Shoreline Management Plans (SMPs) have been heralded as a new approach to coastal defence because they attempt to co- ordinate activities between coastal authorities and address conflicts between competing interests in the coastal zone.
SMPs are non-statutory plans developed by voluntary coastal defence groups through consensus. Currently 18 such groups are in the process of developing 49 SMPs covering 98% of the coastline of England and Wales[1a,b]. Numerous organisations are involved: maritime operating authorities, the Ministry for Agriculture Fisheries and Food (MAFF), the Environment Agency, port and harbour authorities, English Nature and the Countryside Council for Wales, Railtrack and wildlife and archeological NGOs.
The strategic and coordinated approach of SMPs to managing coastal defence is welcomed, particularly when compared to the previous piecemeal system which encouraged coastal erosion and the need for more defences. However, with many plans complete or, at least well advanced, the time is ripe to review progress of SMPs against their claimed objective of “providing technically, environmentally and economically sound and sustainable defence measures”[2]. This is particularly important given the added threat of sea level rise from climate change which could mean that defences planned today will not provide adequate protection from erosion and flooding tomorrow.
Sea level rise threatens not only our defences but also some of our most spectacular and internationally important coastal wildlife and habitats. The UK Government pledged a cut in carbon dioxide1 emissions of 20% by 2010 at the second Earth Summit conference in New York. However, even if this pledge is met we are committed to a degree of sea level rise because of the lag time between greenhouse gases entering the atmosphere and responses from the oceans.
But SMPs have the potential to compensate for future habitat losses from sea level rise. Indeed MAFF guidance clearly states that there should be “opportunities identified to create new inter-tidal (and sub-tidal) habitats to compensate for past and anticipated future losses”[3]. This briefing reviews progress of the first set of plans in their attempts to ensure habitat compensation for the inevitable losses that lie ahead.
SMPs have been developed to ensure a co-ordinated approach to coastal engineering works between neighbouring authorities. Traditionally, there has been piecemeal implementation of coast and flood protection works, either in response to recognised threats to existing towns or villages or, to provide protection for new development schemes.
Yet protection against coastal erosion at one location can simply transfer the problem to another. For example, the SMP for Beachy Head to South Foreland on the south coast notes that from Hythe to Folkestone harbour “coastal defences to the south.have severely reduced the supply of sediment which has therefore had to be imported to supplement the natural storm beach” [4].
Transfer of erosion problems happens because our coastline is extremely dynamic. Waves and tides erode sediments, such as sand, mud and shingle, from some points along the coast, and deposit them at others, creating a range of coastal wildlife and habitat features. Interference with this natural process can starve beaches, saltmarshes and mudflats of sediment, causing them to erode.
SMPs are being developed in an attempt to avoid this problem. They bring together information on coastal erosion and flooding, sediment movement and tides, human uses and wildlife interest and attempt to balance all these interests.
Trying to develop one plan for the entire length of the UK coast was widely held to be an impossible task. Fortunately, the coast can be sub-divided into more manageable units known as sediment cells. Lengths of coast within a cell have similar movements of sediment, such as sand and shingle. Consequently, defence work at one point could affect sediment movement at another. However, interruption to movement of sediment in one cell should not have a significant effect on sediment cells adjacent. On this basis the coast of England and Wales has been divided into 11 major sediment cells[5]. The sediment cell boundaries tend to coincide with large estuaries or prominent headlands (see Figure 1).
Figure 1 - Boundaries of major sediment cells.
Reproduced with permission from MAFF, based on work by Hydraulics Research Wallingford.
Each cell has been divided into sub-cells for which SMPs have been, or are in the process of being, developed. The sub-cell is divided further to create management units (MUs) to enable the development of plans. (A Management Unit is a length of shoreline with coherent characteristics in terms of coastal processes and land use.)
Production of an SMP typically involves two stages. Initially, contact is made with all interested groups and organisations. This is no mean feat, as a wide range of interests exists in the coastal zone from farming, fishing, and residential development to tourism, commerce, and shipping. Conflict between these different interests, with their potentially opposing claims to the coast, can be volatile.
The findings from this consultation are set out in a draft report which includes information and data collected, ideas and objectives for the management of the shoreline. A period of further consultation then follows. The second stage builds on the information and views already reported and goes on to examine the strategic coastal defence options. Again a period of consultation follows before the final SMP is produced.
Ultimately, the SMP is used to decide how a specific stretch of coast should be defended. Four generic strategic coastal defence options have been identified by MAFF and these are considered for each management unit [6]:
Among objectives to be addressed by SMPs (such as understanding of coastal
processes, the likely future evolution of the coast, asset identification)
is one that relates specifically to the natural environment. MAFF guidance
includes the following objective: to “identify opportunities
for maintaining and enhancing the natural coastal environment, taking
account of any specific targets set by legislation or any locally set
targets”[7].
In order to include this objective, environmental considerations must feature prominently right at the start of the process. This means ensuring that the Terms of Reference(ToR), or consultant's brief, for the project includes a requirement to identify opportunities for environmental enhancement.
Yet a review for the RSPB of the environmental content of consultants' ToRs revealed that four out of 17 failed to include any such requirement[8]. Just eight briefs required the maintenance of existing habitats and only two required the replacement of habitats lost. If a ToR fails to include a requirement to identify opportunities for environmental enhancement, the SMP will be on a hiding-to-nothing in terms of biodiversity targets right from the start.
Not only must legislative targets be met but also policy targets such as Biodiversity Action Plans which aim to reverse the decline of a set of species and habitats. However, MAFF guidance on SMPs fails to include these.
Based on the consultant's brief, and public consultation, objectives are set for the SMP. Examination of eight SMPs2 shows a great deal of variation in environmental objective setting. For example, the North Kent SMP sets as one of its main objectives to “identify, maintain and if possible enhance coastal habitats, natural features, landscape, amenity and the environment” [9].
In contrast, the Sheringham to Lowestoft SMP objective to “recognise and account for environmental interests by way of consultations, so that these issues are recognised and enhanced by the plan”[10] is much weaker than the MAFF objective which includes recognition of legally binding targets for nature conservation.
Indeed submissions to this SMP from English Nature, RSPB and the Norfolk Wildlife Trust objected strongly to its approach to nature conservation. English Nature noted that “decisions in the SMP document have not taken account of environmental/nature conservation objectives”[11]. And considered the SMP to imply that“CWS, SSSI, SPA and cSAC, indeed all nature conservation assets are less worth defending than agricultural land and caravan parks”.
Given the existence of legally binding targets, and the threat of coastal squeeze from sea level rise, SMPs must include progressive and comprehensive environmental objectives. Currently, it appears that in some plans environmental objectives are being sidelined (see, for example, the Essex SMP). As a minimum all SMPs should include objectives that ensure:
These objectives, put forward by English Nature (EN) in the North Norfolk SMP [12], are consistent with the Habitats Directive which requires positive management and habitat restoration and compensation to maintain the overall network of priority habitats in Europe. Such objectives are also essential for meeting biodiversity targets which extend beyond the legal framework.
Protecting natural areas raises difficult questions, probably best reflected in the North Norfolk SMP. The north Norfolk coast is largely undeveloped and internationally important for its wildlife areas. Key reserves are found here - Titchwell, the RSPB's most visited reserve and Cley, the Wildlife Trust's first and most famous reserve. Both of these are threatened by sea level rise, coastal squeeze and flooding.
This SMP recognises the inherently dynamic nature of the coast which results in habitat creation and loss from natural processes. On the basis of EN's objectives outlined above, it recommends proposals based on minimum intervention and the allowance of natural processes to take their course. The result of this will be that important habitats will be lost to coastal erosion and flooding over the next 50 years, and replacements will therefore be required. It is specifically stated that: “Where preferred strategic options are likely to involve net habitat loss, such losses must be addressed, and replaced as necessary, as part of the implementation phase if that option is to be environmentally sound and sustainable”[13].
However, habitat recreation should not be considered a universal panacea to habitat loss. It's a risky business and there may not even be space to recreate habitats. New habitat will have to be created before old habitat is lost otherwise displaced species will have nowhere to go. Furthermore, new habitats will take time to be established. Compensation for habitat loss has not yet been fully debated. Will it, for example, include compensation through the restoration of similar, but not identical habitats? Clearly, there is an urgent need for research into habitat creation and restoration. Meanwhile there is no financial mechanism for purchasing land specifically for habitat creation and restoration in this context. Consequently, it could be a long time before any such research can even be applied.
The challenge for SMPs is to ensure a system to compensate for losses. Admittedly this is not an easy task but the first round of published plans should have met this challenge head on. Instead few, if any, have identified both potential habitat losses and suitable sites where habitat could be created to compensate for these losses. Now that decisions have been made on how to defend certain stretches of coast there may be little impetus to ensure habitat compensation.
Not all the SMPs examined considered the effect of sea level rise on coastal habitats which will be squeezed between the rising tide and hard defences. For example, the Process Unit 4 in the North Kent SMP containing a Ramsar site, SPA and SSSI3, states that
“Adopting a 'hold the existing line' strategy throughout the unit would cause minimal disruption to the intertidal mudflats and the shellfish populations which they accommodate. Other nature conservation interests in the area would also be sustained, since these already exist in the presence of the current defences which would be maintained by the strategy” [14].
This astonishing statement takes absolutely no account of the impacts of sea level rise and coastal squeeze.
In contrast, the SMP for Essex highlights sea level rise as “[a] critical issue to future defence strategies” [15]. It is essential that SMPs assess the extent of habitats likely to be lost to sea level rise and include measures to replace such habitats. A national overview is needed of coastal habitats threatened by sea level rise and coastal defences.
While for practical reasons the coast must be divided into cells, sub-cells and management units, it is imperative that there is integration at all levels to ensure compatibility. Not only must there be integration between management units (MUs) and SMPs but there must be integration between SMPs and other coastal and estuarine plans which could be affected by the SMP.
Dividing the sub-cell into MUs may actually undermine the strategic approach of the SMP process. By dividing the sub- cell into MUs the original problem of coastal management by many different authorities is reinforced. Indeed in the Sheringham to Lowestoft SMP, Norfolk County Council notes in its submission that “the Plan should still recognise concern at continued fragmentation of responsibility between various bodies in respect of coast protection, flood defence etc. and calls for a “national strategy for sea defence” [16].
Moreover, there are concerns that decisions taken to set boundaries for MUs have been biased more towards considerations of land use rather than coastal processes. This bias is believed to result in maintenance of the status quo. By dividing the cells into stretches of coastline based on resources or landuse, it is likely that the consensus will be to protect the landuse and therefore each stretch of coastline. The cumulative effect of each MU will then be to “hold the line” for the majority of the SMP. Indeed the decision to hold the line, for example, was taken in more than 75% of MUs in the plans prepared for Beachy Head to South Foreland, Essex, North Kent Coast, North Norfolk and Selsey Bill to Beachy Head.
Basing MUs on landuse may strengthen the position of land/property owners in decision making processes. Such owners clearly will have strong opinions as to how the MU should be managed and are likely to want to protect their resource. By limiting other interests in each MU there may be little opportunity for new approaches that benefit wildlife.
Maintenance of the status quo may also be a reflection of the absence of a compensation system for loss of assets to coastal erosion or flooding. In general the SMPs justify hold the line on the basis of the need to protect industrial and residential property and communications, setting this in the context of local and regional economies. Where the value of property is less than the cost of maintaining or building defences, MAFF advises the 'retreat' or 'no protection' options. However, in practice, without compensation individual owners are understandably likely to object to decisions which will affect their property even though these decisions may be in the wider interest of coastal management as a whole.
Clearly, if we are to manage our coastline sustainably, this issue of compensation must be addressed by Government. Currently coastal protection works are largely financed by MAFF. The pool of money made available to pay for defences could be used to buy-out people's property on under- developed stretches of coastline which could then be managed in a more natural way. Such an approach should be targeted at those areas where there are identified national priorities such as meeting the Habitats Directive.
Given that SMPs have such an important role to play in creating a more sustainable approach to defending the coast, it is imperative that as many different interests as possible are involved.
The first phase of the SMP process involves widespread consultation with the many potentially conflicting interests in the coastal zone. Early consultation is critically important if a concensus is to be reached on how best to defend the coast. However, concerns have been raised that consultation is failing to be as effective as it could be since the implications of SMPs appear not to have been understood by all consultees[17].
Taking the example of the SMP for Sheringham to Lowestoft on the East Anglian Coast, lists of consultees who responded and those who did not are given in the Phase 1 report. Among those who did not respond are some surprising names. For example, this stretch of coastline defends the Broads wetland system from the sea, yet no response was submitted by either the Broads Authority or Broadland District Council. Sea level rise from climate change and land subsidence threatens flooding and saline intrusion and consequently water supplies. Yet no interest was shown by Anglian Water. Furthermore this stretch of coastline is important for the oil and gas industries, shipping and fisheries yet there were no submissions from British Gas, Amoco, Phillips Petroleum, Shell UK, Associated British Ports, Eastern Sea Fisheries Joint Committee and North Norfolk Fisheries Association.
Their apparent lack of interest may actually reflect incomplete understanding about how the SMP could affect their activities in the coastal zone. But lack of response also raises another concern; that not all agencies operating in the coastal zone take the preparation of SMPs seriously or believe they will achieve anything.
Furthermore, for understandable practical reasons, consultation only involves those stakeholders affected in the area for which the plan is being developed. However, because published SMPs are not centrally stored, the process of finding out what is being planned for our coastline as a whole is a laborious one.
Shoreline management plans provide the potential to move away from our traditional piecemeal approach to managing the coast which has tended to exacerbate problems of coastal erosion and flooding. As such they have an important role to play in developing sustainable management of the coastal zone.
However, from examination of a sample of the first plans published there is a strong likelihood that SMPs will merely serve to maintain the status quo. Indeed this is the conclusion of the South Downs SMP, “Whilst the approach adopted actively seeks opportunities to accommodate natural processes, it is heavily constrained by existing development and infrastructure. This results in a strong preference for the status quo which, in general, means extensive lengths of coast over which Hold the Line is the preferred option at present”[18].
In the face of sea level rise, holding the line will require more expenditure, materials for defences and seriously threaten our coastal wildlife. SMPs have been too narrow in their focus by concentrating on management units based largely on landuse. Furthermore, at present they lack integration both between sub-cells and cells and so it is not possible to ensure that they are compatible, one of MAFF's conditions for SMPs. This could undermine the strategic approach of the process. Because their objectives are not standardised, they have missed opportunities to enhance the natural environment.
SMPs are due to be reviewed four to five years after completion. If the very significant threat of sea level rise to coastal habitats is to be addressed, the process of implementing habitat recreation to replace inevitable losses, must be well advanced by the time the plans are reviewed and updated.
The first set of SMPs have demoted wildlife to a peripheral interest. As the SMPs are reviewed and rewritten they must raise the profile of habitat protection and enhancement to ensure that the next round of plans deliver on legislative and policy targets such as the Habitats and Birds Directives and Biodiversity Action Plans.
“Advance the existing line”: a strategy to move the
defence of an area seaward of its existing position.
Climate change: the result of increased levels of greenhouse
gases in the atmosphere mainly from the burning of coal, gas and oil.
Coastal squeeze: the process by which coastal habitats and natural
features are progressively lost or drowned, caught between coastal defences
and rising sea levels.
County Wildlife Site (CWS): A non-statutory site of wildlife
importance managed by the Wildlife Trusts.
“Do nothing”: carry out no coastal defence activity
except for safety measures.
Hard defences: static shoreline structures such as those constructed
from timber, steel, concrete, asphalt and rubble.
“Hold the existing line”: a strategy to continue to
hold the line of defence where it is.
Ramsar site: wetland site of international importance designated
under the Ramsar convention.
“Retreat the line/managed retreat”: a strategy to
encourage the movement of the shoreline landward of its present position
in a managed or controlled manner, hence the term “managed retreat”.
Seawall: generally vertical wall of stone, concrete or other
material to protect the shoreline from erosion.
Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI): site designated
under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 on the basis of its biological
and geological (or both) interest.
Soft defences: mobile responsive defence measures which consist
of sand or shingle e.g. beaches, dunes, banks. They may be natural or
constructed, and may include control structures.
Special Area of Conservation (SAC): site designated under the
EC Directive on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna
and Flora (the 'Habitats Directive').The central aim of the Directive
is to conserve biodiversity across the area of the European Union through
a coherent network of SACs.
Special Protection Area (SPA): site designated under the EC
Directive on the Conservation of Wild Birds (the 'Birds Directive').
This Directive imposes strict legal obligations on Member States to
maintain populations of naturally occurring wild birds at levels corresponding
to ecological requirements, to regulate trade in birds, to limit hunting
to species able to sustain exploitation and to prohibit certain methods
of capture and killing.
[1a] Potts, J. (1997). Coastal group survey to flag up information requirements.
Coastal planning, 31st January, p1203.
[1b] MAFF, pers.comm.
[2] MAFF (1993). Strategy for Flood and Coastal Defence in England and
Wales. London: MAFF.
[3] MAFF (1995). Shoreline Management Plans. A guide for coastal
defence authorities, p7 para 2.18, London: MAFF.
[4] Beachy Head to South Foreland Shoreline Management Plan. Consultation
Draft. Summary. “19 Hythe Ranges.”
[5] Hydraulics Research (1995). Coastal Management: Mapping of Littoral
Cells. Report SR 328, Hydraulics Research Wallingford, January 1993.
In MAFF (1995). Op cit. p1, para 1.2.
[6] MAFF (1995). Op cit. p11, para 3.11.
[7] MAFF (1995). Op cit, p4, para 2.2.
[8] Huggett, D. (1996). A Review of Shoreline Management Plans and Planning
- Nature Conservation Issues, p6 Unpublished Report, Sandy: RSPB.
[9] Sir William Halcrow & Partners (1996). North Kent Coast - Isle
of Grain to Dover harbour. Sub-cells 4a & 4b - Shoreline Management
Plan, p3. Wiltshire: Sir William Halcrow & Partners.
[10] Sir William Halcrow & Partners (1995a). Sheringham to Lowestoft
Shoreline Management Plan Sediment Sub-cell 3B. Volume 1 Summary Document,
p1. Wiltshire: Sir William Halcrow & Partners.
[11] Sir William Halcrow & Partners (1995b). Sheringham to Lowestoft
Shoreline Management Plan Sediment Sub-cell 3B. Phase 2 Strategy Document,
Appendix A. Wiltshire: Sir William Halcrow & Partners.
[12] Mouchel Ltd. (1996a). North Norfolk Shoreline Management Plan.
Sheringham to Snettisham Scalp. Final. Volume 1, p4/15-16. Surrey: L.G.
Mouchel & Partners Ltd.
[13] Mouchel Ltd. (1996a). Op cit. p4/16.
[14] Sir William Halcrow & Partners (1996). Process Unit 4. Graveney
Marshes. Op cit.
[15] Mouchel Ltd (1996b). Essex Shoreline Management Plan. Draft Final
SMP - Final Consultation Document. Executive Summary, June 1996, p(i).
[16] Sir William Halcrow & Partners (1995b). Op cit.
[17] Huggett, D. (1996). p7. Op cit.
[18] Gifford Associated Consultants (1996). South Downs Shoreline Management
Plan. Selsey Bill to Beachy Head.
August 1997
Frances MacGuire
Published by Friends of the Earth Ltd
© Friends of the Earth Ltd
Friends of the Earth England, Wales and Northern Ireland
26-28 Underwood Street, London N1 7JQ
Telephone (0171) 490 1555 E-mail: info@foe.co.uk
Printed on 100% recycled paper
return to text
1Carbon dioxide is the principal
greenhouse gas
return to text
2 Beachy Head to South Foreland;
Essex; Isle of Wight, North Kent Coast; North Norfolk; Ribble Estuary;
Selsey Bill to Beachy Head; Sheringham to Lowestoft.
return to text
3 See glossary for explanation
of conservation designations
Contact details:
Friends of the Earth
26-28 Underwood St.
LONDON
N1 7JQ
Tel: 020 7490 1555
Fax: 020 7490 0881
Email: info@foe.co.uk
Website: www.foe.co.uk
August 1997
Frances MacGuire
Last modified: Jan 2002
