Diane Awo Dumashie B.SC, ARICS
ABSTRACT
This paper proposes that government coastal zone management initiatives would be strategically more effective if the contribution already made by coastal land managers is recognised and incorporated. This proposal arises from a wider study of coastal land management practices undertaken by the regulatory authorities using systems together with non- statutory coastal zone management (CZM) initiatives; the business community composed of land-owners who operate a business in the coastal recreational sector; NGOs and other voluntary groups who rely upon public contributions and accordingly operate high level marketing campaigns. Effectiveness is judged by the principles of sustainability. Leisure land management is used as an example for the purposes of this study. This activity has been singled out because recreation crosses the terra firma private rights, and the marine common rights.
The study indicates that management systems undertaken by the different groups need not work antagonistically as these embraces functional management of land and relationship-building in the context of strategic coastal management, identifying the importance of land ownership and the desirability for landowners' cooperation. The paper concludes that the relationship and interplay between land-owners and regulators can achieve a balance between development and conservation.
INTRODUCTION
Humans have never before in history been able to so use the sea effectively as now. Thus not surprisingly the need to provide integrate management, from which has originated the term Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM).
First the environmental background, definitions and role of land managers are explained. Second the 'institution of land' contribution to a strategic approach to CZM, and finally the landowners' stewardship approaches. The discussion concludes that sustainable leisure land management is imperative for CZM implementation.
BACKGROUND
This section reviews the emerging regulatory process of CZM, which has evolved within the environmental movement, reflecting societies' 'green' perceptions in the international discussion at Rio hosted by the United Nations. Coast and ocean management is included in Agenda 21, chapter 17. Coastal zone management as an environmental tool for managing the coastal resource is becoming established within national governments. Local authority coastal zone management programmes are primarily driven by planning departments, although notable initiatives exist in the engineering departments. Landownership is also subjected to regulation the dominant regulatory control above LWM in the UK being the land use planning system.
Environmentalism and thus CZM increasingly incorporate the concept of sustainability which effectively creates a mind set or a vision of appropriate present human endeavour for future generations. This originated from the 1987 Brundtland report (UN), which has little practical guidance on translating the concept into specific outputs (1). Consequently the concept rehearsed by many is difficult to translate into practice. A means to achieve CZM implementation suggested here, is to recognise that there are other land managers in the coastal area.
While it is beyond dispute that industrialisation has contributed to the present environmental degradation, it is not sufficient to disregard the legitimacy of businesses along coastal areas. The concept of sustainability considers compatibility of development and conservation. It should not exclusively be a conservation tool, but one which seeks to balance the needs of different aspects of society. Thus compatibility is being sought by endeavouring to guide the CZM programmes towards a strategic alliance with the institution of land.
Environmentalism will only occur in tandem with development, because growth is imperative for maintaining quality of life. While the call may be to discontinue a trade off between the environment and development, this may not be realistic. First, the 'do nothing' approach requires financing, and secondly, sustainable development does not mean 'no growth', but 'no waste of resources'. The land economic analogy is 'use of benefits from yield (interest) and not from the capital invested'.
Geography
The selection of regions for investigation in the present study required good examples of coastal recreational diversity as well as land owner representation; this led to open coasts rather than estuaries. The study area falls geographically into two physical regions, namely, the area between Southampton Water westwards to the Dorset western border; and an area covering the former counties of Dyfed and West Glamorgan.
A substantial amount of both coastal recreational and conservation activity occurs within these regions. Complimentary climatic conditions with prevailing mild south westerly wind patterns partly shield the southern coastline of England, contributing to sheltered waters for boating activities. In contrast the rugged Dyfed coastline, exposed to the winds and consequential wave conditions attract different forms of watersports and habitats. In addition, these coastlines have a high scenic value, and are predominantly rural, reflected in the profusion of landscape and nature conservation designations; approximately 40% of the Welsh coastline is heritage coast, and there are two national parks.
Tourism is a main economic base in south central England, and a major feature of the economy of Wales. The former tends towards urbanised hinterland in the east but becomes predominantly rural west of Poole Harbour. In contrast, the Welsh study area is dominated by the Gower peninsula, and Pembrokeshire Coast National Park. Industry is site specific but concentrated at Port Talbot and Neath, and the port towns adjacent to the NP.
Definitions
The coastal estate represents a relatively narrow 'corridor' of land and water. It is defined as covering three spatial areas: marine nearshore waters, intertidal foreshore and adjacent beach lands. This area is part of the wider backdrop of the four ocean zones: coast, coastal waters, continental shelf and deep ocean.
The use of the term leisure land means land activity and management of both recreation and conservation. Conservation and recreational land uses can be mutually supportive, land managed operationally provides both recreation and conservation opportunities within one landholding. The definition relies upon common attributes of estate management relating to eco- system and landscape protection, physical location, and the activity reliant upon development and discretionary leisure time.
Coastal leisure land naturally tends to be a countryside rather than urban issue because of environmental characteristics required, but seaside resorts do exist on open coasts, with substantial beaches, which in reality are considered 'open spaces' in urban town planning.
Leisure Landowner Managers
The coastal area is managed by a variety of organisations which are subdivided into two main groups: government and landowners. Identification of landowners is based upon those organisations actively involved in leisure land management together with estate management representing a core function of operations. This excludes a detailed appraisal of land held by central government, its agencies and local government, although operational departments of the Ministry of Defence (MOD) are included. Thus managers include charities, private estates, ports, MOD, and the Crown Estate (CE). All require a strategic business approach to organisational management.
In addition landowners may have regulatory responsibilities, such as the port authorities and the CE. The Crown Estate is the monopoly land owner in the coastal estate and regulatory manager: planning below LWM, thus creating an antagonistic position between their role as 'competent authority' and landlords. The ports undertake statutory management obligations.
Charitable estate
The contribution of the charities to conservation is recognised as a supporting effort to coastal Management (CM). Some support specific habitats; for example wetlands; the British Association of Nature Conservation (the umbrella body for the County Conservation Trusts) and the Royal Society for Protection of Birds (RSPB established in 1889). Others focus on land and property, for example, the National Trust (NT). But all rely upon the land resource, and consequently require land and estate management. Thus a dual role exists; not only do they supply countryside through their land owning and management activities, but also they actively demand better protection of the environment.
The monopoly owner of the foreshore and seabed is the Crown Estate placing it as a fundamental manager in coastal leisure land. Formally its' objective is to 'balance demands of conservation, development and recreation', set out in Section 1 of the Crown Estate Act 1961, with the aim to 'enhance' the estate and ensure its stewardship. After the Crown and national government, the NT is the largest single landowner.
Private Estates
Private Estates also undertake leisure land management activities. Public and permissive coastal footpaths exist, combined with conservation schemes effected through landowners schemes. Both are encouraged by countryside agency initiatives (English Nature, Countryside Commission and Countryside Council for Wales).
Ports
Ports' estates dominate in areas below LWM, where the Crown has vested land occupation usually long leasehold interests. There are a few examples of freehold ownership, for example, at Bembridge on the Isle of Wight. Statutory powers are conferred upon them but they are nonetheless commercially orientated. In many areas the importance of recreational and commercial watercraft is great. Consequently powers are granted to undertake operations below HWM, and to make byelaws and manage moorings.
Public Land Estates
Public Land Estates are large and include the former Forestry Commission and the MOD. The MOD, represented in the study area is one of the largest landowners in the UK with ownership of both land and foreshore. The MOD has undertaken to 'have regard to recreation, amenity' and conservation. Unlike many landlords, it does not have to exploit its properties for commercial enterprises.
INSTITUTION OF LAND
The importance of landownership is justified when considering sustainability within leisure land. Landowners stewardship is based upon it; but surprisingly so is governance, notably protective ownership, be it large tracts of land, or an urban coastal strip.
Property and society, evolved together dynamically over time, creating a "social institution of property" (2), inextricably linking land and culture. The former reflects the latter in patterns of ownership. Thus the tenure of land ultimately determines the conditions of industrial, social and political life. It is established that the possession of property rights constitutes the most powerful mechanism for resource allocation other than military conquest (3). It is thus a powerful tool in coastal management strategies. Any process, such as sustainability, which requires a socio economic input must take heed of land ownership because it is linked to the progress of society.
A strong feature of the British social framework is governed by regulation and allocation of land, under the land use planning system. Planning imposes curbs upon the private owner and attempts to meet social, cultural and economic objectives. Local government can intervene into the land market to determine the profitability of land, because while land ownership controls access, it is land use policy that influences the degree and intensity of use.
Public property rights are a cultural feature of society but differ in predominance over the coastal area. This area is not defined in British common law, unlike, for example the USA Federal CZM Act 1972. Above HWM contractual tenures are the norm: The existence of large tracts of land is due primarily to inheritance. Historically the foreshore, seabed, tidal and internal waters belonged to the Crown but approximately 50% of intertidal land, has now been passed through grants and bequests to others, including the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster.
The question of seabed ownership did not become such a burning issue until the present century. Technological development has provided the impetus for human expansion across the 'transitional area' to the sea. Tenure exists over both the resources in the water column and the seabed itself; highlighted by territorial boundary delimitations agreed in the UNCLOS framework. The pattern of property rights below LWM tends to rely upon activity rights and behaviour patterns, due to the dominance of the Crown's ownership, but other proprietorial rights do exist. In the few instances of private ownership of the sea bed, such as Beaulieu (13th century royal grant), and parts of the Severn and Exe estuaries, ownership applies only to the soil (seabed) and does not confer property rights over the superjacent waters.
The geographical pattern of ownership does not tend to be structured in convenient strips progressing landward in a linear fashion from HWM; instead the coast is merely one edge of a series of disparate plots. This contrasts with seaward of HWM, where the foreshore may become linear in ownership, in this case representing a ransom strip. The seabed is subject to a monopoly owner with few hierarchial ownership levels. Consequently the nature of landowning management practice is influenced more by the bundle of rights that exist over parcels of terra firma land rather than the marine.
Therefore recreation use is able to take advantage of the marine environment which, unlike terra firma, has implied public rights to navigate and fish, including ancillary and incidental activities, such as anchoring. Incidental rights to alight on the foreshore also exist. But importantly, freedom of navigation does not confer freedom of behaviour.
STEWARDSHIP STRATEGY
Landowning managers characteristically highlight business strategy. It is ownership, use, income, and alienation combined to create a balanced set of influences in the use of the land resource. This is stewardship enabling administrative and practical decision making resulting in good husbandry.
Leisure land goals and objectives are based upon the evolutionary stewardship approach, which is a function of estate management and is an underlying landowning philosophy, generating continuity. It is the existence of this approach which lends itself to land and activity management and thus coastal management, contributing to implementing and sustaining strategic CZM.
Social benefit objectives are generally conceived in public ownership; but landowning groups are also identified as often having stewardship tendencies. Stewardship is imbued with philanthropic behaviour; but also a practical action, requiring continual business strategy quantification, monitoring, and evaluation by thinking laterally. A fundamental aspect involves the need to manage people, building partnerships and tenant relationships and responsibilities and stewardship of the whole estate. Stewardship enables the management of recreation and conservation through ownership.
Ownership is a management tool above all else facilitating decision making; finance is crucial to motivate action, but power of ownership is crucial to use. Use and control are combined by local authority landowners often owning as little as the foreshore. The right to make and take decisions may be delegated through tenure, but the degree of effect is limited. Lesser interests have a role to play particularly in the marine area where the Crown's freehold domination is likely to persist.
The role of ownership in nature conservation is fundamental, and without acquisition the next best thing for creating partnerships with landowners does occur, 'extending the public purse'. The countryside agencies efforts must not be underestimated, having taken years to establish a rapport with landowners and they continue to work hard at maintaining this rapport.
Maintenance of leisure land occurs through stewardship which in turn is supported in rural areas by agency countryside partnership arrangements (grant in aid), and diversification of use. If estate management is established as CM then central government countryside agency approaches are likewise involved in coastal stewardship, through corporate efforts such as EN's approach where stewardship forms one of their goals.
Private Estates
Strategy objectives are built around a framework of stewardship. Strategic vision is well established with clearly intended, well thought out strategies. Objectives are prioritised, creating momentum for conservation and sustainability. The traditional farming background remains the most important activity, with conscious decisions made to diversify into leisure operations as an integral component of estate management. Landowners maintain that coastal conservation need not be formalised as a specific sector strategy, because this occurs in any event.
Plan outputs in the landowning sector are characteristically limited and those that do exist are often linked to finance and thus confidential. The emphasis is upon actions, which 'speak louder than words', since a strategy cannot be seen or touched. In this scenario personal leadership is paramount.
A unique combined private estates strategy is the North West Solent Shore Estates Plan 1967/8. It is a land use document, commissioned and funded entirely by the estate owners facing the western shores of the Solent, which is demonstrably visionary and ahead of its time. A group decision- making body was formed by a number of landowners; Estate independence and decision- making power appears to have been maintained through structuring the plan to deal with individual corporate interests, estate by estate with summary proposals for each estate. The one cross- boundary estate issue is the development of access agreements along the length of the foreshore, conditional upon overcoming problems of erosion and trespass. Effectively ensuring that strategic thought occurred before the countryside and coastal area was compromised by development. Success is measured by the fact that the strategy was accepted by the county, becoming the basis of the local land use plan . A series of conservation plans had been produced by individual estates reflecting their independent stewardship approaches.
The Ministry of Defence conservation strategy originated as an unintended strategy, a consequence of public exclusion during military operations. Now uses for other leisure land purposes are encouraged, such as amenity, and public access subject to safety considerations. Combined with conservation, groups exist at each station, sometimes managed in conjunction with wildlife trusts.
Marine group
This group, characterised by spatial activity management over water, is dominated by the 'head landowner', the CE. Thus property rights in marine space are adjusted to one of behaviour rather than a strict tenure framework. The CE 'stewardship' philosophy is prevalent in the marine estate and illustrated in its mission statement. As head landlord the CE is a steward landlord, delegating it's own objectives to lessees. This monopoly position of the Crown is an effective conservation tool; designations are noticeable by their absence. However, standards and procedures may be challenged as EU directives progress the marine Special Conservation Areas and Special Protection Areas.
With few opportunities in the marine estate for alternative ownership it is here that the lesser titles have to be relied upon. Fortunately, the leasehold interest is considered satisfactory by the ports and strategic industries such as oil and gas, concerned primarily with operations, and unimpeded use of the water column, less so the seabed. Thus control of the 'bundle of rights' combined with activities is the estate management priority. Seen also with the MOD firing ranges over the sea.
Port estates' portfolios have minimal land ownership above HWM; but leisure strategies persist. Outputs include the Poole Harbour Management Plan and Milford Haven Water Recreation Plan respectively, which are independent initiatives in water recreation management. Consequently the ports water management planning activity has an overriding theme to balance recreation and conservation by "weighing", recreation, conservation and port operations. Poole is properly considered as a joint strategy but combines with operational 'Poole Harbour Management Policies'. The Milford Haven port output was visionary and similarly looks forward to providing guidance on future potential for recreational facilities.
Stewardship allied to strategy development is common among port owners through long leaseholds, whereby corporate operational strategy includes controlling activity to do with the environment. The structure of the port organisation impacts on activities in two ways; the regulators through statutory objectives, and the land owners through jurisdictional limits. Thus is it is able to draw from each. But for the 'head landlord position' the CE would be in a similar position.
Charities
Characteristic of estate managers is the need for vision, given the long term scales in which their operations are planned, which is true for charities evolving organisationally through the active and visionary efforts of individual leaders. Preservation and conservation is the underlying philosophy of this group; but so is business. They are dependent upon operational business success. There is reliance upon selling a service, that is visitation. Consequently they are efficient public relation organisations, especially the nationals (RSPB and NT), combining first, reserves acquisition and second education, research and liaison.
Two significant CM outputs are produced by the national charities. First the RSPB outputs include a series of documents over a period of time which rely upon vision, thought and internal debate contributing to formulation. Much has evolved on a realised basis with thinking often going back for rethought. CM Strategy began in earnest 6-7 years ago through publications 'Turning the Tide' and 'Making the Coast Count'. This framework operates in tandem with their reserves acquisition strategy which revolves around a ten year plan linked to financial budgets.
Second the National trust strategy is intended to gain land and property for the benefit of the nation. With many similarities to the Private Estates group, coastal management occurs within the wider remit of estate management. Specifically a national coastal acquisition strategy called Enterprise Neptune was launched in 1965, purchasing to date 560 miles of coast (4). The acquisition process is undertaken in a framework of coastal strategy plans, assessed on the basis of threats to land units. Acquisition is piecemeal but based on confidential five to ten year land plans, which are subsequently combined with site management plans. The original objective was to focus public interest on development threats to the coast, utilising acquisition and the Trusts inalienability status, and tenants to farm manage land with controls. The estate management objective are based on multiple use of leisure land, including access and conservation management. Strategy is subject to evolution. In 1992 regional assessment was based on landscape; now land purchase decisions consider both quality and threats. If there is no conservation/ preservation threat then they may not buy land!. Land acquisition is influenced by financial limitations.
Joint Strategies
In two specific strategies joint approaches emerged, both of which are driven by the need to balance conservation and recreation within leisure land: one with regulation being uppermost; and in the other visitor management. In both instances landowners were involved in plan- making because these initiatives provided the strengths of regulatory formulation, and landowning strategic thinking.
First, the Poole Harbour Aquatic Plan is orientated to the use of business terminology and ideas. The strategic aim is to manage activity on the water, achieved organisationally via a partnership approach between the local authority and landowners, dovetailing managers' objectives and implementing two- fold approach of port land occupier byelaws and local authority planning.
Second, the Ferry Bridge Management Plan is a partnership between private landowners and the local authority. Unlike the Poole Plan it does not rely upon a joint steering group, but each managers' strategic objectives continue independently but not exclusively. The main driver is visitor control and conservation, and again combining managers' needs of local authority car park management and landowners' visitor management over the private foreshore of Chesil Beach. This strategy is aimed at a hands- on programme development and action. It is viewed as a management document rather than a control document.
A common occurrence with these strategies is the landowners prominent role in implementation, using both human and financial resources. For Poole the location of administration remained at Poole Harbour Commissioners after the strategy documentation was completed. At Ferry Bridge the management plan is a joint approach but is the landowner that continues liaison and communication, initiating and maintaining the Fleet Management Committee.
Resources
Irrespective of organisational status the business of landowning requires profit, although not exclusively seeking purely a monetary benefit, so long as funds are accounted for. Landowner commitment is reflected in resource allocation as the gap is closed between formulation and implementation, appropriating the people resource if the need demands it. The joint programmes demonstrated relatively well funded and resourced initiatives because the mechanisms were and continue to be individually manager based. Given this landowners bore the cost of human resources such as the Ferry Bridge Management Plan funding 100 per cent a warden who took up the role of implementation.
Leisure land funding from the private sector comes from internal budgets achieved out of profits. Thus Trust Ports plough all profits back into the business, often exceeding their statutory obligations; charities' are in the business of leisure land fund raising. The North West Shores Plan reflects the landowning business mentality of estate management, putting in place administrative and financial resources which enable policies to be translated into an action- oriented document. Matching funds with external source is common, for example from countryside agencies. But the strategy may be influenced from outside, for example, the Ferrybridge management plan was influenced by EU funding criteria.
Allocation of specific CM roles were few and far between; expertise is appropriated to achieve management objectives. The private estates and large acquisitive charities delegate management to land professionals, although much of the wildlife technical skill used specialists either forming partnerships with the countryside agencies, or in RSPB case, with in- house scientists. Another feature of the private estate is to delegate to professional land managers who often take a personal interest in leisure land, positively working with countryside agency partners such as English Nature; and/or taking the lead in setting up study groups; or by action and involvement such as chairing local fora.
Characteristically much of the human resource is absorbed in operational duties. The port authorities and private estates combine responsibility between operations and leisure land. Thus financing human resources is considered as a 'best use basis'.
CONCLUSION
If CZM is to become more than a concept the administrative basis should consider the land institution as well. CZM has been hindered at local level, primarily because of the difficulties in implementation on any other basis but sectoral. Thus CZM should be considered as an overall corporate objective within which goals and targets are achieved through hierarchial plans including the contribution from all coastal managers.
The dynamism of the coast means that the land use planning system has to be 'supplemented by an active management approach...planning the coast is a strategic issue" (5). Supplementation is likely to come from the landowning community who recognise completely the spatial elements, whose corporate strategies, include stewardship and water activity management, both of which rely upon resource management.
Combining management approaches in leisure land management demonstrated by the joint strategies maintains the particular strengths of each group, and could point a way forward for CZM on a strategic basis. First, plan development is conceptually achieved by the regulators because of their experience in producing land use plans; but practically the landowners achieve implementation through stewardship process generally without plans. Where plans are produced the strength in the port plans is the degree of enforceability through speed byelaws. Similarly, NW Solent Shores added effectiveness because the landowner controls access to beaches and foreshore.
Second, landowners are able to steward land use towards conservation, but the key is freehold ownership and the attributes provided under a stewardship framework. This is recognised in Hampshire County Council which pursued an aggressive acquisition strategy to achieve the 'highest level of protectionism' for conservation.
Third, the very strength of landowning is the recognition of actively managing the estate ( land or marine). This is recognised by the countryside agencies in rural policies where years of establishing a rapport with landowners has achieved a measure of success in the countryside, such as Ceredigion county in Wales. This recognition of estate management as a key activity has released resources for management rather than purchase, which is a good thing.
With hard pressed resources throughout all organisations; sharing them has to point to a way forward. Thus CZM in rural areas is likely to follow the pattern to that developed in the countryside; land in the countryside has been recognised as strategically important. In urban areas the development control framework will continue.
In conclusion, differing perspectives between coastal managers could be combined to lead to a single effort, particularly through the landowners who have the benefit in most cases of generations of land management experience. Is there not a possibility of bridging the management approaches in order to successfully achieve sustainable coastal management?.
REFERENCES
Jan 1998