ELEMENTOS QUE CONSTITUYEN EL HURTO

4.5.1 Early attempts at coastal zone management were predominantly interventionist and came as a result of increasing pressure on coastal resources due largely to increasing population concentrations at the coast since 1950. Private ownership of much of the foreshore, coupled with over-eager developers led to the loss of much of the natural habitat to make way for new building. The larger population in turn caused a number of related environmental problems, relating to water and air standards, sediment pollution, shoreline erosion and loss of aesthetic quality which unbalanced the fragile ecosystem and gave rise to increasing public concern (Mitchell, 1982). This concern resulted in the passing of a variety of legislation at both federal and state level which addressed particular issues rather than coastal management as a whole. Legislation to protect marine species, habitats and water quality includes the Clean Water Act, the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, the Ocean Dumping Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act 1972, the Fishery Conservation and Management Act 1976 and the National Ocean Pollution Planning Act.

4.5.2. Prior to 1970 some States had long-established legislation governing coastal management, although equally many did not. However, the need for consistency between States to deal with the increasing complexity of problems of resource degradation and user conflict generated political pressure to rationalise and improve the situation and resulted in the passing of the Coastal Zone Management Act 1972. The Act contained recommendations on public participation and urban waterfront renewal, authorised and funded the establishment of coastal zone management programmes in all coastal states and had four main objectives:

(i) To protect fragile coasts (reefs, wetlands, lagoons etc); (ii) to minimise life and property loss from coastal hazards;

(ill) to create better conditions for coastal resource use, especially in terms of access for recreation; and

(iv) to promote inter-governmental cooperation through policy and procedural standardisation, leading, hopefully to a reduction in bureaucracy.

4.5.3. The Act formalised these four objectives, setting the scene for a higher priority to be given to coastal management issues and put in place the means by which to take action. In 1983 the

United States also declared its Exclusive Economic Zone, further demonstrating the importance being placed on marine resources (Gubbay, 1989). Both these initiatives have resulted in increased management of human activities in all parts of the coastal zone.

4.5.4. The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) divided responsibilities between the federal and state governments, the former setting the general policies and management guidelines and the latter, in conjunction with local governments, developing and implementing local plans. Thus the agreement of a national policy provided the wider framework within which detailed consideration could be given to the specific policies and methods of implementation required in order to address the particular issues of each locality. The Act was administered by the Federal Office of Coastal Zone Management (OCZM) set up by the US Department of Commerce. Federal government grants could be allocated to assist States in devising their own CZMA programmes which were submitted to the OCZM for evaluation and approval.

4.5.5. Some critics of the Act viewed it as a conservation measure which failed to achieve Its stated objectives through trying to appease all parties (Elipoulos, 1982). Others felt that too much power had been passed down to the local level, resulting in inconsistencies (Chamberlain, 1979). Alterations made during subsequent amendments aimed to correct some of these deficiencies. The programme came under increasing pressure when the incoming Reagan administration proposed to remove Federal support, partly on the basis that the objectives had been met, but ostensibly to save money (Galloway, 1982). Congress re-authorised the CZMA in late 1985 for a further five years.

4.5.6. However, progress has been made and the Act served the vital purpose of making an integrated approach to the management of the coastline, incorporating both control of development and protection of natural resources, a priority. The purpose of such a strategy was to provide an understanding of a wide range of issues such as multiple uses, resource

environmental management. The ensuing programme for coastai management was required to take account of the action and interaction of physical, social, economic, environmental and ecological factors in terms of their effect on the functioning of the overall environment.

4.5.7. A number of commentators have written accounts of the practical successes of the system (Knetch, 1979, Elipoulos, 1982, Mitchell, 1982 and Chasis, 1985). These clearly show the level of both practical and procedural activity which the Act has generated, evidenced in the fact that all 35 coastal states have been involved, although some have since withdrawn. The State plans which have been approved exhibit a mixture of old and new legislation, coordinated through a central executive or a iead agency. Each plan is necessarily targeted to address the Issues relevant to each particular state and some critics have claimed that, as a consequence of this and the differences in interpreting the provisions of the CZMA, there is little overall consistency at the Federal level (Carter, 1988). The Californian Coastal Commission and the Massachusetts State Office of Coastal Management provide examples of situations where emphasis has been piaced on land-based resources with limited attention being given to sea-related issues. The recognition of some of these limitations has prompted more recent inter-state initiatives which relate to agriculture, facility siting, marine sanctuaries, offshore energy requirements, minerals activities and minerals pollution (Hampshire County Council, 1992).

4.5.8. Concurrently, several other government initiatives have been tried in particular fields. Whilst none have had as wide an effect as the CZMA, some complemented and some conflicted with its objectives. One response to this increased level of central activity has been the increase in the number of pressure groups whose function tends to be the monitoring of Federal and State activities, in contrast to the situation in Britain where similar groups are involved in the practical aspects of coastal management (Carter 1988). This rise in ’environmentalism’ as a reaction to the degradation caused by economic activity has been well documented (O’Riordan, 1977) and is likely to play an increasing role in the twenty-first century as increasing public awareness plus growing scientific knowledge has a continuing influence on management. In terms of coastal projects, the US National Environmental Policy Act in 1970 is a significant

milestone and led the way for the requirement for major deveiopment proposais to be accompanied by an assessment of their environmental implications.