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