the Secretary of State’s Representative (SOSREP)).
Figure 1.The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and Regions, RT Hon. John Prescott MP.
Image: http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm42/4273/etr.htm
The DETR is responsible for eight agencies, one of them being The Maritime & Coastguard Agency (MCA). Created on 1st April 1998, currently under Chief Executive is Maurice Story. The MCA main responsibilities are minimising loss of life amongst seafarers and marine users, responding in marine emergencies (24hours a day), developing and promoting marine safety to minimise effects form pollution to preserve UK interests.
The NCP also for fills the UKs wider obligations under International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Co-operation 1990 (the “OPRC Convention”). This international convention, harnessed by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) and came into force in May 1995, requires agreeing states to implement and establish measures for pollution incidents (the NCP), as well as, the provision for ships to carry ship-board pollution emergency plans and the necessity to report pollution incidents.
A pollution incident can result as from spills from vessels cargo whether carried as bulk or packages. Also, the ships bunkers as well as leaks from oil/gas installations and pipe lines. At this point, the NCP serves as a methodical and calculated response to ensure a timely and effective response to the incident. The NCP takes over, when the ships response capabilities no longer suffice (NCP. 2008). The NCP also sets out the MCAs’ management plans for the assets it uses to tackle problems arising within the marine environment.
Incidents occurring (within UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), defined UK waters), and as a problem arises, the nature of the incident is filtered to the correct parties be that HM Coastguard (HMCG), Habour Master or HM Coastguards Maritime Rescue Co-Ordination Centre (MRCC) for Scottish Offshore operations. It will also be necessary to inform the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR) Oil and Gas Division (previously DTi). From here, the NCP moves the MCA through the systematic response management by ascertaining the;
o Details of the incident including,
· location of vessel
· owner of vessel
· weather and tidal conditions
· information on vessel
· control measure already in place
o Level of response necessary
o The setting up of response units
o Salvage rights
o Sea response unit
o Harbour and coastal response units
o Environmental monitoring and advice
o Media interaction
o Finance and Prosecution
o Roles and Responsibilities of Stakeholders and key organisations
· including contact details for said organisation
o International Assistance and Cooperation
o Legal and obligatory rulings and powers
In short, the purpose of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) is to provide the organizational structure and procedures for preparing for and responding to discharges of oil and releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, and contaminants.
3. Training Exercise at Falmouth Marine School
As a group activity, the students of Environmental Policies undertook an experiment to practice and test their ability to react, using the NCP, to an imaginary oil spill incident. The script for the exercise ran through a weeklong even over one day of lesson. The group were given each a role to play within the exercise. Roles were defined by the NCP guidelines (i.e. Shore response, Media etc.).
Within the activity, my particular part was that of Prosecution. This was a tough job considering the main role of the prosecution would take place over the years post the accident, and would allow time to build evidence and ultimately a case, towards prosecution if required.
For the exercise though, certain convenient problems towards the vessel were incorporated to allow a quick and easy addition from the prosecution side to the exercise. The age of the tanker, and the single hull of the vessel meant that under international and European legislation there were suspected breaches in;
o Regulation (EC) No. 417/2002 in “Erika I” on single hull carriers
o International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) 73/78 category 1, on single hull carriers
o International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) on the Duplication of Steering Gears
o IMOs’ Assembly Resolution A.744(18) on Enhanced Inspections
Finding where and how these transpose into UK legislation would be applicable later, and this be necessary to establish formal compensatory processes.
Within an oil pollution claim the identity of the Vessel is extremely important (Z. Oya özçayir. 1998). And traditionally, ship owners could only be exempted from liability unless they proved that the loss or damage had been caused by an act of God, the King of enemies, a defect in the Cargo or the Packaging thereof or by a general average sacrifice (p125. Z. Oya özçayir. 1998).
The 1969 Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage makes the ship-owner responsible for damage caused by oil spills up to $80m. However, it is important to remember that the International Oil Spill Pollution Compensation (IOPC) Fund will pay up to $180million compensation (less amount paid by owner of vessel) towards damage to bodies affected by a spill. The fund made up by levies in profits per ton by oil companies however, can pay for reasonable clean-up costs, but does not pay compensation for environmental damage (FOE. 2008).
Towards pursuing a claim towards damaged by oil pollution, the claimant would be a person who alleges that he has suffered damage or loss as a result of an oil spill (p. 89. G Gauci. 1997). In English Law, under the International Convention on Liability and Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage 1996, in certain limited circumstances, such a person would have cause of action.
As a group activity, the students of Environmental Policies undertook an experiment to practice and test their ability to react, using the NCP, to an imaginary oil spill incident. The script for the exercise ran through a weeklong even over one day of lesson. The group were given each a role to play within the exercise. Roles were defined by the NCP guidelines (i.e. Shore response, Media etc.).
Within the activity, my particular part was that of Prosecution. This was a tough job considering the main role of the prosecution would take place over the years post the accident, and would allow time to build evidence and ultimately a case, towards prosecution if required.
For the exercise though, certain convenient problems towards the vessel were incorporated to allow a quick and easy addition from the prosecution side to the exercise. The age of the tanker, and the single hull of the vessel meant that under international and European legislation there were suspected breaches in;
o Regulation (EC) No. 417/2002 in “Erika I” on single hull carriers
o International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) 73/78 category 1, on single hull carriers
o International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) on the Duplication of Steering Gears
o IMOs’ Assembly Resolution A.744(18) on Enhanced Inspections
Finding where and how these transpose into UK legislation would be applicable later, and this be necessary to establish formal compensatory processes.
Within an oil pollution claim the identity of the Vessel is extremely important (Z. Oya özçayir. 1998). And traditionally, ship owners could only be exempted from liability unless they proved that the loss or damage had been caused by an act of God, the King of enemies, a defect in the Cargo or the Packaging thereof or by a general average sacrifice (p125. Z. Oya özçayir. 1998).
The 1969 Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage makes the ship-owner responsible for damage caused by oil spills up to $80m. However, it is important to remember that the International Oil Spill Pollution Compensation (IOPC) Fund will pay up to $180million compensation (less amount paid by owner of vessel) towards damage to bodies affected by a spill. The fund made up by levies in profits per ton by oil companies however, can pay for reasonable clean-up costs, but does not pay compensation for environmental damage (FOE. 2008).
Towards pursuing a claim towards damaged by oil pollution, the claimant would be a person who alleges that he has suffered damage or loss as a result of an oil spill (p. 89. G Gauci. 1997). In English Law, under the International Convention on Liability and Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage 1996, in certain limited circumstances, such a person would have cause of action.
4. References
4.1. Bibliography
Gauci G. (1997). Oil Pollution at Sea, Civil Liability and Compensation for Damage, John Wiley & Sons, 1997, Chichester
Maritime & Coastguard Agency (2008). National Contingency Plan for Marine Pollution from Shipping and Offshore Installations, Maritime & Coastguard Agency, 2008, Southampton
özçayir. Z. Oya. (1998). Liability fir Oil Pollution and Collisions, LLP London Hong-Kong, Mendip Communications Ltd, 1998, Bridgend
4.2 Electronic
Friends of the Earth (FOE). (22.04.2008). Prestige oil spill - Who fits the Bill?, Friends of the Earth, 2008, available at http://www.foe.co.uk/pubsinfo/briefings/html/20021126160752.html
4.1. Bibliography
Gauci G. (1997). Oil Pollution at Sea, Civil Liability and Compensation for Damage, John Wiley & Sons, 1997, Chichester
Maritime & Coastguard Agency (2008). National Contingency Plan for Marine Pollution from Shipping and Offshore Installations, Maritime & Coastguard Agency, 2008, Southampton
özçayir. Z. Oya. (1998). Liability fir Oil Pollution and Collisions, LLP London Hong-Kong, Mendip Communications Ltd, 1998, Bridgend
4.2 Electronic
Friends of the Earth (FOE). (22.04.2008). Prestige oil spill - Who fits the Bill?, Friends of the Earth, 2008, available at http://www.foe.co.uk/pubsinfo/briefings/html/20021126160752.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
