chapter vii coastal management and marine protection...
TRANSCRIPT
Chapter VII
COASTAL MANAGEMENT AND MARINE PROTECTION:
IMPLICATIONS FOR PORT CITY
CHAPTER-VII
COASTAL MANAGEMENT AND MARIN PROTECTION:
IMPLICATIONS FOR PORT CITY
7. INTRODUCTION
Approach to coastal environment and marine protection has been top down in global,
regional and national level initiatives advocated through several conventions,
protocols and strategies. However, it is realised that the management of coastal
environment depends on local initiatives and action. 1 After five decades of global
action, it has been stressed that the local level initiatives may be taken seriously in
protecting marine environment. According to GESAMP,
"National governments around the world are now recognizing that
local level community action is important element of long term
strategy, 'to manage human activities and social and economic
development in a manner that limits contamination of marine
environment by substances and wastes, thereby, ensuring that the
viability of marine ecosystems and the legitimate uses of the sea are
sustained for the benefit of present and future generation2. "
There is a need to develop a comprehensive management approach which may take
care of local actions for the protection of marine environment especially from the
land-based activities. The Global initiatives and actions have been a partial success
particularly in tropical coastal regions of the world3 because of the lack of financial
and human resources4.
R. P. Cote, 1991 b, 'Marine Environmental Management: Status and Prospects." Marine Pollution Bulletin, vol. 25, no. 1-4, p18-22
2 SEGAMP, 1991,'Global Strategies for Marine Environment Protection', Rep. Stud, GESAMP 45,36p
3 Susie, Westmacott, 2002, 'Where should the focus be in Tropical Integrated Coastal Management?" Coastal Management, Vol. 30, pp 67-84
4 R.P. Cote, 1991b, as quoted above, pp18
129
Global concern of marine protection has been sectoral in its approach. It has created
overlapping areas which makes it difficult for the local level institutions to take
initiatives. The sectoral approach of the global actions can be broadly categorised as:
• Protection of Ocean water quality from various sources of marine pollution;
• Protection of the coastal shore lines and bottom areas by means of engineering
works;
• Deep sea dumping;
• Protection of marine resources and biotic reserves;
• Protections of Critical habitat; and,
• Marine scientific research.
Several international conventions have defined major areas of intervention at global,
regional and national levels. However, they have not been able to evolve local level
mechanisms for the protection of coastal and marine environments. They suffer from
"convention fatigue5" with many to come in the future. There are some other cross
sectoral issues for the developing countries such as transfer of technology and
financial assistance. Majority of countries across the world have realised that national
and regional approach should address land-based sources of marine pollution and if
possible local level initiatives may be tried.
7.1 MARINE PROTECTION: GLOBAL INITIATIVES
International concern of marine protection has started five decade ago. The first
convention on preservation of sea from pollution by ships was held in 1954. This was
put into operation subsequently in 1958 in the first 'Law of Sea' Convention in
Geneva. A wide spread international concern about radioactive fallout from nuclear
tests in the 1940s and 1950s had lead to a treaty in 1963 which banned nuclear tests in
5 J. Karau, 1992, 'The Control of Land-hased Sources of marine Pollution: Recent Initiative and Prospects,' Marine Pollution Bulletin, vol. 25( 1-4) pp 80-81
130
the atmosphere, in the outer space and under the ocean water6. In 1959 The
Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organisation (IMCO) was formed to
control international matters related to dumping and marine pollution. After a decade
of negotiations, actions and strategies a joint Group of Experts on the Scientific
Aspects ofMarine Pollution (GESAMP) came into being in 1969. This was the result
of active involvement of the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) of
UNESCO. Subsequently, all UN agencies working separately on various aspects of
marine pollution joined GESAMP. UN agencies like Food and Agriculture
Organisation (FAO), World Health Organisation (WHO), World Meteorological
Organisation (WMO), The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) etc. have
been actively involved in the protection of marine environmental. GESAMP now acts
as an advisory group to all these agencies.
Another landmark in the protection of the marine environment at global level was
Stockholm Conference on Human Environment in 1972. It established The United
Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). The early 1970s appears to be a golden
era of international and regional actions for protection of marine environment.
Several regional conventions such as Oslo Convention on Preservation of Marine
Pollution from Dumping by ships and aircrafts and London Convention of Marine
Pollution from Wastes and other Matters, added impetus in the early1970's. Paris
Convention of Marine Pollution from the Land Based Sources and the Convention on
the Protection of Marine Environment of Baltic Sea brought wider areas of
interventions in 1974. Other regional conventions include the Convention for the
Protection of the Mediterranean Sea Against Pollution, Kuwait Regional Convention
for the Cooperation on the Protection of the Marine Environment and Convention for
the Cooperation and Development of the Marine Environment of West and Central
African Regions.
6 M. Waldichuk, 1982, 'An international perspective on Global Marine Pollution," in Trippie, K.V. and Kester, R.D. ed. Impact of Marine Pollution on Society. Centre of the Ocean Management Studies, J.F. Bergin Publishers Inc. South Hadley, Massachusetts, p37-75
131
In the 1980s, marine environmental protection has been given special attention. UN
Convention on the Law of Sea (UNCLOS) in 1982 7 was a major turning point in the
global action against marine pollution. UNEP8 developed 'Montreal Guidelines' for
the protection of marine environment against pollution from land-based sources in
1985. UNCED in 1987 in its charter 'Our Common Future' stressed the need for a
sustainable ocean development.
An inter-governmental meeting of experts on Land Based Sources of Marine
Pollution was held in Halifax in 1991. It developed a framework for integrated
planning and management of coastal zones. Subsequently in 1992 UNCED in Rio
Declaration called Agenda 21 devoted a full chapter (17) on the protection of the
ocean, all kinds of sea, including enclosed and semi enclosed seas and coastal areas
and protection, rational use and development of their living resources.
Chapter 17 in Agenda 21 also highlighted cumulative effects of marine pollution from
land-based activities. Paris and Montreal Guidelines provided basic principles of the
"checklist" but these guidelines may not be considered as international standard as
referred in Article 207 of the LOS convention. 9 However, there has been some
progress in implementation of these guidelines at the national level in various
countries such as Canada, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Mexico and the USA. They have
prepared black and grey lists of substances based on these guidelines in their
respective coastal regimes.
7.2 COASTAL AND MARINE PROTECTION IN INDIA
Unlike Canadian approaches to marine protection Indian approaches have been top
down. India has signed and ratified most of the global conventions related to ocean
and marine protection. Recently it has ratified UN Convention on the Law of the Sea
7 M.Tomczak, jr. 1984, 'Marine Science for the strategic planning and management: the requirements for estuaries,' Marine Policy, Vol. 26 No.2, pp209-219
8 UNEP, 1995, 'Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-based Activities," Commission for Environmental Cooperation Washington DC, 23 October-3 November (Montreal Guidelines)
9 A. E. Boyle, 1992, 'Land based Sources ofMarine Pollution: Current Legal Regime." Marine Policy, Vol. 16, No.1, p34
132
(UNCLOS) and international Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships
(MARPOL Convention 73/78).
The Union Ministry of Environment and Forests and Department of Ocean
Development are responsible for decision-making in the area of oceans and seas.
They have realized to involve local authority and community in integrated coastal
management. A national and thirteen State/U.T. level coastal management Authority
has been set up to identify and prepare an Integrated Coastal Zone Management Plan
for ecologically important areas. The preparation of these plans has become
mandatory under the EPA, 1986 as stipulated by the CRZ notifications. These plans
has to be approved by the Central government keeping in view the environmental
concerns required to critical habitat.
An ambitious programme on Integrated Coastal and Marine Area Management
(ICMAM) has been launched by the Department of Ocean Development. Under the
ICMAM programme integrated coastal management plans for Chennai, Goa and Gulf
of Kuchchh are being prepared with financial and technical assistance from The
World Bank. This programme proposes to address the issues of coastal development
activities, their impacts on marine environment and socio-economic issues. The
Coastal Ocean Monitoring and Prediction Systems (COMAPS) programme is also
under the Department of Ocean Development since 1990-91 with an objective to
assessing health of Indian seas on a long-term basis. The status of marine pollution in
the selected coastal waters has been assessed and the current level of pollution in the
waters has been determined.
The National initiatives of marine area protection in India have reflected 'area' and
'activity' based approaches. However, the implementation of these initiatives has
been grossly top down. The regulatory agencies such as Central Pollution Control
Board and its respective state functionaries have not been able to involve local
initiatives for the protection of marine environment in India. The pan Indian ICMAM
programme needs both legislative and institutional support for the effective solution
to coastal and marine protection.
133
three categories of priorities such as high, medium and low for various land-based
activities based on prevailing problems and extent of damage demonstrated by these
activities. Table 7.4 shows a comparative picture of priority activities for the
protection of marine environment at the national, provincial and local levels i.e., at
Halifax Harbour and Kandla Port.
Table 7.4: Priorities m Coastal Zone Management in India and Canada High Medium Low
Canada
Sewage POPs Shoreline
- >. construction/ ~ - alteration = ·- Wetland and 0 I..
·- 0 -·-
~
= 0
~ ·-...... I..
- 0
~ ··- I..
= > 0
I..
Saltmarsh alteration
Nova Scotia Sewage and Litter
Halifax
Sewage ~ Contaminate ,_ d sediments ~ Heavy metals
India
Sewage Coastal habitat Shoreline constructi on/ alteration
Gujarat Wetland
and
Marshland
alteration,
Mangrove and Salt marsh alteration, Coastal habitat.
Kandla
Wetland, mangrove Salt marshes
Canada
Heavy metals, Oil/hydrocarbon s, Contaminated sediments Litters Intertidal and sub tidal alteration Marine waters and coastal watershed alteration Biological alteration Nova Scotia POPs Heavy metals (medium to high) Oil and hydrocarbons Nutrients Contaminated sediments Shoreline construction/ alteration Marine water and coastal watershed alteration Biological alteration Halifax
Litters POPs Tidal and subtidal alteration Oil and hydrocarbons
India
Oil, hydrocarbons Contaminate d sediments Litters POPs
Gujarat Sewage and Litter Shoreline construction/ alteration
Kandla
Nutrients Contaminate d sediments Inertidal and subtidal alteration
Canada
Radio nuclides Nutrients Mineral and sediment extraction/alt eration
Nova Scotia Radio nuclides inertidal and subtidal alteration Mineral and sediment extraction and alteration
Halifax
Mineral and sediment extraction I alteration shoreline construction and alteration
India
Radio nuclides Offshore mineral and oil extraction
Gu_jarat Radio nuclides Sewage litters mineral and sediments extraction/ alteration
Kandla
Oil and hydrocarbons Sediment alteration POPs, Radio nuclides Shoreline construction and alteration
135
High priority has been accorded to sewage, coastal habitat and shoreline constructions
in both India and Canada at National Level. Whereas Radionuclides, nutrients,
mineral and sediment extraction/alteration have been given low priority. POPs has
been given high priority at national level in Canada, while it is put under medium
priority list in the case of India. In other words national priority activities of India and
Canada have been more or less the same.
Sewage remains in the list of high priority actions at Nova Scotia in Canada, while it
is in the medium priority list in Gujarat. Other activities of national action remains
almost in the same priority list at the provincial level in both the countries.
There are major differences of priority activities at Halifax Harbour and Kandla Port.
Urban sewage, contaminated sediments and heavy metals have been accorded high
priority at Halifax. However, it is the wetlands, mangrove and salt marshes that have
been given high priority at Kandla port region. Oil and petroleum hydrocarbons have
been given low priority at Kandla port. This is quite in contrast to the prevailing
problems of oil spills due to leakages, handling loss and accidents at the Kandla port
region. Nutrients, contaminated sediments and inertidal and subtidal alteration have
been put under the medium priority list of activities at Kandla port. Litters, POPs,
tidal and subtidal alteration, oil and hydrocarbons have been given medium priority at
Halifax Harbour where as mineral and sediment extraction I alteration, shoreline
construction and alteration have been put in low priority action lists.
It is evident that the local level priority activities have also been reflected in the
national priority list in Canada whereas this has not been true in the case of India. A
discussion regarding the application of various components of ICZM at these two
port-cities would assess present status of marine area protection at local level in both
the countries.
136
7.5. COMPONENTS OF ICZM FOR PORT CITY DEVELOPMENT
Fig: 7.5 Components of Coastal Zone Management (ICZM): Halifax Harbour an d K dl P t . an a or re210n
Components of ICZM Halifax Kandla Planning use of coastal spaces •• •o Marine and coastal resources management •• •o Protection and improvement of environmental quality •o DO Inter-governmental cooperation •o DO Institutional arrangement •• •o Public involvement •o DO
••-Significant; •o- Initiatives Taken; oo- Insignificant Development
7.5.1 Planning use of coastal spaces:
Halifax: There is a detailed planning and zoning of land use and seawater use at
Halifax Harbour. Several stakeholders have their own plan laid out for uses of coastal
spaces. Major players like Halifax Port Authority, Halifax Regional Municipality,
Coast Guard, Canadian Naval Force, Environment Canada, Water Front Development
Corporation etc. have their own priority and planning for coastal space use. However,
there is a lack of coordination between and amongst these actors as far as the planning
of coastal space is concerned. Private parties have also been involved in planning
processes as they play a significant role in using coastal spaces. They had taken
responsibility for the recreational activities. The local government i.e., Halifax
Regional Municipality had been responsible for preparing land use plan and zoning
for the coastal space of the Harbour. The planning and zoning of coastal space have
been developed to take care ofthe issues ofiCZM.
Kandla: Kandla Port Trust (KPT) had prepared a land use plan for the Kandla Port
region for the year 1988-2005. Kandla urban area falls under the jurisdictions ofKPT
a Union government unit. There is hardly any scope for the local body i.e. Kandla
Gandhdham Municipality to take part in land planning processes. The perspective
development plan for the year 2020 AD has also been prepared by KPT in 1995. It
details out uses of coastal space by various actors/stakeholders. The role of state and
local government has been negligible in planning of coastal space use in Kandla.
Kandla port has exclusive port and industrial uses. There is a lack of recreational
137
activities at the Kandla Port region. Some private parties are involved in the operation
and management of port and industrial facilities. However, they are not involved in
the planning process at the Kandla port region.
7.2.2 Marine and coastal resources management:
Halifax: Marine and coastal resource management is under the care of Federal agency
i.e., Department ofFisheries and Ocean (DFO) and Govemment ofNova Scotia. DFO
functions independently for fisheries and other marine resource management.
Provincial government takes care of islands and various coastal flora and fauna. DFO
and Environment Canada look into such matters through institutionalized legal
regimes at Halifax Harbour. DFO looks into the management aspect of marine
resources whereas. Environment Canada (EC) plays the role of watchdog for any kind
of inputs that are being drained into the Harbour. The EC also monitors environmental
quality of Halifax Harbour with the help of DFO and its various other departments
located on the site ofHalifax Harbour.
Kandla: Marine and coastal resource management has been taken up by a nationwide
project under Integrated Coastal and marine Area Management (ICMAM) in India.
Department of Ocean Development under Ministry of Environment has been
instrumental for this project. However, it has very limited scope for the management
of coastal resources as some resources are under the state level government in India.
The Kandla Port Trust has been obliged to manage the coastal resources in the Port
region. The focus of Kandla Port Trust, however, has been on increasing the port
efficiency and performance and not on coastal and marine resource management.
7.5.3 Protection and improvement of environmental quality:
Halifax: The protection and improvement of environmental quality has not been
taken up seriously by the agencies responsible especially in Halifax Harbour. The
contamination and pollution at the Halifax Harbour has resulted in the degradation of
environment quality. Untreated sewer, litters and industrial waste are being dumped in
the harbour leading to deleterious impact on the harbour environment. Initiatives have
been taken up to minimize the contamination into the harbour by putting up a couple
138
sewage treatment plants. However, the protection and improvement of environment
quality needs more attention beyond such initiatives.
Kandla: There has been a lack of statutory responsibility to conduct EIA and
Regional Environment Assessment (REA) by regulatory agencies 14• EIA has been
done by the respective stakeholders in the Kandla Port region. Hence, protection and
improvement of environmental quality of the port region is being compromised. There
is a need of an agency that can look into the matter of environmental quality as well
as management of marine and coastal resources. Central Pollution Control Board
under Ministry of Environment and Forest has been playing the role of a watchdog. It
however, needs more statutory powers.
7.5.4 Inter-governmental cooperation:
Halifax: There is a lack of inter-governmental cooperation as far as the protection of
coastal space is concerned. Halifax Port Authority and other stakeholders have their
own priorities which result in the lack of cooperation and coordination. There are
sensitive areas of coastal water and space that fall under the jurisdiction of the Federal
government. The Canadian Naval Force that takes care of sensitive areas has not
always conformed to issues of ICZM at the local level. However, cooperation and
coordination have been maintained with other government agencies such as DFO,
Environment Canada, Government of Nova Scotia and Halifax Regional Municipality
on various issues of coastal space and marine water in Halifax Harbour.
Kandla: The lack of inter-governmental cooperation and partially developed legal
instruments had lead to improper marine and coastal resource management in the gulf I
of Kuchchh especially in Kandla Port region. The Gulf of Kuchchh has a sensitive
and fragile coastal habitat for large marine resources both biotic and abiotic. Part of
the Guif of Kuchchh has been declared as a Marine National Park south of Kandla
Port. However, a large number of industrial complexes have come up in the near by
coastal areas. A couple of refineries namely, Essar Oil and Reliance Petro-chemical
14 Government of Gujarat, (1999) "Status Paper on Environmental Threats in the Gulf of Kuchch." Paper presented at the Workshop on ICMAM Plan for Gulf of Kuchch in Ahmedabad on 23rd and 24th Sept, 1999 organized by the Department of Ocean Development in association with Department of Forest and Environment, Govt. ofGujarat and Space Application Centre
139
have been established near the Marine National Park in Jamnagar district. This entails
the contradictions of regional planning leading to neglect of marine environment due
to serious lack of inter-governmental cooperation.
7.5.5 Institutional arrangement:
Halifax: Institutional arrangement for the protection of marine and coastal areas in
Halifax has been encouraging. There are many institutions which regulate various
aspects of marine areas from the degradation (see Table. 7.3 in Annexure. VII).
However, overlapping jurisdictions of these institutions come in the way of
implementation of ICZM. Global and national level legislative measures have been
encouraging to strengthen the local institutions for the participation of the Harbour
management.
Kandia: There has been lack of institutional support for the protection of marine
environment at Kandla port region. State level coastal protection authorities have been
established. However, they only look into the matters that fall under their jurisdiction.
Central level legislative measures such as EPA (1986) and CRZ notifications from
time to time have been applicable at Kandla. The port and harbour activities, however
have been exempted from the CRZ regulations. Unlike Halifax Harbour that has many
institutional supports, marine department ofKandla port is the only institution that has
been addressing the issues of marine protection and pre$ervation in the port regions.
7.5.6 Public involvement:
Halifax: Halifax Regional Municipality with the help of Provincial Government has
initiated the proper involvement of public in the clean-up project of Halifax Harbour
during 198915• There have been many public meetings thereafter, and a complete EIA
and SIA has been carried out during the 'Halifax Harbour Clean-up Project'. Public
opinions have been given importance in the finalization of the Harbour Clean Up
project.
15 Halifax Harbour Task Force Report, 1990
140
Kandla: However, There is a serious lack of public involvement in the issues of
coastal area management at the local level in case of Kandla port region. Urban local
body at Kandla-Gandhidham has not been provided with enough scope for planning '
of this port city.
These two port cities have shown mixed response to the components of ICZM. They
have been following the Montreal Guidelines as far as the protection of marine area is
concerned. However, Halifax Harbour has taken initiatives towards ICZM in recent
years. It would be too early for Kandla port-city to incorporate ICZM or Montreal
Guideline completely because of lack of technical, financial and managerial
resources.
7.6 CONCLUSIONS
1. There has been more concern than solutions for the protection of marine
environment at global level. Nevertheless, regional and national programmes
of action have been showing sign of success in implementing components of
ICZM in their respective coastal regimes.
2. Several conventions like LOS (London, Oslo and Paris) conventions have not
yet been able to successfully implement the framework of coastal zone
management at local level. National level initiatives by the USA have
incorporated various components of ICZM in coastal states. ICZM
components like regional land use planning, master planning, sea use planning
and local zoning have been incorporated in many of the coastal states in USA.
But ICZM approaches have been showing more failure than success at the
implementation level particularly in tropical (mostly developing) countries due
to the lack of technology, finance and human resources.
3. Canada's approach to coastal area management has been area-based.
However, the approaches so far in progress at the regional and local levels
seems to be bottom up. It has been expected that they can be developed to
141
address issues of ICZM in the long run. Currently, they are implementing
various frameworks of marine area protection from the land-based activities.
4. Indian approaches to coastal area protection have been top down so far. Local
level initiatives have not been tried in coastal area management. The
controlling and regulative measures are highly centralised that hiders the
implementation of ICZM components at local level in the case of Kandla port
region. However, national legislative instruments have been encouraging.
Recently the ICMAM programme of national importance has been launched to
address the issues of integrated coastal management.
5. There are various constraints in addressing the components of ICZM at the
port-city especially in Kandla due to lack of teclmical, financial and
managerial resources. However, there has been a good progress in Halifax in
this regard. Halifax Harbour still does not fully address the components of
ICZM.
142