Marine Policy 1994 18 (6) 457-463

Beyond the shoreline

The marine estate

John King

The land may vary more; But wherever the truth may be

The water comes ashore And the people look at the sea’

Like many of my generation I grew up to believe absolutely in the idea that the UK is a maritime nation whose wealth and security are guaranteed by its ships and nautical skills. It never occurred to me then that the time would come when the extent and desirability of our involvement with the sea - even the premises upon which it is based - would be questioned. Nevertheless, they have been ques- tioned for some time and those of us who claim any authority or interest in maritime affairs have pres- ided over their demise. However much we may personally regret the loss of much that we have given our lives to, however much we may argue that influences beyond our control have been responsi- ble, the time for special pleading is passed. We shall convince no-one of the need for the UK to maintain faith with the sea by resorting to arguments based on our maritime traditions.

Tradition is both asset and liability. Long associa- tion with any area of human activity is invariably accompanied by the establishment of institutions and practices that are immensely valuable although often in ways that are difficult to quantify but apparent to those who lack them. Thus we may comprehend the efforts of younger maritime States to acquire the expertise and infrastructure needed to support their expanding merchant fleets. We may also reflect that experience once lost is not easily

’ Robert Frost, Neither Ouf Far Nor In Deep, 1936.

The author is Head of the Department of Maritime Studies and International Transport, University of Wales, Cardiff CFl 3YP.

replaced. On the other hand, long association can also breed rigid thinking and blinkered attitudes that ultimately strangle the activity that bore them. Such has arguably been our own case. Our shipping and shipbuilding have been too much encumbered by the ballast of their history. The construction and opera- tion of water-craft may rank among the oldest of all human endeavours; seafaring may be one of the oldest professions. Nevertheless, the established re- lationship between humankind and the sea remains in many respects a primitive one.

We are terrestrial animals. Our evolution over recent millennia has given us command of the land and embraced every mode of living from trans- humant to urban. Civilization has expanded across most of the continents, albeit erratically, its progress marked by prominent milestones: the invention of improved tools, the development of agriculture and husbandry, the definition of territorial boundaries and the provision of defences that have all enriched humankind’s relationship with the land without sig- nificantly affecting their relationship with the sea. Sailors remain nomads; fishermen are still hunters, notwithstanding the technological superiority of modern ships or the complexity of modern maritime tools.

The sea separates land from land. Throughout history it has challenged any who attempt to cross it even though seafarers’ skills and practical know- ledge have gradually improved to make navigation more certain. However, the physical properties of the sea and the seabed were still largely unsuspected in the middle of the 19th century when Maury and others laid the foundations of modern marine sci- ence. We now recognize that the sea assures human survival; we can see that it makes life on land possible by storing and distributing solar energy; and

0308-597x/94/060457-07 0 1994 Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd 457

Beyond the shoreline: J King

we know that it also supports habitation on the land through its high organic productivity. Even so, most people’s direct experience of the sea still ends some- where above the low water mark.They still stand on the shore and see an alien environment, one that is reserved for occasional visitors such as sailors and fishermen. Thus, until recently and in contrast to the land, the sea has remained largely unsettled and unclaimed as territory except for the narrow margins adjacent to the coasts.

However, things change; the world has become smaller. Today the sea is less remote and marine activities are beginning to look more like those familiar on land: fishing is becoming as much hus- bandry as hunting; shipping has lost much of its unique character; and the increasing variety of the offshore works mirrors the evolving patterns of life onshore, making seamen of many who have never thought themselves sailors. No-one at sea can doubt, as the garbage floats by, that today he is truly in everyman’s domain.

Seas and oceans covering most of the Earth’s surface offer great potential wealth, scarcely recog- nized until recently. They have stimulated the inven- tion of tools and the development of techniques that are beginning to make working and living in fixed locations at sea as natural, if not yet quite as comfortable as working and living on shore. Tools for winning marine hydrocarbons, new forms of aquaculture and mariculture, new definitions of ter- ritorial rights are not the least of these innovations, each in its way a prerequisite to the successful settlement of the sea. Moreover, the prospect of wealth has endowed the sea with fresh political significance, recognized in the United Nations Con- vention on the Law of the Sea (LOS Convention), which establishes proprietorial and other rights in respect of the seabed and coastal waters, and, de- fines rules for apportioning roughly a quarter of the Earth’s surface. It assigns large areas of seabed to coastal States, among which Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Russia, and the USA are major beneficiaries, while the notional Exclusive Economic Zone of the UK greatly exceeds the area of its dry land. At a stroke, the seabed adjacent to the continents and extending many miles to seaward has become part of the territory of the coastal States, a marine estate to complement the onshore domain. The inhabited world is embracing submerged land as it has dry land; human hegemony over the remain- ing, watery parts of the globe is proceeding apace.

It may be a cause for regret to some that the traditional skills of sailors acquired over centuries of voyaging are contributing little to this process. Such

skills are valued more for their curiosity than their utility today. Thus, it is not seafarers but civil engineers, mechanical engineers and others who have gained their expertise on land who are now pioneering offshore operations. Perhaps this accords with the natural order of things. Nomads do not readily take to a settled life; hunters do not easily take to agriculture. The sailor’s outlook has been formed by being always on the move in a hostile environment. It emphasizes the differences between sea and land. Yet when we come to look at develop- ments offshore and consider how best to manage our newly acquired marine estate, we cannot help but notice that sea and land share much in common when seen in the light of the human activity they support. Thus, if submerged land is to become as much part of our settled domain as dry land, we have to secure its long-term sustainable use. We have to preserve the health of its living resources, and we must establish mechanisms to resolve the inevitable conflicts that will arise between competing activities. It is not so surprising, therefore, that the develop- ments now taking place at sea should be set in train by people whose roots are firmly planted in the land.

In less than a generation, barely a blink of evolu- tionary time, all manner of marine works have been completed. Fixed structures that tower above the seabed and stand up to wind and waves, submarine networks of pipelines that spread over hundreds of miles, and many similar achievements that would have been barely imaginable 50 years ago are now in place and being extended. Many of them were conceived in great haste and realized at great cost. They have spawned problems which are only now becoming apparent. Nevertheless, advances made under political pressure to extract oil can now be adapted to other forms of marine development, so making a presence beyond the low water mark permanent. In this way technology is taming the sea as it has tamed the land.

The marine estate

What do we mean by the marine estate? It is perhaps more expressive, if less precise, than the terms defined in the LOS Convention. During the last few years it has been increasingly used to mean those areas beyond the low water mark providing space for human life and development. It conveniently avoids any reference to the Exclusive Economic Zone, even though for many practical purposes it embraces the same area of seabed. ‘Estate’ allows useful parallels with the land and land management and, coin- cidentally, acknowledges that much of the seabed

458 Marine Policy 1994 Volume 18 Number 6

around the shores of the UK currently lies within the Crown Estate. It implies that the marine environ-

ment should be added to the variety of others that support settled existence.

The marine estate includes real property. Most of the seabed lying within the UK Territorial Sea is owned by the Crown and administered by the Com- missioners of the Crown Estate. The estates belong- ing to the Duchy of Cornwall and the Duchy of Lancaster also include areas of seabed. In addition numerous public and other bodies hold small areas of seabed, often as freeholds or leaseholds linked to particular port or coastal constructions. Thus the market for submerged land is not quite totally monopolistic but it currently sees very few transac- tions. The Crown Estate’s claim to seabed lying beyond the Territorial Sea is less certain. Moreover, most of the development going on so far offshore is connected with oil and gas extraction which is, in any

Table 1. Control mechanisms for marine development.

Construction outside harbours Instruments TWA, FEPA, EA Organizations DOT, DTI, DOE, MAFF. DFR, SFI, NRA, LA, NSB Environmental impact ECDEA

Construction within ha&ours Instruments HA, FEPA Organizations DOT, DOE, MAFF, LA, NSB Environmental impact ECDEA, ES

Marine aggregates Instruments GVP, CPA, PL, MPGN Organizations CCE, DOT, DOE, SFC, LA, NSB Environmental impact ECDEA

Beyond the shoreline: J King

Table 2. Some coastal responsibilities.

Water quality management Organizations

Coastal pollution Organizations

Marine safety Organizations

Shipping and navigation Organizations

Fisheries Organizations

NRA, HMIP, MAFF, DFR

DOT, MPCU. NRA, LA

DOT, NMSSC

DOT. GLA, PA, NSB

MAFF, SFC

Key: Instruments. CPA - Coast Protection Act 1949; EA - Electricity Act 1989; ECDEA - EC Directive on Environmental Assessment; ECDH - EC Directive on Habitat; EPA - Environmental Protection Act 1990; ES - Environmental Statement; FEPA - Food and Environment Protection Act 1985; GVP - Government View Procedure; HA - Harbours Act 1964; HSWA - Health and Safety at Work Act 1974; MPGN - Mineral Planning Guidance Note 6; OCNS -Offshore Chemicals Notification Scheme; PA - Petroleum Act 1987; PL - Production Licence (marine aggregates); PLA - Pipelines Act 1962; POPA - Prevention of Oil Pollution Act 1971: PPA - Petroleum (Production) Act 1934; PPG20 - Planning Policy Guidance for the Coast; PSPA - Petroleum and Submarine Pipelines Act 1975; PWA - Protection of Wrecks Act 1973; RFFSFBO - Registration of Fish Farming and ShellFish Farming Businesses Order 1985; SFA - Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1967; SFWA - Sea Fisheries (Wildlife Conservation) 1966; SFRA - Sea Fisheries Regulations Act 1966; TWA-Transport and Works Act 1992; WRA - Water Resources Act 1991; TA - Telecommunications Act 1984. Organizations. CCE - Commissioners of the Crown Estate: DFR - Directorate of Fisheries Research: DOE - Department of the Environment: DOT - Department of Transport; DTI - Department of Trade and Industry; GLA - General Lighthouse Authority; HMIP - HM Inspecto- rate of Pollution: JNCC - Joint Nature Conservation Committee: LA - Local Authority; MAFF- Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food; MPCU - Marine Pollution Control Unit; NMSSC - National Marine Safety Steering Committee; NRA - National Rivers Authority; NSB - Non-statutory bodies (Chamber of Shipping, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, Royal Yachting Association, etc); PA - Port Authorities; SFC - Sea Fisheries Committees; SFI - Sea Fisheries Inspectorate; SMRU - Sea Mammals Research Unit.

case, currently subject to Department of Trade and Industry licence (see Table 1).

Navigation and capital dredging Instruments HA, CPA, FEPA Organizations DOT, MAFF Environmental impact ECDEA

Disposal at sea Instruments FEPA, WRA, EPA Organizations DOT, MAFF, DFR, NRA, HMIP Environmental impact ECDEA

Pontoons and moored structures Instruments TWA, FEPA, EA Organizations DOT, DTI, DOE, MAFF, DFR, SFI, NRA, LA, NSB Environmental impact ECDEA

Marine fish and shellfish farming Instruments RFFSFBO, SFA Organizations DOT, MAFF, SFC, CCE Environmental impact ECDEA (not shellfish)

Oil and gas exploration and production Instruments PPA. HSWA, OCNS, FEPA Organizations DOT, DTI, DOE, MAFF, JNCC Environmental impact ECDEA

Submarine pipelines Instruments PSPA, PA, FEPA, PLA Organizations DOT, DTI, DOE, MAFF, CCE, NSB Environmental impact ECDEA

Submarine cables Instruments TA, CPA Organizations DOT. DOE, MAFF, CCE. NSB, LA Environmental impact

Besides ‘marine estate’, other terms which have recently entered common usage, sometimes inter- changeably, include ‘coastal zone’, ‘coastal zone management’ and ‘sea use management’. In particu- lar, the coastal zone is defined as extending ‘seaward and landward of the coastline . . . its limits deter- mined by the geographical extent of coastal natural processes and the human activities related to the coast’.* Moreover, the desirability of treating offshore and onshore development as a whole was recognized by the Environment Select Committee in a recent report.” Thus, conceptually at least, the marine estate can be regarded as an extension of the land.

Landscape is so obviously shaped by human activ- ity that one might be forgiven for thinking that not very much is going on in a featureless marine estate.

‘PPG20 - Policy Planning Guidance: Coastal Planning, HMSO, 1992. 3House of Commons Environment Committee Second Report: Coastal Zone Protection and Planning, HMSO, 1992.

Marine Policy 1994 Volume 18 Number 6 459

Beyond the shoreline: J King

However, such a conclusion would be wrong, both in respect of natural processes and, more especially in the present context, in respect of human activity. The sea and the underlying seabed are used for a wide variety of purposes: navigation and com- munications, fishing and aquaculture, mineral and energy extraction, civil construction, waste disposal, recreation, conservation, and military manoeuvres. These are, in many respects, consistent with the primary activities that in the past have characterized the use of the land.

Alternative planning regimes

There are several reasons for looking towards the sea. For example, it may help to relieve the pressure of demand on the more traditional sources of basic materials such as aggregates; through technological advances it may offer up new resources such as oil and gas, or present opportunities for new processes to be conducted at sea rather than on land; and through growing familiarity we may come to recog- nize value in what was previously considered worth- less, such as mudflats, coral reefs or seabed on which to build structures. Marine development is thus invariably demand-led.

As the intensity of marine activity increases, the need arises for systems of regulation and manage- ment. The primary aims of such systems should be:

to secure the long-term sustainable use of the coastal zone, the sea and the seabed; to secure the reproductive capacity and health of the living resources of the coastal zone, the sea and the seabed; to secure the long-term use of the renewable resources of the coastal zone and the sea; to secure or conserve the natural land/seascape; and to provide mechanisms for resolving conflicts between competing uses of the coastal zone, the sea and the seabed.

Mechanisms for managing the marine estate have evolved slowly and often in an ad hoc manner that reflects both the low priority which has been given to most non-oil marine development in the past - the residents of the marine estate command few votes - and the irrelevance of much traditional maritime experience. However, as the level of marine activity has increased, the pressure on administrations to take action has become greater. Demand for cleaner beaches stemming directly from heightened public awareness of water quality is just one of a growing number of examples that demonstrate this trend.

460

In recent years, therefore, the concept of inte- grated management of the marine estate has slowly emerged. It has attracted much theoretical and practical interest throughout the world, not least because the LOS Convention assigned both rights and responsibilities to coastal States that, in many cases, have neither the expertise nor the means to exercise them.

In the UK as elsewhere, various approaches to the development and management of the marine estate and coastal zone have been advocated. A fun- damental issue is the nature of the machinery that should be employed. Is it better to adopt a devolved approach based on assigning marine responsibilities to bodies that are already involved in the planning processes for the landward side of the adjacent coast? Or should there be an over-arching body that is responsible for all aspects of marine planning and management?

The Environment Select Committee recently argued in favour of the seaward extension of local planning authority powers as a means of harmoniz- ing ‘landward planning control and seaward plan- ning control as far as the 12 nautical mile limit of territorial waters’. This clearly recognizes the marine estate as an extension of the land, and as such requires that activities going on within it be subject to similar management mechanisms. It implies the extension of local boundaries beyond the low water mark, perhaps employing rules similar to those defined in the LOS Convention for determining the boundaries between States. However, such bound- aries are unlikely to be sympathetic to seabed topography or to follow the natural segregation of marine activities going on in the same area. Thus, as in the international arena, boundary disputes are likely. Such a system of local control requires that each authority has access to the full range of expert advice that it needs to make proper decisions. In practice, therefore, it is likely that a modified system will eventually emerge, involving a mixture of local and regional or national controls.

It has often been pointed out that responsibility for maritime affairs in the UK, even those involving traditional uses, is shared between too many depart- ments of state and other bodies. It is argued that this leads to a lack of coordination, with the result that there is little hope of promoting our maritime in- terests adequately or, in some cases, of ensuring that there is consistency between marine and non-marine practice. Thus a body of support exists for the view that the present situation provides an opportunity to bring all our maritime interests together. Since, so the argument runs, the future management and

Marine Policy 1994 Volume 18 Number 6

development of the marine estate necessarily in- volves a wide range of interests, it would best be conducted within the framework of an overall plan that is the responsibility of just one central authority - a Ministry of the Sea or similar body. This approach clearly recognizes the need to coordinate the various aspects of marine development, but suffers all the well-known weaknesses of centralized systems. Moreover, it is an approach which rein- forces the traditional distinction between land and sea and confirms the historical isolation of marine industry.

Both of these approaches have been rejected by the government4 in favour of a sectoral approach which, it claims, builds on the strengths of the existing mechanisms. This approach treats major areas of marine activity separately and assigns re- sponsibilities to those bodies that either already have them, or have the necessary expertise to accept more.

Sectoral approach

In its recent review of the regulations relating to marine development, the Department of the En- vironment has grouped marine activities into ten sectors and identified the control mechanisms which are currently in place in each. These sectors do not include every marine activity - recreation is largely excluded for example -but they do cover most of the areas that involve some form of development and thus, for practical purposes, embrace most activities both large scale and small.

The ten sectors are shown in Table 1 which also summarizes the principal instruments that govern them and lists the organizations that have responsi- bility for individual cases, or must be consulted in connection with them. In practice the procedures involved are often complicated and they may include or exclude elements depending upon the precise nature of each case. In some sectors the number of cases arising in any year is likely to be small, which means that each may be treated individually. It is evident that the existing regulatory framework, in- cluding the non-statutory government view proce- dure, is extensive and embraces most currently conceivable forms of marine development around

4Development Below Low Water Mark-A Review of Regulation in England and Wales, Department of the Environment, 1993; Managing the Coast-A Review of Coastal Management Plans in England and Wales and the Powers Supporting Them, Depart- ment of the Environment, 1993.

Marine Policy 1994 Volume 18 Number 6

Beyond the shoreline: J King

the UK coasts. It is probably sufficiently flexible to allow activities that are not explicitly covered and which are currently unimportant - offshore manu- facturing or process industry for instance - to be dealt with should the need arise. Its consultative procedures involve a large number of organisations, including departments of state and statutory and non-statutory bodies, while concentrating overall responsibility centrally. Developments that are sub- ject to the Transport and Works Act, for example, are processed by the Department of Transport on behalf of the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of the Environment.

Despite the apparent complexity of the sectoral approach, the government favours it over the alternatives. Claims which are made for it are that:

it is cost-effective since it uses machinery which is largely in place already and which is not overbur- dened; it facilitates the accumulation of specialist know- ledge and sources of advice; it is capable of dealing with large-scale develop- ments; it can be adapted to address the specific issues raised by individual development proposals; and it is capable of recognizing and dealing with the potential impacts of developments on the rights and interests of neighbouring States.

Nevertheless, the sectoral approach does have draw- backs. Not the least of these is the potential insensi- tivity to the cumulative affects of multiple activities. In practice this might not be as serious as it appears at first sight. Conflicts between activities which happen simultaneously are almost inevitable, but each new activity naturally becomes part of the background against which subsequent ones must be assessed. Thus, with procedures that provide for adequate consultation and analysis, the cumulative interactions of multiple activities may be alleviated. However, whether this constitutes an integrated system is debatable.

Even without detailed consideration of the various procedures employed in each sector, it can be sur- mised from Table 1 that they are complicated. The number of organizations that might be involved in giving consent to an individual development activity is a sufficient clue. In practice, the procedural com- plexity may not be as great as it appears. Neverthe- less, excessive complexity may equate to excessive secrecy in the public mind, which may lead in turn to lack of confidence in the procedures. The fact that most marine activities necessarily take place far from public view may also generate suspicion.

461

Beyond the shoreline: J King

Coastal management plans

The low water mark is a real physical boundary between land and sea. However, as already noted, marine activities often straddle the physical bound- ary; land and sea should be regarded as elements of the same system. While the aims for the manage- ment of the coast may be similar in general terms to those for the sea and the seabed, the means that are being adopted to achieve them are different.

The Department of the Environment states that the government’s strategic aim is ‘to promote the sustainable use of the coast’,5 while its objective is to ‘encourage the management of all aspects of human use of the coast, including estuaries, to yield the greatest benefit to the present population while maintaining the potential of coastal systems to meet the aspirations of future generations. Management of the coast needs to reflect its human uses, both social and economic, as well as its nature conserva- tion value’.

The coast of England and Wales is covered by the planning system and other statutory and non- statutory arrangements (see Table 2) such as the Heritage Coast scheme.6 It is already highly de- veloped in many areas. Nevertheless, the Depart- ment of the Environment has recently re-stated the government’s view that existing mechanisms should be supplemented by non-mandatory Coastal Man- agement Plans prepared through the voluntary co- operation of local authorities and such other compe- tent bodies as may be able to contribute in each area. This contrasts with the recommendation of the Environment Select Committee for ‘a hierarchy of Coastal Zone Management Plans from national to regional and local levels’.’

In rejecting the Committee’s recommendation the government noted that ‘the coast cannot be isolated and treated as entirely separate from the rest of the country or from the management of territorial and intertidal waters. Coastal issues are often only part of larger matters’.* This is a clear recognition of the obvious continuity of the environment. It is also consistent with the requirement that land and sea be regarded as a single system. However, management systems still need boundaries, even temporary or movable ones, in order to define the extent of the individual issues they are set up to address. Thus it is argued that the geographical bases for Coastal Man-

5PPG20, op cif, Ref 2. ?/eritage Coask in England - Policies and Priorities, Country- side Commision, 1992. ‘PPG20, op tit, Ref 2. ‘PPG20, op tit, Ref 2.

agement Plans should be estuaries or short stretches of coast, each involving a small number of local authorities responsible for coordinating inputs from other bodies as necessary.

Under this arrangement, Coastal Management Plans can be adapated to suit local conditions. Recreation and conservation issues are likely to be prominent. However, there is no guarantee that local solutions will reflect best practice or be consis- tent from one area to another. For example, we have recently witnessed the establishment of the first coastal marine nature reserve in the UK when barely 60 miles away approval was being sought and granted for the total destruction of a marine site of specific scientific interest. While this is not a strict reflection upon the implementation of Coastal Man- agement Plans it does demonstrate that marine management systems are already facing similar con- tradictions to those that have long been familiar on land. It is a sign of rapidly advancing maturity.

Conclusion

Our present theme, as on several similar occasions during the last 20 years, directs our attention to- wards the future. I have not been able to discover whether those earlier deliberations were especially prescient, nor can I guarantee any greater degree of far-sightedness today. Nevertheless most of us are interested in the future, particularly when our ex- periences have damaged our faith. Thus our theme raises the question: is there a maritime future for us at all?

Regardless of how we think of the past, it offers poor grounds for optimism about the future. The UK has surrendered the dominant position in mari- time affairs that it once held; it has allowed its expertise to slip away and, forgetting the passing of the years and failing to instruct a new generation, we shall soon find that we have no-one left to pilot a ship or captain a port or offer expert nautical advice the next time a foreign vessel violates our shores. Many here will recognize the arguments which have encouraged the conclusion that the UK has turned its back on the sea and no longer wishes to be seen as a maritime nation. Warnings that decline is irreversi- ble are ignored; our traditional interests continue to wither (Table 3). We may also reflect that before long no-one else will be able to keep traditional maritime skills alive either, such are the straits into which the international shipping industry seems to be headed. What then are the grounds for hope?

There are two underlying aspects of the present situation which contain seeds for the future. The

462 Marine Policy 1994 Volume I8 Number 6

Beyond the shoreline: J King

first, an apparently negative one, is in the nature of the international shipping crisis itself which, should it continue to deepen, will eventually threaten not only the global environment but also the global economy that depends as ever on reliable trans- portation. The prospect of real interference in the conduct of international trade, as operational stan- dards decline further and ships become more decre- pit, is likely to be the greatest spur to corrective action, offering opportunities to re-enter the mari- time business. The second, a more positive one, is the rapid growth of development beyond the coasts as indicated in Table 4. Both of these are changing our attitudes towards the sea and marine affairs, the former because it is evident that practices which were fine in the 19th century will certainly not serve in the 21st, and the latter because we are beginning to bring the sea within our settled domain. Both of these influences are, I believe, sufficiently powerful to ensure that we will not divorce ourselves from the

Table 3. Evidence of declining UK involvement in maritime affairs.

1975 1990

UK shipping (million GRT) 31.489 5.5 UK shipping (million DWT) 51.916 7.4 UK shipping (vessels > 500 GRT) 1614 427 UK shipping (vessels % of world) 9.7 1.4 UK shipping (officers) 41432 9444 UK shipping (ratings) 39152 13320 UK shipping (trainees) 8142 500 UK shipping (new entrants) 2315 282 UK shipbuilding (working progress, million GRT) 6.044 1.219 UK shipbuilding (delivered, million GRT) 0.652 0.386 UK ports (employees) 78015 36101

Table 4. Evidence of increasing UK involvement in maritime affairs and the marine estate.

1975 1990

UK seaborne trade (imports million tonnes) UK seaborne trade (imports value f billion) UK seaborne trade (exports million tonnes) UK seaborne trade (exports value f billion) UK offshore oil (installations) UK offshore oil (output million tonnes) UK offshore oil (max reserves million tonnes) UK offshore gas (installations) UK offshore gas (output billion cubic metres) UK offshore gas (max reserves billion cubic) UK marine dumping (sewage thousand tonnes) UK marine dumping (industrial waste thousand

tonnes) UK marine dumping (dredged spoil thousand

tonnes) UK marine aggregates (million tonnes) UK coastline (National Trust kilometres) UK coastline (sea defences kilometres) UK coastline (England and Wales developed

154.258 174.105 31.596 96.908 80.893 125.796 27.835 76.139 8 105 1.1 91.6 3220 1815 13 28 3.625 49.5 1546 1780 7224 9335

2666 5129

13341 36155 ca20 > 800 1299

kilometres) 1982 6576

sea, even if our relationship with it in the next century will be different from the one that we have been accustomed to for so long.

Perhaps the most encouraging signs are that over a short time - during the single generation over which our traditional maritime interests have diminished - the volume and variety of new marine activities have increased greatly, and many people who had never previously had any contact with the sea have disco- vered that their skills have marine applications.

Paradoxically the greatest hope for our maritime future is that we are ceasing to regard the sea as special.

Marine Policy 1994 Volume I8 Number 6 463