Welcome to PAP/RAC Mediterranean Coastal Alert! This newsletter is regularly updated monthly. It contains abstracts of selected current articles and archives on various environmental themes, in particular those dealing with all aspects of coastal issues. The selection is made from the articles published in the leading international scientific journals. This newsletter is an excellent way of keeping you updated with coastal studies and processes.
Today, like in terrestrial zones, the determination and registration of tenure in coastal and maritime zones appear to be mandatory not only from legal, social and economic perspective but also for sustainable environmental administration. In this context, there is a need to redefine and reconstruct these zones. In this study, the institutions and corporations operating in coastal and maritime zones in Turkey and current laws were established and a matrix was formed between the operations and the institutions operating in coastal and maritime zones to evaluate the current structure as a whole. Furthermore, with the objective of determining the problems seen in coastal and maritime zones, some survey and interview studies were conducted concerning the institutions and corporations operating in this field and the current situation was displayed. As a consequence of the study, it was found that the current structures in coastal and maritime zones were not adequate in terms of legal, institutional and technical points. The need for an integrated coastal and maritime zone administration was stated and some suggestions with regard to land management were put forward by developing new approaches.
Keywords: Coastal; Sea; Land management; Coastal and maritime zone administration; Coastal and maritime law; Tenure; Cadastre.
Source: V. Baser and C. Biyik (2015); “The problems and resolution approaches to land management in the coastal and maritime zones of Turkey”, Ocean & Coastal Management, Volume 119, January 2016, Pages 30–37; Received: 6 May 2015; Received in Revised Form: 11 September 2015; Accepted: 30 September 2015; Available Online under DOI:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2015.09.018
In 1969, the Stratton Commission presented to the US Congress a keystone report in the field of coastal management, which eventually culminated in the US Coastal Zone Management Act of 1973 that marked commencement of coastal management programmes in the USA. Since then the subject has gone global and now is being sub-summed into the area of Marine Spatial Planning. The Rio summit in 1992 provided a large impetus for Mediterranean regions and in 1995, the revised Barcelona Convention introduced the second phase of the Mediterranean Action Plan, to be followed 1 year later by the European Union funded Demonstration Programme on Integrated Coastal Zone Management. The end result of the above has been a plethora of global research activities from which many tools and instruments varying from simple to extremely sophisticated, have evolved together with approaches, such as, “community/ecosystem based”, “Satoumi”, etc.
A Global Congress on: “Integrated Coastal Management (ICM):Lessons learned to address new challenges”, was held at Marmaris, Turkey, In November, 2013, organised by the Medcoast Coastal Foundation, Dalyan, Turkey and the International EMECS Centre, Kobe, Japan, co-organised with Sitki Koçman University, Muğla, Turkey. EU Projects PEGASO and MARLISCO contributed considerably to the outcome of the 186 papers presented and published.
Source: A. T. Williams (2015); “Integrated Coastal Management: lessons learned to address new challenges”, Journal of Coastal Conservation, October 2015, Volume 19, Issue 5, Pages 631-632; First Online: 4 September 2015; Available Online under DOI: 10.1007/s11852-015-0410-z
The European Union Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) uses indicators to track ecosystem state in relation to Good Environmental Status (GES). These indicators were initially expected to be “operational”, i.e. to have well-understood relationships between state and specified anthropogenic pressure(s), and to have defined targets. Recent discussion on MSFD implementation has highlighted an additional class of “surveillance” indicators. Surveillance indicators monitor key aspects of the ecosystem for which there is: first, insufficient evidence to define targets and support formal state assessment; and/or second, where links to anthropogenic pressures are either weak or not sufficiently well understood to underpin specific management advice. Surveillance indicators are not only expected to directly track state in relation to GES, but also to provide complementary information (including warning signals) that presents a broader and more holistic picture of state, and inform and support science, policy, and management. In this study, we (i) present a framework for including surveillance indicators into the Activity–Pressure–State–Response process, (ii) consider a range of possible indicators that could perform this surveillance role, and (iii) suggest criteria for assessing the performance of candidate surveillance indicators, which might guide selection of the most effective indicators to perform this function.
Keywords: Assessment and reporting; Good Environmental Status (GES); Indicator-based management frameworks; Management response; Operational indicators; Policy reaction.
Source: : S. Shephard, S. P. R. Greenstreet, G. J. Piet, A. Rindorf and M. Dickey-Collas (2015); “Surveillance indicators and their use in implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive”, Oxford Journals, ICES Journal of Marine Science; Received: 13 May 2015; Revision Received: 30 June 2015; Accepted: 2 July 2015; Published: September/October 2015, 72 (8): 2269-2277; First Published Online: 18 July 2015 under DOI: 10.1093/icesjms/fsv131
Pacific island countries (PICs) are situated in a highly dynamic ocean–atmosphere interface, are dispersed over a large ocean area, and have highly populated urban centres located on the coastal margin1. The built infrastructure associated with urban centres is also located within close proximity to the coastlines, exposing such infrastructure to a variety of natural and climate change-related hazards. In this research we undertake a comprehensive analysis of the exposure of built infrastructure assets to climate risk for 12 PICs. We show that 57% of the assessed built infrastructure for the 12 PICs is located within 500 m of their coastlines, amounting to a total replacement value of US$21.9 billion. Eight of the 12 PICs have 50% or more of their built infrastructure located within 500 m of their coastlines. In particular, Kiribati, Marshall Islands and Tuvalu have over 95% of their built infrastructure located within 500 m of their coastlines. Coastal adaptation costs will require substantial financial resources, which may not be available in developing countries such as the PICs, leaving them to face very high impacts but lacking the adaptive capacity.
Keywords: Exposure; Climate risks; Coastal built assets; South Pacific.
Source: L. Kumar and S. Taylor (2015); “Exposure of coastal built assets in the South Pacific to climate risks”, Nature Climate Change; Received: 17 December 2014; Accepted: 2 June 2015; Published Online: 6 July 2015 under DOI: 10.1038/nclimate2702