Background to ports and harbours in marine SACs
Ports and harbours in European marine
sites
Responsibilities of ports and harbours
Ports and harbours
in European marine sites
There are over 80 ports and harbours located in
or adjacent to possible and candidate marine SACs
in the UK (Figure
and Appendix). When also considering
those ports and harbours located in or near classified
and potential SPAs with an intertidal element (Appendix
E), there are altogether over 110 ports and
harbours which operate within and around European
marine sites. The terminology used related to ports,
harbours and harbour authorities is available here.
On closer examination many estuaries,
inlets and bays contain smaller ports, harbours
and piers, which are not indicated in the figure.
There are a large number of ports which are not
regarded by DETR ports division as commercial trading
ports, but which report fishing statistics via the
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF)
or the Scottish Office Agriculture, Environment
and Fisheries Department (SOAEFD). For example,
in addition to the eight principle ports located
along the shores of the Solway Firth, there are
a further 14 small piers, harbours, ports and slipways
found within or near the marine site which straddles
the border between England and Scotland (Solway
Firth Partnership 1996). Therefore the total number
of ports and harbours actually within or near European
marine sites will be higher.
The ports and harbours found within
or near European marine sites are highly varied
in terms of their location, size, and function,
and as a result undertake a wide range of different
operations and activities which vary greatly in
terms of their frequency of occurrence and extent.
For example, in marine SACs there are:
- the major commercial ports of Southampton, Milford
Haven and Bristol,
- the important recreational harbours of the Solent
and the South West, including the harbours of
Plymouth Sound and Falmouth Bay and Estuary; and
- the fishing harbours of the North West, such
as Loch Maddy and those found in the Solway Firth
and Morecambe Bay.
In addition, there are a number
of important commercial ports located in or near
marine SPAs, including the ports of Felixstowe,
Immingham, Grimsby, Mersey, Tees and London.
The purpose for designation of
a marine SAC in which a port or harbour is located
also varies greatly. For example, Cardigan Bay is
recommended for a single species, the Bottlenose
dolphin, whereas many sites are recommended for
a range of both marine and coastal habitats, such
as the Wash, Solway Firth and the Pembrokeshire
Islands. The potential impacts of port and harbour
operations within these different sites are therefore
highly variable and must be considered and managed
on a site-by-site and port-by-port basis.
Responsibilities
of ports and harbours
The rights and responsibilities
of port and harbour authorities derive from the
legislation that creates them and gives them powers.
The authority can only operate within its powers.
Most harbour authorities are governed by their own
local legislation, which is specific to each authority
and tailored to meet the needs of each port/harbour.
Under these local acts and regulations, the port
and harbour authority is responsible for administering
the ports and coastal waters within its jurisdiction,
for the main purposes of ensuring the navigation
and safety of vessels using them. Ports and harbours
have a legal responsibility over the marine environment
as local lighthouse authorities under the Merchant
Shipping 1894 Act.
The concept of environmental management
in ports and harbours is not new. They have a statutory
duty to balance nature conservation with their other
duties, under the Transport and Works Act 1992.
However, before this duty to the environment was
introduced, ports and harbours had been managing
the marine environment for decades, but the process
has been largely informal. Each major function of
the port requires consideration of the environment
within its normal management operation. The task
of formalising the environmental management process,
without duplicating or dislocating tried and tested
systems, in each department is formidable. Yet,
the absence of a formal identifiable environmental
management system has made it difficult to explain
to those outside the port and harbour industry the
sheer extent of environmental activity that takes
place. It should be noted that the conduct of ports
is governed by their financial vulnerabilities which
need to be balanced with the Transport and Works
Act's general injunction that they should discharge
all their responsibilities with environmental considerations
in mind.
Many ports and harbours located
in or near European marine sites already conduct
their every day activities and operations according
to environmental codes of conduct or good practice
guidelines. Some ports have developed their own
guidelines, others follow existing guidelines, such
as those produced by the European Sea Ports Organisation
(ESPO) and British Marine Industries Federation
(BMIF), or abide by environmental guidelines provided
by local estuary management plans and strategies.
The Habitats Regulations require
port and harbour authorities to have regard to the
requirements of the Habitats Directive in the exercise
of any of their functions, and enables relevant
authorities, including port and harbour authorities,
to develop a single scheme of management for a European
marine site. Whilst this places new duties on port
and harbour authorities, it also empowers them to
play an active and equal part in the development
and implementation of a management scheme.
The implementation of the Habitats
Directive in the UK has raised a number of concerns
for ports and harbours with regard to the potential
impacts of marine SACs on their operations. Their
key concern is the need to provide assurance of
continued shipping and boat access to ports and
harbours and the necessity of allowing ports and
harbours to evolve with the needs of their customers
within the context of the Habitats Directive. The
overwhelming message from representatives of the
port industry, country conservation agencies and
other interested bodies at the ports and SACs workshops
was the need to adopt a pragmatic approach to SAC
management. The production of these guidelines is a first step in this process.
Next Section
|