Chapter 11

Next Steps

This chapter outlines the next stages of the programme and identifies issues for priority action. It covers:

• Next steps
• Priority actions.

INTRODUCTION

This chapter briefly describes the next steps in formulating the Coastal Policy and draws attention to possible priority issues for action in implementing the policy.

The next steps in formulating the policy are as follows (see Appendix 1 for further details):

Meetings and workshops will be held in each of the coastal regions during this period. These gatherings will assist interested and affected parties in developing a good working knowledge of the Green Paper. They will also provide opportunities to identify matters of concern in the Green Paper and to suggest alternative policy proposals. These gatherings will seek as much agreement as possible on matters relating to the coastal regions and provinces.

The regional and provincial gatherings will provide the basis for preparing a draft national Coastal Policy document that will be distributed before the end of 1998 for public comment. This draft policy will form the basis for a National Policy Event(s) early next year. The event(s) will lay the foundation for preparing a draft White Paper that will be delivered to the Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism. The policy formulation phase of the Coastal Management Policy Programme will be concluded at the end of April 1999. This will set the scene for Government to adopt and implement a new Coastal Policy in 1999.

Once the policy has been formulated, it must be implemented. A draft programme for policy implementation will be prepared by November 1998. Agreement will need to be reached with key stakeholders on the appropriate activities, time-frame and priority actions for such a programme. Every effort will be made to ensure that policy implementation occurs as soon as possible after agreement has been reached on the new Coastal Policy and its implementation programme. Many considerations will need to be addressed in the implementation programme, including:

• How can the levels of public awareness, support and participation be increased?
• How can the capacity of those likely to be involved in coastal management be improved? (This could be done, for example, by starting a training programme.)
• How can adequate financial support be secured?
• How can the appropriate institutional and legal arrangements be effectively and speedily put in place?
• How can the practical implications of policy implementation be better understood and taken into account? (This could be done, for example, by starting pilot studies in different regions and provinces.)
• What mechanisms can be put in place to improve the working relationships between relevant Government agencies and between Government, the private sector and civil society? (This could be done, for example, through public-private partnerships and co-management arrangements.)
• What incentives can be provided to implement the Coastal Policy?

• Proactively identify opportunities to diversify coastal economies and optimise benefits for local coastal communities, giving specific attention to matters such as poverty reduction and creating sustainable job opportunities and alternative livelihood options.
• Promote coastal tourism and recreational opportunities.
• Identify, supplement and effectively manage State coastal assets, particularly State land next to the coast, the sea-shore and the Admiralty Reserve.
• Improve public access to the coast, whilst taking into account traditional, community and private property rights.
• Maintain the beauty and diversity of our coast, and strictly control further sprawl or ribbon development.
• Enhance the strategic role played by ports, harbours and related facilities, with special attention given to improved maintenance of fishing harbours and related facilities.
• Identify and create opportunities for mariculture.
• Establish and effectively manage a representative system of coastal protected areas, including wherever possible a land-marine connection.
• Better manage river mouths and estuaries.
• Rehabilitate degraded coastal areas and resources, for example, areas that have been extensively mined.

GLOSSARY

APPENDIX 1: STAGES OF THE COASTAL MANAGEMENT POLICY PROGRAMME

The programme was initiated in May 1997. Extensive consultations took place between November 1997 and February 1998 with stakeholders around our coast. These consultations succeeded in giving interested and affected parties the opportunity to identify issues and articulate a vision for the future of South Africa’s coast.

Consultation with stakeholders took place in all regions along the coast. To this end, the coast was divided into thirteen regions, defined on the basis of biophysical and socio-economic factors. The programme team ran 22 workshops along the coast during this stage of the process and involved over 800 people from more than 200 organisations. Numerous additional "one-on-one" meetings were conducted with over 700 people from more than 160 organisations.

The issues and visions identified during this stage were outlined in Regional Vision Reports, and in a National Vision Report. The programme’s national Policy Committee drew on the views and aspirations expressed in the Regional Vision Reports in formulating the National Vision.

During this stage the programme team returned to the stakeholders in the regions. They ran more than 40 workshops and meetings, involving over 500 people from more than 200 organisations. They succeeded in establishing a broad range of policy responses to the issues and visions generated in the previous stage.

The meetings and workshops, convened on a sector by sector basis, allowed for a rich debate and expression of sectoral interests. This was a vital component in ensuring a broad base of debate in the process. The sectors included Government, business, labour, community-based organisations, environmental non-governmental organisations and the sport and recreational sector.

Further input was obtained from more than 150 written submissions received during this period. In addition, about 15 000 people regularly receive programme newsletters and mailings.

During this stage this Green Paper was drafted. The Project Management Team worked to draw together the results of the two previous stages of public participation, as well as the results of extensive parallel specialist studies.

In addition, a Task Team of specialists was convened to assist the drafters through sharing their extensive knowledge and expertise.

The aim of this stage of the programme is to debate the ideas in the Green Paper. This will be based on wide dissemination of this document, ensuring that there is a good working knowledge of it among a wide range of actors, and conducting meetings and workshops to refine its focus. There will be gatherings and meetings in each of the coastal regions and the four coastal provinces before the end of November 1998. This will provide the basis for preparing a draft Coastal Policy document that will be distributed before the end of 1998. These regional and provincial gatherings will aim to seek as much agreement as possible on a new Coastal Policy for the country.

In this stage, the draft policy will be distributed to the public for further comment. This draft policy will form the basis for a National Policy Event(s) in February 1999. The event(s) will aim to seek as much agreement as possible, and will lay the foundation for the preparation of a draft White Paper that will be delivered to the Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism. This will set the scene for Government to adopt a widely endorsed policy in 1999. This stage of the programme will also focus on developing and giving effect to recommendations for implementing the policy.

Many organs of State, non-governmental organisations, groups in civil society and the private sector are involved in one way or another in coastal management. This involvement occurs in terms of a wide range of existing policy and legislation at national, provincial and local levels. Some of the key pieces of existing legislation are outlined in Figure 2 and a more extensive list of applicable laws is contained in Appendix 3.

The term "the coast" does not refer to a distinct area or resource. There is no obvious or readily available definition of the coast, and no corresponding administrative area. Apart from the policy for off-road vehicles, there is currently no law which defines the coast as an area of concern requiring special management attention.

Previous efforts to delineate the coast as a 1 000m wide strip of land in which all activities required permit approval, failed. The reasons for this failure included the arbitrary nature of the landward boundary, which did not recognise administrative boundaries or ecological systems and inadequate administrative procedures and capacity to administer the regulations. Although a legal definition of the coast would assist in clarifying administrative responsibilities and co-ordinating coastal management efforts, the approach followed in South Africa must make sense from an ecological, administrative and management perspective.

As far as the seaward extent of the coast is concerned, it is possible to choose a number of boundaries, such as the extent of the territorial sea (12 nautical miles) or the Exclusive Economic Zone (200 nautical miles) claimed by South Africa under the Maritime Zones Act. Concerning the landward extent of the coast, there is currently no boundary in place, but the Environment Conservation Act does empower the Minister to declare Limited Development Areas, which could encompass the coast.

Clarifying which activities fall within the ambit of coastal management is a difficult exercise. Many institutions involved with coastal management activities experience difficulty separating coastal management activities from general environmental management activities. Institutions with specific coastal management responsibilities consider coastal management to be a specialised form of environmental management. These responsibilities include the development of Coastal Policy (Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, DEAT), preparation of coastal structure plans (coastal Provincial Planning Departments/Directorates), management of protected areas or species (coastal Provincial Nature Conservation Departments, South African National Parks), management of marine pollution (Chief Directorate: Pollution Control, DEAT) and controlling the quality of effluent into rivers and the sea (Department of Water Affairs and Forestry). For most other departments, approaches and tools employed for management in coastal areas do not differ from approaches used in other areas.

Subject to a few exceptions, it is generally not easy to separate out coastal legal and institutional factors from laws and institutions that apply to the country as a whole.

The extensive law reform process currently occurring in South Africa and the ongoing restructuring of Government departments presents both an opportunity and a constraint for the Coastal Policy process. A significant opportunity exists to place coastal issues on the agenda of current related processes. Examples of these processes are those around Integrated Development Plans (IDPs), Spatial Development Initiatives (SDIs) and new laws, e.g., Provincial Planning and Development Bills.

The key constraint is that the Coastal Policy formulation process, which involves extensive participation, will only be completed by early 1999. Unless coastal concerns are highlighted and integrated into related processes, it is likely that new coastal legislation will be reactive and regulatory rather than proactive.

The restructuring of Government institutions and the establishment of new structures such as Development Tribunals provide a further opportunity for coastal issues to be integrated into planning, assessment and decision-making procedures currently being established by these institutions.

Current procedures for enforcing development control and coastal management are not working effectively. It is questionable whether legal and administrative controls are ever able to change inappropriate activities and behaviour. There are lessons to be learnt from customary law principles and community-based approaches to natural resource management. In addition, the various co-management arrangements to manage coastal resources provide alternative models which appear to be more efficient, equitable and sustainable.

The key legislation affecting activities taking place above the high water mark is the body of land-use planning laws administered by the respective planning departments of national Government and the coastal provinces. These laws are in practice more significant than the environmental and nature conservation laws administered by the national and provincial departments of environmental affairs and nature conservation respectively. There is an urgent need for these departments to integrate coastal principles and a requirement to comply with coastal guidelines in the laws and procedures governing their activities.

Since the transition to democracy in 1994 there has been some attempt at rationalisation of legislation and devolution of powers relevant to the coast. In the Eastern Cape, however, there is still overlap between the legislation of the old Cape Province, and the former "homelands" of Ciskei and Transkei.

There is widespread acknowledgement by Government, parastatals, and non-governmental organisations involved in coastal management that a number of key deficiencies exist in current legal and institutional arrangements for coastal management. The factors commonly identified are as follows:

1. Legislation affecting coastal management is fragmented and is administered by a variety of different Government departments and agencies. It needs to be rationalised and co-ordinated. There is an urgent need to develop a national Coastal Policy.
2. The fragmentation of laws and multiplicity of institutions involved in aspects of coastal management prevents effective law enforcement. Limited resources and personnel also make it difficult to monitor illegal or inappropriate activities taking place along the coast.
3. There is a lack of clarity regarding the roles and responsibilities of different spheres of Government with respect to coastal management activities. This is worsened by the new Constitutional order which identifies the environment as an area of concurrent legislative and executive competence.
4. There is a lack of co-ordination of coastal management efforts along the entire South African coast. There are various initiatives, planning exercises and policy processes taking place at all levels. These are not well co-ordinated and integrated. Other than the KwaZulu-Natal Coastal Working Group there are no inter-departmental committees or bodies attempting to co-ordinate activities affecting the coast.
5. There is a lack of awareness amongst the public, authorities and developers of the sensitivity and importance of coastal ecosystems and features. In addition, developers and authorities seldom consult the public on coastal planning and development matters.

Existing capacity and resources of provincial and local authorities charged with coastal management responsibilities are hopelessly inadequate.

The new Constitution provides general direction for Government officials carrying out coastal management responsibilities, and there is now widespread responsiveness to public concerns. Overall, the Constitution has brought about a change in management responsibilities from a reactive to a proactive orientation.

The Bill of Rights chapter in the Constitution recognises the right of all to a healthy environment, respects private property rights, provides a right to information and provides for greater transparency in administrative decision-making. The chapter also relaxes the locus standi requirement by providing for the enforcement of rights by anyone acting in the public interest, amongst others. It provides for a number of socio-economic rights, including the right to housing, health care, food, water and social security.

The new Constitution provides the basic framework for environmental management in South Africa. Marine resources are specifically excluded from the list of matters of concurrent national and provincial jurisdiction, suggesting that jurisdiction over them is national. The coast is not specifically mentioned in either the concurrent or exclusive provincial list (Schedules 4 and 5 of the Constitution), suggesting that it may be national. "Environment" is designated to be a matter of concurrent national and provincial jurisdiction. There is much confusion around the question of the respective responsibilities of national, provincial and local Government for managing the coast and its resources.

The Constitution provides for co-operative Government (Chapter 3) by setting out certain "principles of co-operative Government and inter-governmental relations" (Section 41), a relevant sub-section requiring Acts of Parliament to establish and provide for structures and institutions and procedures to promote and facilitate inter-governmental relations (Section 41(2)).

In considering a possible Coastal Management Act for South Africa, it must be borne in mind that the Constitution specifically provides for a so-called "override" provision where there is potential conflict between national and provincial Government (Section 146(2)). It provides for national legislation to override provincial legislation where uniformity is required, by establishing norms and standards, frameworks or national policies. This effectively authorises a Framework Coastal Management Act.

The Constitution (Chapter 7) emphasises the potential role of local Government in coastal management. It states that one of the objectives of local Government is to promote a safe and healthy environment, and it gives local authorities executive authority with respect to certain matters in Schedules 4 & 5 of the Constitution. Local Government has thus been specifically charged with environmental responsibilities and obligations. Fulfilment of these responsibilities will require local authorities to integrate environmental principles into their activities. It will also require them to implement the suite of environmental policies (including a Coastal Policy) that are currently being formulated. In particular, the relaxation of the locus standi provisions means that the public can take legal action against local Government if they fail to exercise their environmental responsibilities.

The Sea Shore Act recognises the public nature of the sea- shore by vesting ownership of it in the State President, providing that it is inalienable and stipulating that leasing of the area must be for a public purpose. No provision is made, however, for physical access to the sea and sea-shore.

Land tenure arrangements are accordingly dramatically different above and below the high water mark where private (or State) and public ownership prevail respectively. Estuaries and rivers will tend to be of a public character once the new Water Act comes into effect.

As far as the area below the high water mark is concerned, the Sea Shore Act is out of keeping with current constitutional developments and new administrative frameworks.

The only legislative attention which has recently been given to the area is the Maritime Zones Act which claims maritime boundaries in accordance with international law.

By assigning the majority of the provisions of the Sea Shore Act to the provinces, national Government has in effect "given up" its custodianship role of the area. It is important to note that the recent National Environmental Management Bill specifically endorses the Government’s custodianship of environmental resources. This assignment of powers may result in tensions and conflicts regarding the respective roles of national and provincial Government in administering the Sea Shore Act and other legislation relevant to the coast. Moreover, it is questionable whether such an assignment reflects the spirit of the Constitution’s chapter on co-operative Government.

The Coastal Management Sub-Directorate of the DEAT does not have mostly any specific powers under the Sea Shore Act. These powers have been assigned to the coastal provinces. The Coastal Management Sub-Directorate consequently tends to play an advisory role even on major coastal developments. The only legislative measure which the Coastal Management Sub-Directorate has attempted to implement is the declaration of parts of the coast as a Limited Development Area and a policy for the control of off-road vehicle use in the coast.

There have been unsatisfactory attempts for over a decade to designate the area immediately landward of the high water mark as a "limited (development) area" under the predecessor to the current Environment Conservation Act. These attempts have failed to have any substantial impact on coastal management efforts. The limited area philosophy has been applied in an ad hoc way in certain areas. For example, some local authority legislation in KwaZulu-Natal has listed certain activities which may impact on the coast as requiring approval of the Local Council prior to proceeding.

The limited area philosophy may be complemented by the notion of an Admiralty Reserve, which exists along parts of the coastline in KwaZulu-Natal and Western Cape. The legal status of the Admiralty Reserve and its potential in furthering coastal management are not altogether clear, but are currently being investigated.

In September 1997, regulations were passed declaring that certain activities which may have a substantial harmful effect on the environment are subject to environmental impact assessments. Some listed activities are specific to the coast (e.g., constructing harbours) while others are activities carried out in the coast as well as elsewhere. These regulations seek to control undesirable activities, but are contrary in spirit to new policies and laws relevant to land planning and development.

The new approach being followed when drafting planning and development legislation is to be more proactive and seek to integrate environmental and community concerns into planning processes, minimising the need for project-specific environmental assessments.

The Development Facilitation Act (DFA) and the Local Government Transition Act (LGTA) have fundamentally changed (or are in the process of changing) the legislative and institutional landscape above the high water mark. The DFA provides for general principles for land development and conflict resolution and the establishment of necessary institutions for this purpose, including Development Tribunals. The coastal provinces are in the process of formulating provincial legislation to give effect to these institutions.

Coastal local authorities have to have regard for the LGTA, whose purpose is to provide for interim measures for the promotion and restructuring of local Government. The LGTA will eventually be replaced by the Municipal Structures Bill and Provincial Planning and Development Acts. The LGTA provides for Provincial Committees for local Government in the various provinces, forums for negotiating such restructuring, and transitional councils. Central to coastal management is the obligation for local authorities to develop IDPs under the LGTA. An IDP is a plan aimed at integrated development and management of the area of jurisdiction of the municipality concerned.

Coastal requirements are not specifically referred to, but IDPs aim to take into account the Land Development Objectives required by the DFA. The process of drawing up IDPs has been initiated in some coastal local authorities.

The Environmental Laws Rationalisation Act (51 of 1997) amends and extends certain previously "South African" legislation (including the Sea Shore Act and the Sea Birds and Seals Protection Act) to the former "homeland" areas. It does not specifically repeal previous legislation applicable in the "homelands", thereby adding to the duplication and confusion which currently exists.

Planning law at provincial level is generally in a state of flux. All four coastal provinces are in the process of developing their respective Planning and Development Bills to replace the pre-1994 planning ordinances. A new planning hierarchy is accordingly emerging.

Protected area legislation is found at national, provincial and local authority levels. Certain international conventions are also relevant , for example, the Ramsar Convention on wetlands. The legislation is diffuse and uncoordinated and appears not to have been formulated in terms of any overall vision or plan.

The legal status and administration of estuaries is not clear. The Lake Areas Development Act (39 of 1975) has never been effectively applied and is currently being revised. The Prince Edward Island Act applies to that island as well as Marion Island, but is outdated and needs revision.

A general characteristic is that specific resources have specific Acts dedicated to them (e.g., the Sea Fishery Act is applicable to marine fisheries, the Forestry Act to coastal forests, and so on). There are few mechanisms for co-ordinating the exploitation of these resources.

A welcome feature is that the National Water Act specifically defines and provides for "coastal marine waters" and provides for integrated catchment management.

A new Forest Bill is currently being drafted but it is not known whether it will specifically provide for coastal forests. A parastatal, SAFCOL, has been formed to take over all commercial plantations. Indigenous forests (including coastal forests) will remain with the DWAF and Provincial Environment and Conservation Departments.

With regard to marine fisheries, the DEAT produced a White Paper on Marine Living Resources in 1997 and a Marine Living Resources Act was passed in 1998. The Coastal Management Policy Programme (CMPP) could not make much impact on this initiative because of the late stage of the process.

There are, however, areas of mutual interest to both policies and efforts must be made to ensure that the Coastal Policy is consistent with and supports the relevant provisions of the Act. Should the CMPP result in policy objectives which contradict the Act, negotiations between the relevant role-players should take place and appropriate amendments made.

With regard to fauna and flora, provincial nature conservation legislation is likely to be rewritten to take into account the new provincial dispensation and the re-incorporation of the previous coastal "homelands" in KwaZulu-Natal and the Eastern Cape. The extraction of mineral resources has been specifically excluded from the list of affected activities under the September 1997 regulations on environmental impact assessments. Minerals extraction has a major impact in the coast, but mining legislation (the Minerals Act) and administration have remained outside moves towards integrated environmental management. This sectoral attitude may frustrate attempts to require all Government departments to implement the Coastal Policy.

In 1996 South Africa ratified the Biodiversity Convention, which has important implications for the conservation of coastal and marine biodiversity. No legislative initiatives have as yet been undertaken in this regard.

With regard to cultural and historical resources, e.g., shipwrecks, the National Monuments Act is likely to be replaced by the Draft Heritage Bill. Provincial Councils will be given more authority over cultural resources.

The Communal Property Association Act makes provision for communities to form a legal entity in order to acquire, hold or manage property on a co-operative basis. This legislation is relatively new, but may provide opportunities for sections of coastal land to be allocated and managed by a group of people. The absence of any environmental criteria for allocation or management of land in terms of this Act has implications for implementing a Coastal Policy in such areas.

The numerous and varied Acts which apply to coastal and marine pollution (see Appendix 3) are administered by a number of Government departments. This includes the Department of Transport — DOT (while a potential pollutant is on board a vessel), the DEAT (when the marine or coastal environment is polluted), the DWAF (land-based sources), the Department of Minerals & Energy — DME (off-shore mining activity) and the Department of Health — DOH (international health regulations).

The South African Maritime Safety Authority Act (5 of 1998) provides for a statutory authority which will take over many Department of Transport functions.

Numerous national Government departments are involved in aspects of managing the coast and its resources in the course of carrying out their functions. Except for the DEAT, DWAF and to a lesser extent the DME, most national Government departments do not consider coastal management responsibilities to fall within the ambit of their work. The fact that activities they manage are located in the coastal environment or may affect the coast, does not alter their management approach.

As a result of the absence of policy guidelines, coastal framework legislation and a single co-ordinating body to provide direction and guidance, there is administrative confusion and inefficiency, duplication of efforts, gaps in management and an uncoordinated approach to coastal management.

In general, Government departments at all levels identify the DEAT as the lead authority responsible for coastal management. The Coastal Management Sub-Directorate of the DEAT is located in Cape Town, and there are no offices dedicated to coastal management in other coastal provinces. The Sub-Directorate has responsibility for a wide range of coastal management-related activities. Although its prime concern is policy formulation and co-ordination of coastal activities, much time and effort is spent providing comment on the array of new draft policies and legislation and responding to public queries to the Minister. The Sub-Directorate has limited legislative powers as they have mostly been assigned to the coastal provinces.

The Coastal Sub-directorate has extensive responsibilities in the field of coastal management. In order for it to fulfil its responsibilities, however, additional staff and resources at national and provincial level will be required. Alternatively, certain functions will need to be taken on by other departments and authorities at the provincial and local level.

The only resource over which the DEAT has substantive control is marine fisheries. This domain is outside the ambit of the Coastal Management Policy Programme because a new Marine Living Resources Policy has been prepared (White Paper and Marine Living Resources Act), setting out the institutional arrangements for access to and management of marine resources. Other coastal resources, such as coastal forests, water, minerals and agriculture, are administered by the DWAF, DME and the Departments of Land Affairs and Agriculture respectively. Although management of these resources has been undertaken on a sectoral basis, the establishment of inter-departmental committees and working groups has occurred to some extent.

Pollution of coastal waters falls under the jurisdiction of different national departments (DOT, Sea Fisheries Institute, of DEAT, DWAF and DME, as well as parastatals such as Portnet).

This fragmentation of pollution control across different pieces of legislation and within different departments is considered a key weakness. In this respect, the Marine Pollution Division within DEAT advocates the need for a lead agency for pollution control and management in order to streamline activities and to improve co-ordination and management. For example, the entire water quality management function should be located within DEAT rather than being partially located in DWAF. Its main functions should be policy formulation and the setting of national standards, with implementation occurring at provincial level.

A further activity of a centralised pollution control unit would be the establishment and maintenance of a database. Some effort has been made to rationalise pollution control generally by establishing a Pollution Control Chief Directorate within the DEAT. This Chief Directorate has taken over air pollution from the DOH, and is in the process of taking over marine pollution functions from the Chief Directorate: Sea Fisheries of DEAT.

Most of the legislation governing land-use planning, economic development and resource use and exploitation in the coast is administered by other national and provincial departments. The DEAT’s decision-making powers regarding coastal activities are thus fairly limited.

The new Water Resources Act makes provision for the establishment of catchment management agencies and local level water committees. It also adopts an holistic and integrated approach to catchment management. The structural model proposed for catchment management could be adapted for coastal and estuarine areas. These new structures also have the potential to play a positive role in co-ordinating management activities which influence the coast.

There is no single provincial Government department responsible for coastal management. Ongoing reshuffling of the provincial authorities charged with environmental management functions and a reduction in annual budgets suggest that environmental authorities do not enjoy a high status. This has hindered the development of proactive and efficient provincial environmental management authorities and explains the lack of clear procedures and systems for assessing, monitoring and managing activities which affect the coast. Environmental and nature conservation directorates and sub-directorates within different provincial departments are involved in various aspects of resource management and protection, and provide input to planning and development processes. With limited resources and personnel available for environmental management generally in the provinces, the separation of the functions of nature conservation and environment adds to administrative inefficiency and delays.

In all the provinces, Government departments involved in land-use planning and development control are key players in coastal management.

The promulgation of the DFA, and the LGTA, and new provincial planning legislation have, however, resulted in much confusion amongst officials charged with planning responsibilities. These legislative changes have led to the dismantling of various planning boards and the establishment of new institutions. It will take some time before the procedures, assessment criteria and modus operandi of these new institutions are operational. In the meantime, this lack of clarity regarding planning and regulatory procedures provides a gap for inappropriate development to take place in sensitive coastal areas.

There is a lack of co-ordination amongst Government departments involved with aspects of managing the coast and its resources. In addition, the restructuring process has in some instances led to overlaps and contradictions in management responsibilities. For example, development activities in coastal dune areas are controlled by a number of different departments, depending on the activity in question.

There are various initiatives taking place which have far-reaching implications for the future use and management of the coast. For example, in the Western Cape, the Directorate of Planning in the Department of Housing, Local Government and Planning is in the process of preparing a provincial policy concerning land-use planning in the mainly rural areas of the coast. In KwaZulu-Natal, the Provincial Growth and Development Strategy identified the need to prepare a coastal management plan. This is being co-ordinated by the Department of Local Government and Housing, with input from the Departments of Economic Affairs and Tourism and Traditional and Environmental Affairs. The SDIs of the Department of Trade and Industry, many of which are located in the coast, have strong political support and are more concerned with short-term economic goals than long-term sustainability issues. It is of concern that these coastal initiatives are taking place in the absence of national policy guidelines or framework legislation which would provide direction and ensure conformity with national principles, norms and approaches.

Concurrent functions set out in Schedule 4 of the Constitution are not clearly understood on the ground and may not be practical to administer. While certain environmental functions such as approval of environmental impact assessments, environmental management plan reports and waste management have been delegated to provincial level, many proposals are still assessed from a purely nature conservation perspective.

Co-ordination and communication between DEAT and other national and provincial environmental departments is considered inadequate. Although the Minister and Provincial Executive Councils (MinMEC) provide a forum to discuss environmental matters in general, coastal management issues are only one of a number of subjects addressed. The proposal that the ICCOAST Committee be given formal status may provide a forum for enhancing communication between DEAT and other national and provincial departments responsible for coastal management activities.

Several new institutions have been created in terms of the new wave of legislation that has been promulgated following the democratic elections in 1994. These include Development Tribunals, District Councils and catchment management agencies. While none of these institutions have coastal issues as a focus, opportunities exist to broaden their scope to consider coastal principles and guidelines when executing their functions.

Several provincial inter-departmental committees exist to foster improved communication and co-ordination amongst Government departments on a number of issues. Most of these are informal, however, and meetings take place on an irregular basis.

The only existing committee that has a purely coastal focus is the KwaZulu-Natal Coastal Working Group, established to provide inter-departmental liaison on coastal policies and a forum for discussion on spatial planning and development control, as well as information for the public.

The role and powers of local Government are set out in section 156 of the Constitution and are further defined and elaborated on in the LGTA and the White Paper on Local Government (1998). The duties and powers of local Government are wide-ranging. Of particular relevance to the Coastal Management Policy Programme are those relating to strategic planning through IDPs, setting Land Development Objectives in terms of the DFA, service delivery and addressing the needs of the poor. Clearly, local authorities have wide-ranging functions and decision-making powers. Execution of these functions in coastal areas could alter the nature and character of the coastal environment if activities are undertaken without due consideration of coastal principles and guidelines. Coastal framework legislation is needed to guide and regulate activities undertaken or authorised by local authorities.

The Constitution provides for different categories of local Government. Although District / Regional Councils potentially have an important role to play in coastal management, there are various factors which currently hinder their effectiveness. These factors include the extensive area of coastline under their jurisdiction, their inexperience with coastal and marine matters and legislation, their distance from local concerns, pressure on them to deliver basic needs and limited resources and capacity to meet their many responsibilities. Unless additional staff, training and financial resources are provided, it is likely that these councils will not be able to fulfil their responsibilities and that decisions will be guided by short-term economic goals rather than long-term considerations of sustainability. In the Eastern Cape and KwaZulu-Natal, proposals are under discussion to establish a lower level institution to deal with resource use and land development issues in coastal areas. The legal status and exact responsibilities of these proposed coastal development authorities is, however, unclear.

Institutional arrangements for local Government are still in a state of flux. The powers and functions of local Government have been generally defined in the Constitution and specific tasks have been assigned to them in terms of the LGTA and DFA. But the exact functions and responsibilities of each sphere of Government and the relationship between national, provincial and local spheres of Government is still in the process of being clarified. The White Paper on Local Government, released in March 1998, suggests that further restructuring of local Government will occur. Alternative models for the different categories of local Government are still being investigated and assessed. One possible scenario is that urban municipalities outside of metropolitan areas could be amalgamated with their rural counterparts. Because of this lack of clarity regarding local level institutions, proposed institutional arrangements for local Government’s role in coastal management activities may not be appropriate or feasible when local Government restructuring is finalised.

The roles and responsibilities of local Government are extremely wide-ranging, including the provision of services, promotion of economic development and ensuring a healthy and safe environment. The formulation of land-use plans and IDPs is of critical importance to coastal management efforts. The recognition of coastal principles and issues in the formulation of these plans is important to ensure that coastal features, systems and assets are not degraded.

The current ambiguity over the role of traditional leaders in elected local Government structures is an issue of concern in the coastal management arena, particularly in remote, under-developed rural coastal areas. Here unscrupulous developers and entrepreneurs are by-passing existing procedures to deal directly with traditional authorities on land and development matters.

The White Paper on Local Government explores the strengths and weaknesses of different models of transitional local Government. It proposes different models for different categories, recognising the importance of assigning adequate powers for local structures to fulfil their responsibilities. The important role of traditional leadership is recognised and a co-operative model of governance is proposed. The White Paper establishes the basis for a new developmental local Government system, which is motivated and capacitated to fulfil its responsibilities. Implicit in this mandate is the requirement of local Government to balance local economic development needs with long-term environmental sustainability considerations.

Although the philosophy of delegating more responsibility and power to lower tiers of Government is generally supported, this approach must be accompanied by increased resources, capacity building and skills training.

Of concern is the limited environmental capacity at local Government level to meet these responsibilities. It is unlikely that local Government will be able to comply with and implement the requirements of a new Coastal Policy, unless there is support from higher levels of Government.

One way of enhancing the capacity of local Government to fulfil its coastal management responsibilities is to encourage the involvement of civil society and community organisations with an interest in coastal resources and issues.

Although many local authorities recognise their limited capacity to implement policy, they have acquired considerable practical experience of local coastal matters, and could make a major contribution to ensuring that implementable policy is developed.

Except for the larger municipalities, few local authorities have staff dedicated to coastal management. The integration of environmental considerations in the course of executing their functions therefore depends to a large extent on the capacity of individuals to identify potential environmental concerns and address them. Increasingly, local authorities are appointing consultants to assist with developing policies and plans, assuming that environmental issues will also be addressed by them in these processes.

Government departments at all three levels charged with environmental management responsibilities have a relatively lowly status and are under-resourced and under-staffed. This view is supported by a recent study to assess the capacity of provincial Government in environmental management. The study concludes that the provincial environmental departments lack the necessary human and financial resources and the expertise to execute environmental management functions.

In addition, most provinces are experiencing annual cuts in budgets allocated for environmental management and nature conservation. Of concern is that in all provinces, the vast majority of the budget is allocated to nature conservation functions and very little is allocated to general environmental management (e.g., in the Western Cape 1996/1997 financial year, R43 million was allocated to nature conservation and R1 million to environmental management). Yet the responsibilities of provincial environmental authorities are increasing. In terms of the new environmental impact assessment regulations, for example, the provincial environmental authority will in most instances act as the lead authority and will ensure compliance with regulations. At present, these regulations are one of the few tools available to regulate development in the coast. Although the regulations are being phased in, indications are that there is insufficient capacity within the provincial environmental authorities to fulfil this responsibility.

The situation in the Eastern Cape is particularly difficult. The rationalisation of three different administrations (the old Cape Provincial Administration, Ciskei and Transkei) into one department has resulted in most expertise being located in the western half of the province and a lack of qualified staff in the eastern half. A further issue of concern is the lack of capacity building to support affirmative action appointments.

Aside from the provincial environmental authorities, few other departments have staff dedicated to environmental matters, and none have staff dedicated to coastal matters. Most local authorities do not separate coastal management functions from environmental management generally. In most instances, except in the larger municipalities, capacity and resources to deal with environmental management are totally inadequate. Local authorities are more concerned with local town planning and economic development issues and ensuring service delivery for the poor than with resource conservation issues.

Most authorities feel that the lack of staff and resources result in them playing a reactive rather than proactive role in coastal management. To improve this lack of capacity, local authorities do work in co-operation with other national or statutory bodies which have an interest in or responsibility for coastal management, e.g., the KwaZulu-Natal Conservation Services and South African National Parks.

Because of the lack of capacity at all levels of Government to effectively manage the coast and its resources, Government will increasingly need to form partnerships with non-governmental organisations, community-based organisations and other resource user groups to assist in the task of management. Various forms of co-management between community groups and relevant Government departments are already being implemented. An assessment of the conditions under which these co-management systems operate effectively should inform the development of appropriate and feasible legislative and institutional scenarios for implementing the Coastal Policy.

Numerous pieces of legislation (Acts, Ordinances and Bills) and policy strategies and instruments (White and Green Papers, spatial planning policies) are relevant to managing the human and natural components of the coast. Some of the key instruments and responsible Government agencies are shown in the Appendix Table 3.1.

However, as highlighted in Chapter 7, of this document, legislative and regulatory instruments are seen to be merely as one of many options for coastal management. Other possible instruments for implementation are outlined below.

Environmental management in South Africa has been characterised by two distinct features. Firstly, day-to-day management has primarily been undertaken by Government agencies. Secondly, the management style has tended to rely on a regulatory or "command and control" approach. This style of management has often proved neither efficient, nor effective, especially in some coastal areas. The reasons for the perceived inadequacies are many and varied. The lack of resources and limited capacity of coastal managers has made this situation worse. Internationally, there has been a move towards:

• Greater use of market-based measures and mechanisms, including a greater use of economic and information strategies
• Broadening the role of management to create partnerships between Government and civil society, including a range of co-management approaches that encompass collective management of specific resources and even complete outsourcing of management functions for an extended period to the private sector under a set of specified guidelines.

The objective of these new approaches is to make environmental management more efficient and effective, especially in the context of increasing stress on limited natural resources and decreasing financial resources available to local and regional managers.

A range of managers (referred to as actors) is involved in coastal planning and management in a variety of different ways. These actors include:

• Government authorities (national, provincial, local)
• Parastatals (e.g., South African National Parks, Portnet, Eskom)
• Institutions (e.g., universities, National Monuments Council, professional bodies)
• Private sector (e.g., commerce, industry, property developers)
• Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) (e.g., NSRI, Wildlife & Environment Society, Coast Watch, Botanical Society)
• Community-based organisations (CBOs) (e.g., Residents Associations, Community Trusts, Forums, Labour Organisations).

Actors undertake a range of activities, both formally and informally. The effectiveness of their involvement is highly variable and depends on a range of factors, such as financial and administrative constraints, available human resources, level of skill and training and political will.

The coastal management matrix shown below in Appendix Table 3.2 describes some of the existing activities that actors are involved in. It is apparent from the matrix that significant scope exists for other stakeholders, not traditionally involved in coastal management, to play a greater role. For example, the private sector already plays an important role in policy and planning, and could become more involved in development control or resource management functions. Community-based organisations could become involved in resource management, operation and maintenance, or environmental monitoring activities.

In the discussion document "National Strategy for Integrated Environmental Management in South Africa (1998)", the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism indicated the need to adapt present management styles to incorporate, where appropriate, various market-based strategies, as a supplement to the existing regulatory approach to management. The environmental management styles indicated below in Appendix Table 3.3, show the range of possible strategies that could be used in different management situations. No single strategy is likely to be effective. Rather a combination of regulatory, incentive-based and information-based strategies should be used.

A number of the regulatory and information instruments in Table 3.3 are currently used on a regular basis in South Africa. Market-based incentives for environmental management, while used commonly in various other parts of the world, have not yet been used to any great extent in this country.

In subsequent phases of the Coastal Management Policy Programme, work on economic incentives for coastal management will be developed in greater detail. Examples of some possible new responses to existing coastal management issues are given in Appendix Table 3.4.

APPENDIX 4: CONTRIBUTING SPECIALISTS

SPECIALIST STUDIES
LIST OF AUTHORS, ARTISTS AND REVIEWERS

J Largier, University of Cape Town

E Boonzaier, University of Cape Town
C Griffiths, University of Cape Town
G Huggins, Scott Wilson, Planning andDevelopment Resources
Z Jakavula, University of Cape Town
J Largier, University of Cape Town
N Nattrass, University of Cape Town
J Parkington, University of Cape Town

T Avis, Coastal & Enviromental Services, Grahamstown
J Christopher, University of Port Elizabeth
S Hosking, University of Port Elizabeth
L McGwynne, University of Port Elizabeth
Guy Nicolson, Guy Nicolson Consulting Services
R Lubke, Rhodes University

R Diab, University of Natal
F Ellery, University of Natal
B Elliot, University of Cape Town
G Garland, University of Natal
J Harris, KwaZulu-Natal Nature Conservation Services
B Mann, KwaZulu-Natal Nature Conservation Services
J Ngubane, University of Natal, Durban
F Pupuma, University of Durban-Westville
K Sink, University of Cape Town
R Taylor, KwaZulu-Natal Nature Conservation Services
L van Schalkwyk, Amafa aKwaZulu-Natali

N Demetriades, University of Natal
A Forbes, University of Natal
J McCarthy, University of Durban-Westville

L Kruger, University of Cape Town

Economy: S Hosking, University of Port Elizabeth
Natural Systems: L McGwynne, University of Port Elizabeth
Natural Resources: G Branch, University of Cape Town
Settlement/Infrastructure: B Gasson, University of Cape Town
Society: C Lewis, Rhodes University
Overall Report Review: J Barker, University of Cape Town
Price Edward Island report: P Ryan, University of Cape Town; C Hänel, University of Pretoria; S Chown, University of Pretoria; G Branch, University of Cape Town; J Barker, University of Cape Town

H Aikman
R Docke
R Roberts
S Sayers

P Burbridge University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
A Forbes University of Natal
J McCarthy University of Durban-Westville

P Fielding, Oceanographic Research Institute
J Kiepiel, Regional Planning Consultant
R Peart, Council for Scientific and Industrial Research
T Quinlan, University of Durban-Westville

S Lane, Environmental Consultant
M Wallis, University of Durban-Westville

D Dewar, University of Cape Town

L Zeitlin Hale, University of Rhode Island, USA
M Ngoile, University of Dar es Salam, Tanzania
E Meltzer, Meltzer Research and Consulting, Canada

M Bruton, Two Oceans Aquarium

J Glazewski, University of Cape Town
M Sowman, University of Cape Town

A Khan, University of the Western Cape
T Nkosi, Legal Resources Centre
E Russell, PondoCROP
P Theron, Consultant

Internal reviewers

P Rutch, Land and development lawyer
S Turner, University of the Western Cape

J Beaumont, Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism
S Schneier, Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism

External review panel

J Ridl, Ridl-Glavovic Associates

S Eekhout, Eco-Africa Environmental Consultants
A Fredricks, Peninsula Technikon
J Marshall, Environmental Design Partnership
F Mullagee, Eco-Africa Environmental Consultants
F Odendaal , Eco-Africa Environmental Consultants
T Phillips, Eco-Africa Environmental Consultants
K Salo, Peninsula Technikon
W Sauer, Rhodes University
J Whitehead, Siyakhana Consulting Company

J McCarthy, University of Durban-Westville
M McGrath, Institute of Natural Resources
J Ridl, Ridl-Glavovic Associates

P Burbridge, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
M Mander, University of Natal
R van der Elst, Oceanographic Research Institute

G Branch, University of Cape Town
P Burbridge, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
J Glazewski, University of Cape Town
N Malan, Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, Cape Town
M Mander, Institute of Natural Resources
M Mbengashe, Department of Economic Affairs: Environment and Tourism, Eastern Cape
S Mithar, Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, Northern Cape
A Muller, University of Stellenbosch
L Platzky, WESGRO
R Porter, Nature Conservation Services
J Ridl, Ridl-Glavovic Associates
D Roberts, South Central Council: Durban
E Russel, Pondocrop
W Smith, Department of Housing and Planning, Western Cape
M Sowman, University of Cape Town
R van der Elst, Oceanographic Research Institute

In addition to comments from the Policy Committee, Regional Managers, Project Management Team and Specialist Task Team the following specialists also provided comment on drafts of this document:

J Beaumont, Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism
L Beckley, Oceanographic Research Institute
R Browne, Ottawa, Canada
P Burbridge, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
J Glazewski, University of Cape Town
P Glavovic, University of Natal
L Hale, University of Rhode Island, USA
A Heydorn, World Wildlife Fund South Africa
P Morant, Council for Scientific and Industrial Research
M McGrath, University of Natal
A Rabie, University of Stellenbosch
N Schialabba, Food and Agriculture Organisation, Italy
S Schneier, Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism
M Sowman, University of Cape Town
E Torrell, University of Rhode Island, USA

REFERENCES

1. Avis, T., J. Christopher, S. Hosking, R. Lubke, L. McGwynne and G. Nicholson. 1998. Garden Route Region, Western District Region, Border-Kei Region, Wild Coast Region. In Characterisation and Assessment of the South African Coast. Coastal Management Policy Programme, Cape Town.

2. Branch, M. and G. Branch. 1983. The Living Shores of Southern Africa. C. Struik (Pty) Ltd, Cape Town.

3. Chalmers, R. 1998. Portnet to spend R7bn on upgrades. Business Day, 10 July.

4. Cicin-Sain, B. and R. W. Knecht. 1998. Integrated Coastal and Ocean Management: Concepts and Practices. Island Press, Washington D.C.

5. Costanza, R., d’Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., O’Neill, R., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R. G., Sutton, P. and M. van den Belt. 1997. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387: 253-260.

6. Davey-Moran, J., R. Diab, B. Elliot, G. Garland, J. Harris, B. Mann, J. Ngubane, F. Pupuma, K. Sink, R. Taylor and B. Tomalin. 1998. Hibiscus Coast Region, Durban Metro Region, Dolphin Coast Region, Zululand Region, Maputaland region. In Characterisation and Assessment of the South African Coast. Eds T. Forbes, J. McCarthy and N. Demetriades. Coastal Management Policy Programme, Cape Town.

7. Fielding, P., J. Kiepiel, R. Peart and T. Quilan. 1998. Research Report, Policy Process Report, Summary of Lessons Learned and Provisional Position on Policy Design, Synopsis Report. In Lessons Learned from Past Experience. Coastal Management Policy Programme, Cape Town.

8. Fielding, P., J. Kiepiel, R. Peart, T. Quilan, L. Hale, E. Meltzer and M. Ngoile. 1998. Summary Report. In Lessons Learned from Past Experience. Coastal Management Policy Programme, Cape Town.

9. GESAMP (Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection). 1996. The contributions of Science to Integrated Coastal Management. GESAMP Reports and Studies, No. 61.

10 . Glazewski, J. and M. Sowman. 1998. Review of Legislative and Institutional Arrangements for Coastal Policy in South Africa. Coastal Management Policy Programme, Cape Town.

11 . Hale, L., E. Meltzer and M. Ngoile. 1998. Application of International Experience to Formulation of a National Policy for Coastal Management for the Republic of South Africa. In Lessons Learned from Past Experience Coastal Management Policy Programme, Cape Town.

12 .Hatziolos, M., C. G. Lundin and A. Alm. 1996. Africa: A Framework for Integrated Coastal Zone Management. The World Bank, Washington D.C.

13 .Heydorn, A. E. F. 1989. Estuaries and the open sea. In Oceans of Life off Southern Africa. Eds A. I. L. Payne and R. J. M. Crawford. Vlaeberg Publishers, Cape Town.

14 .Hinrichsen, D. 1998. Coastal Waters of the World. Trends, Threats, and Strategies. Island Press, Washington D.C.

15 .Kruger, L. 1998. Prince Edward Island. In Characterisation and Assessment of the South African Coast. Coastal Management Policy Programme, Cape Town.

16 .Largier, J. 1998. National Summary. In Characterisation and Assessment of the South African Coast. Eds Forbes, T., J. McCarthy and N. Demetriades. Coastal Management Policy Programme, Cape Town.

17 .Largier, J., C. Griffiths, N. Nattrass, G. Huggins and E. Boonzaier. 1998. Namaqualand Region, West Coast Region, Cape Metro Region, Agulhas Coast Region. In Characterisation and Assessment of the South African Coast. Coastal Management Policy Programme, Cape Town.

18 .McGrath, M. D., C. C. M. Horner, S. L. Brouwer, S. J. Lamberth, B. Q. Mann, W. H. H. Sauer and C. Erasmus. 1997. An economic valuation of the South Africa linefishery. South African Journal of Marine Science 18: 203-211.

19 .Salo, K., S. Eekhout, F. Odendaal, W. Sauer, J Whitehead and J. Marshall. 1998. Main Report, KwaZulu-Natal, Eastern Cape Province, Western Cape Province, Northern Cape Province. In Related Initiatives currently underway in South Africa. Coastal Management Policy Programme, Cape Town.

20 .Van Teylingen, K., A. McLachlan, C. Rickard and G. Kerley. 1993. Conservation status of the vertebrate fauna of coastal dunes in South Africa, Biodiversity Series Report No. 1. Department of Environmental Affairs and Foundation for Research Development, Pretoria.

21 .Wilkins, N. 1998. Summary Report: Poverty and inequality in South Africa. Office of the Deputy President, South Africa.

RECOMMENDED READINGS

Coastal management: South Africa

1. Branch, M. and G. Branch. 1981. The Living Shores of Southern Africa. C. Struik (Pty) Ltd, Cape Town.

2. Council for the Environment. 1989. A Policy for Coastal Zone Management in the Republic of South Africa. Part 1. Principles and Objectives. Joan Lötter Publications, Pretoria.

3. Council for the Environment. 1991. A Policy for Coastal Zone Management in the Republic of South Africa. Part 2. Guidelines for Coastal Land-Use. Academia Publishers, Pretoria.

4. Glazewski, J. 1997. Towards a Coastal Zone Management Act for South Africa. The South African Journal of Environmental Law and Policy 4(1):1-22.

5. Heydorn, A. E. F. and K. L. Tinley. 1980. Estuaries of the Cape. Part 1. Synopsis of the Cape Coast. Natural Features, Dynamics & Utilization. Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, Stellenbosch.

6. Heydorn, A. E. F., Glazewski, J. I. and B. C. Glavovic. 1992. The Coastal Zone. In Environmental Management in South Africa. Eds Fuggle, R. F. and M. A. Rabie. Juta & Co. Ltd., Cape Town.

7. Payne, A. I. L., Crawford, R. J. M. and A. Van Dalsen. 1989. Oceans of Life off Southern Africa. Vlaeberg Publishers, Cape Town.

8. Sowman, M. R. 1993. The status of Coastal Management in South Africa. Coastal Management 21:163-184.

9. Tinley, K. L. 1985. Coastal Dunes of South Africa. South African National Scientific Programmes Report No. 109. Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, Pretoria.

Coastal management: International

1. Beatley, T., Brower, D. J., and A. K. Schwab. 1994. An Introduction to Coastal Zone Management. Island Press, Washington D.C.

2. Cicin-Sain, N, B. and R. W. Knecht. 1998. Integrated Coastal and Ocean Management: Concepts and Practices. Island Press, Washington D.C.

3. Hatziolos, M., C. G. Lundin and A. Alm. 1996. Africa: A Framework for Integrated Coastal Zone Management. Washington, D.C.

4. Hinrichsen, D. 1998. Coastal Waters of the World. Trends, Threats, and Strategies. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

5. Sorenson, J. 1997. National and International Efforts at Integrated Coastal Management: Definitions, Achievements and Lessons. Coastal Management 25:3-41.

6. World Bank. 1993. Noordwijk Guidelines for Integrated Coastal Management. Document presented at World Coast Conference, 1993, November 1-5, Noordwijk, Netherlands. Republished as Post, J. C., and C. G. Lundin. 1996. Guidelines for Integrated Coastal Zone Management. Environmentally Sustainable Development Studies and Monographs Series No. 9. The World Bank, Washington, D.C.