Conflicts over Marine and Coastal Common Resources

Causes, Governance and Prevention

Karen A. Alexander

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2019
• Print ISBN: 9781138635258
• eBook ISBN: 9781351796972
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Biological Sciences
• Subtopic: Ecology
• Index: Biological Sciences

This book explores the types of conflicts that occur over marine and coastal resources, the underlying causes, and attempts to prevent them.

Despite the emergence of various marine and coastal governance approaches to address the effects of human activities within the marine environment, conflict continues. In this book, the author outlines the reasons conflicts can, and do, arise in the marine and coastal environment. Drawing on case studies from both the northern and southern hemispheres, the book takes a broad view of how we interact with our environment, of how and why conflict is perpetuated as a political and cultural phenomenon, and how this varies or remains constant across space and place. The case studies explore not only the underlying perceptions and needs of those involved in marine and coastal conflict and the types of conflicts that arise in oceanic and coastal areas, but also the underpinning reasons for these conflicts. Marine and coastal resource conflicts have the potential to derail conservation efforts and blue growth policies, as well as the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Thus, it is imperative we understand the drivers and exacerbating factors of marine and coastal conflict. Arguing that there is an urgent need for renewed thinking and focus on conflict prevention, the author develops a theory of marine and coastal conflict which allows us to understand those factors and the means to help prevent such conflicts arising in the first place.

This book will be of interest to students and researchers of coastal and marine science and environmental management as well as those working in the field of marine resource management, including coastal zone managers and fisheries managers.

Chapter 1

All at sea

Conflicts regarding governance of the marine environment, particularly where multiple stakeholders are involved, are many and varied. Such conflict is typically based on a complex cocktail of legacy and assumed future outcomes as perceived by the many users of, and dependents on, the marine ecosystem in question. The results of extensive debates, research, and assessments do not necessarily result in the balanced use of marine resources. Moreover, often, insufficient mechanisms exist to ensure that all social, economic, and environmental elements are considered in moving to a dynamic equilibrium. In this book, I am going to take you on a journey where we explore why marine and coastal conflict occurs and if, and how, our existing marine governance mechanisms can contribute to preventing such conflict. But first, let’s get a feel for what sort of conflict I am referring to.

As the United Kingdom raced to meet a European Union (EU) goal of 20 per cent of the EU’s energy needs from renewables by 2020, the Crown Estate (managers of the UK seabed) ran several offshore wind leasing rounds. In 2009, as part of the second round, Centrica submitted a planning consent application for a wind farm at Race Bank, off the coast of Norfolk, covering an area of 75 km². By November 2013 the project’s future was in doubt as it failed to receive subsidies from the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change. In December 2013, the project was sold to Dong Energy. In 2014, when fishers were forced out of their traditional fishing area, a conflict arose between the fishers and the company. Dong Energy (majority owned by the Danish Government) had secured an injunction that gave fishers less than five days to remove thousands of crab-fishing pots from the lease area in the Greater Wash. Fishers believed that the compensation Dong had offered them was not fair and argued that Dong Energy’s ‘negotiating style stinks’ (Gosden, 2014). They felt that Dong had given insufficient time to reach an agreement and, when they had not got what they desired, had resorted to bullying tactics. Nicky King, 51, chairman of the Wells and District Inshore Fisherman’s Association, said: ‘We understand we’re not going to prevent a multi-billion-pound project going ahead but we feel we should be able to receive a fair compensation’ (Lazzari, 2014). Fishers perceived that a large foreign company had tried to force them out of the area they had fished in for generations. They felt that ‘at the moment money talks and might is right’ (ibid.). The conflict was resolved in 2015 as the fishers and Dong Energy came to an agreement over compensation, although neither side revealed the size of the new offer.

A plan initiated in 2011 to create a marine reserve off Waiheke Island in New Zealand divided an island community. A report released by the Hauraki Gulf Forum, suggesting that the Hauraki Gulf was suffering from serious environmental degradation and a loss of biodiversity, led to the creation of a group called ‘Friends of the Hauraki Gulf’ whose aim was to drive the proposal for a marine reserve. However, push-back came from nature-loving locals who were worried about losing access to kaimoana (seafood) as well as the potential for increased crowding and commercial activity due to elevated tourist numbers visiting the reserve. ‘The issue, basically, is that this is the wrong place for a reserve. Everybody would love to have reserves, but not there. This is our larder. This is our food source’, Danny Shortland from Piritahi Marae told the Sunday Star Times (Johnson, 2013). Mostly, the two opposing camps staked out their positions in letters to the editor and paid newspaper ads, at local council meetings and in media interviews. Tensions were also highlighted when Parliament considered a petition raised by a group called ‘Keep our Beaches’, although Ministers of Parliament concluded that as no application for a marine reserve had been lodged it was inappropriate to intervene.

Two years later, in 2013, the Norwegian government decided to halt oil and gas drilling around the Lofoten and Vesteraalen islands in the Norwegian Arctic. The seas off the islands are home to the spawning grounds of the world’s largest cod stock, leading fishermen and environmentalists to fear that oil activities could endanger the stocks, thus pitting them against the oil industry. Much of the battle was played out in government with attempts to give priority to the oil industry being blocked by opposing parties in the Storting (parliament) and in 2013 the newly elected Conservative Party formed a minority government with the backing of other parties based on the promise that they would protect the Lofoten Islands. Nevertheless, the substantial resources in the area – an estimated 1.3 billion barrels of oil in Lofoten and neighbouring Vesteralen and Senja – continues to fuel new political debate. As of 2018, the oil-friendly government coalition of the Conservative Party and the Progress Party have been unable to proceed with plans for impact studies in the area because of opposition from the Liberals and Christian Democrats.

In 2013, around 2000 people marched through Galway City in the Republic of Ireland bearing banners with the names of more than 20 angling and protest groups. The march was in response to an application by Bord Iascaigh Mhara (BIM) for a licence to farm 15,000 tonnes of salmon in an area covering 1,126 acres which, it suggested, would benefit the local community through a R60 million initial investment plus an annual wage flow of over R14 million. The proposal did not have the support from the local communities and stakeholders who believed it would affect angling, fisheries, and tourism in the area. Local Aran islander Ruari O Cualain told BBC News:

We’ve a beautiful beach, we’ve beautiful clean waters. Who is going to visit the place with a huge fish farm just a mile off it, with noise there 24 hours a day, with smell from fish? I don’t even know if I want to live here if the fish farm comes in here.

(Fleming, 2013)

Following the protests, the marchers sent a delegation to the International Skipper Expo where they handed in a letter to personnel on the BIM stand. Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) lodged complaints with the official government watchdog and suggested that if the project was approved they could bring a legal challenge. Even government agencies were at loggerheads over the project: while the fisheries board proposed the project, Inland Fisheries Ireland – the country’s authority for recreational fishing – was against it. In 2015, BIM withdrew the application to develop the world’s largest offshore salmon farm off the west coast of Ireland.

These stories are four examples from among hundreds. They share two key components. First, each describes proposed changes to the way that humans currently use the ocean and coastal environment, be it for development or conservation purposes. Second, each describes a situation which became engulfed in controversy and conflict.

Unmanaged conflict can affect us in a variety of ways and at a variety of scales. It has the potential to cause negative consequences for individuals. This may include increased stress, lowered productivity and motivation, damaged emotional and psychological wellbeing, mistrust, and hostility (which can turn, and has on occasion turned, to violence). At the organisation level, conflict may lead to wasted time and money, as well as poor decision-making. For society, a result of unmanaged conflict could be economic downturn or even the breakdown of social structure.

Conflict can also have a positive effect. Conflict can encourage new thinking; the consideration of different points of view. Conflict can lead to new questions being asked, it opens minds and beats stagnation. Conflict can also help us to find common ground, foster intellectual, emotional, and moral growth, and can foster change. But are we managing conflict in the marine and coastal environment? Are we harvesting its potential for positive outcomes? The evidence would suggest not.

Time for an intervention

In the early decades of the twenty-first century, there was rapid population growth and substantial technological advancement. In early history, fishers used barbed poles to spearfish or used woven baskets and nets, often in small boats close to the shore. Today, large factory trawler vessels can cross oceans. With a growing demand for high quality protein, and a decrease in many of the world’s fish stocks, we have seen the development of modern aquaculture, which has included mariculture. As fossil fuels become increasingly harder to access, the need for energy security has led to technological developments that allow the harvest of renewable energy from tidal streams and wave energy. While recreational use of the sea has occurred for thousands of years, as prosperity has increased so has the number of recreational cruising and racing vessels in recent years. This has occurred alongside a growing interest in marine ecotourism, which includes such activities as marine mammal watching and adventure expeditions to the poles. The importance of the oceans and coasts for economic growth became clear in the concept of the ‘blue economy’ (linked to the concept of ‘blue growth’), which came out of the 2012 Rio20+ Conference, and which has become a key development policy for many of the world’s coastal nations.

At the same time, there has been an increasing push to protect and preserve our marine environment. Human actions unavoidably modify or transform the oceans and coasts. In some cases, this has led to problems such as coastal erosion, loss of habitat, extinct and endangered species, and increases in foreign and invasive species. As a result, new conservation tools have been created such as marine reserves and marine protected areas (MPAs), which are areas of the sea where human activity is restricted for conservation. We may choose to limit development, fishing practices, or moorings in these locations. MPAs can also provide revenue from more passive human activities such as marine tourism. Many nations around the world have begun to allocate areas of sea space to MPAs; indeed, Target 11 of the Aichi Biodiversity Targets aims to protect at least 10 per cent of coastal and marine areas globally.

The drive for development and conservation is framed by the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), an interlinked set of 17 goals set by the United Nations General Assembly as part of Agenda 2030. The SDGs aim to address many of the global challenges we currently face, including those related to poverty, inequality, climate, environmental degradation, prosperity, and peace and justice. Conflict prevention or resolution, particularly between development and conservation, is a pre-requisite for achieving these goals. In fact, increasing maritime conflict and related security issues are a ‘quadruple bind’ because they put income security (SDG 1), food security (SDG 2), energy security (SDG 7), and safety (SDG 16) at risk. Moreover, these issues are also likely to affect SDG 14 (life below water) and SDG 15 (life on land). With the global drive to achieve sustainable development, we are likely to see increasing conflict. Perhaps now is the time for an intervention.

Yet, there is a gap in our understanding of why conflict arises in the marine space in the first place. An oft-used, and occasionally throwaway, explanation for conflict (most often used by proponents of the development or conservation measure) is that of ‘NIMBY (not in my backyard)-ism’. The concept of NIMBY suggests that an individual or organisation believes some sort of change is needed in society, but they do not want that change nearby them. The term is used as a pejorative and, although in some cases this may be one reason for the raised interest of a group it is seldom the sole catalyst for opposition to any proposed change in how we use our oceans and coasts. It is unacceptable to work on the sole assumption that NIMBY-ism is the reason for opposition to any proposed change in how we use our oceans and coasts.

Those who think more critically about such issues often propose that the reason for these conflicts is that marine users are fighting over space. That if we just understand which areas are used and valued, then we can figure out how to resolve these conflicts. Indeed, this has led to an increased focus on approaches such as marine spatial planning (MSP; also known as ocean zoning although it is much more than that), the uptake of which has been substantial. Again, it is hard to believe that this is the sole explanation for why conflict occurs in this space.

In fact, there are many diverse interests at play in the ocean and coastal environment, and as such there are likely to be a range of causes of contestation. Therefore, to address contentious issues, such as those described in the earlier stories, decision-making must be adaptive and, more importantly, informed. We must fully understand why these conflicts arise and use this information to promote change in ocean and coastal governance to ensure that such conflicts do not subvert our ability to achieve the SDGs.

Aim and structure of the book

In ‘Conflicts over marine and coastal “common” resources’, I aim to discern conflict and contestation in the marine and coastal environment, what it means for sustainable development (as understood through the SDGs), conflict theory and practice. To do this, I take a broader view of how we interact with our environment, of how and why conflict is perpetuated as a political and cultural phenomenon, and how this varies or remains constant across space and place. Like many human geographers, in this study I draw on research from such diverse fields as environmental science, economics, sociology, political science, and psychology.

As we will see, no one existing theory provides an overarching explanation for why conflict occurs in the ocean and coastal environment. Consequently, governance mechanisms which attempt to prevent marine conflict are built on an inadequate theoretical foundation. This means that they may do more harm than good. Rather, the problem is that there is no single explanation, but several partial explanations. In this book I tie together these explanations with new case study analysis to develop a theory of marine and coastal conflict. I argue that increased competition for ocean and coastal goods and services, driven by a changing social-ecological environment, may be transformed into conflict by political and social factors that shape the rules, rights, and effects of human resource use. Furthermore, I believe that by understanding the drivers and exacerbating factors of marine and coastal conflict, we can adapt marine governance processes in ways which may help to prevent such conflicts arising in the first place.

A substantial component of this book is the analysis of marine and coastal conflict case studies from around the globe. To do this, I have used discourse analysis (Gee, 2004) to analyse and interpret written communications (such as academic journal articles, court reports, industry and NGO literature, traditional and social media articles) relating to several marine and coastal conflicts. My methods comprised data reduction, data display, and conclusion drawing (Miles et al., 1994) using QSR International’s NVivo10 software (QSR International Pty Ltd, 2012), and a grounded theory approach to analysis (Charmaz, 2006). I then use the theory developed during this analysis as a frame to critically appraise how some existing marine governance structures address (or not) the underlying causes of marine and coastal conflict.

This chapter has introduced the topic of interest and provided some idea of what the book will cover. Chapter 2 identifies some peculiar characteristics of the ocean and coastal environment, providing some background as to why we may need to consider terrestrial and marine conflict differently. Chapter 3 delves into some of the existing theories of conflict and critically assesses how useful these are in the context of the oceans and coasts. In Chapter 4 I introduce the case studies that I analysed to develop a new understanding of marine and coastal conflict. Chapters 5 and 6 introduc...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half Title Page
• Series Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• List of illustrations
• Foreword
• Preface and acknowledgements
• List of acronyms and abbreviations
• 1 All at sea
• 2 The marine and coastal ‘commons’
• 3 The fit of existing conflict theory
• 4 A collection of conflict cases
• 5 The changing marine social-ecological environment
• 6 The rules, rights, and effects of marine resource use
• 7 A new theory of marine and coastal conflict
• 8 Conflict and the rule of law
• 9 Spatial planning for conflict prevention
• 10 Co-managing conflict
• 11 Stemming the tide
• Index