Presentation Policy Integration Project - Corepointcorepoint.ucc.ie/FinalDeliverables/CapacityBuilding/ICZM... · Slide Presentation from the Coastal Research and Policy Integration

Slide Presentation from the Coastal Research and Policy Integration Project (COREPOINT). http://corepoint.ucc.ie/ 1

According to Carter 1988, pg 432 the first rule of coastal management should always be “to work with rather than against, the natural systems”.

In both case studies to be presented the main issue is coastal erosion, an issue often seen as aIn both case studies to be presented the main issue is coastal erosion, an issue often seen as a problem, however, the process of coastal erosion is part of a natural tendency towards equilibrium and the successful functioning of the coast as a natural system is based on the movement of sediment from one point to another, therefore, any developments aimed at slowing or stopping erosion are encouraging instability.

Working with natural processes becomes difficult to enforce in areas where political, economic or ‘social conflict’ with respect to erosion and land use problems is prevalent. However, in order for coastal management to succeed, any human activity or development along the coast must be undertaken only with due consideration of the environmental needs of erosion, accretion and habitat creation and stability.

Our two case studies, Five Finger Strand and Rossnowlagh (both in Co. Donegal in NW Ireland) will provide evidence to support management working with natural processes. At Five Finger Strand, the local authority is working with natural processes. At Rossnowlagh nature is being resisted by building

llseawalls.

Five Finger Strand

Five Finger Strand is situated on the North Coast of the Inishowen Penninsula in North Donegal. The beach forms part of an estuary mouth system and is backed by mature vegetated dunes with intermittent blow‐outs. The hinterland is low intensity duneland pasture. The value of the land is such that high‐cost hard stabilisation protection cannot be justified on cost‐benefit analysis grounds.


The site in the past has been described as a “zone of little or no shoreline erosion.”. However following more recent erosion pressure for protection grew in the form of local pressure groups and dramatic newspaper reports.


Response

Initially this pressure resulted in the construction of a very small sea wall to protect the car park at the northern entrance. This engineering project, like many in other coastal sites, only provided short‐termnorthern entrance. This engineering project, like many in other coastal sites, only provided short term benefits.

Following the failure of this wall the Donegal County Council commissioned a report to be carried out by the Coastal Studies Research Group of the University of Ulster in 2001. This report indicated that cyclic phases of erosion and accretion were/are operating at the site. A further study was carried out in 2003 to show how morphological changes at Five Finger Strand influences shoreline configuration and in turnto show how morphological changes at Five Finger Strand influences shoreline configuration and in turn influences the type of management strategy which should be adopted.


The Local Authority added straw bales at site in November 2005. This had no effect except to reduce public pressure on local authority.

The beach was gravel dominated in 2002 due to erosion of the overlying sand but at present the site has reverted to a period where sand is abundant.

Although the site continues to gradually erode Five Finger has shown a natural progression from one of rapid retreat and erosion to one of steady backshore accumulation and this must be taken into account h i th itwhen managing the site.

Even after adopting the ‘do nothing’ or do very little, e.g. straw bales approach, the sediment structure of the beach is now that of fine sand, evidence of natural onshore sand movement.


Effective management of any natural system demands some knowledge of how that system works.

Work with rather than against the natural processes At Five Finger Strand there is still public pressureWork with, rather than against, the natural processes. At Five Finger Strand there is still public pressure for coastal protection and a solution to halt the erosion “problem”, however, any hard or even soft methods of stabilisation, such as sea walls or beach nourishment, will interfere with the natural processes operating in the system.

Interference with natural processes can lead to unexpected long‐term problems & huge expense.

Erosion is often seen as a problem but it is part of a natural tendency towards equilibrium. The underdeveloped nature of the Five Finger Strand hinterland means that pressure to halt the erosion at the site is mainly the result of a desire to maintain present conditions and preserve its state. However, as the O’ Connor study showed, the system, if left to its natural devices, should restore shoreline stability as current hydraulics adjust to variations in estuary discharge and littoral processes.

For coastal management to succeed ‐ any human activity or development must consider the needs of erosion, accretion and habitat creation.


Since Donegal County Council have both the University of Ulster Report and the O’ Connor study as evidence to support their actions to adopt the ‘do nothing’ approach the site is safe, for now at least, from any development and can continue to operate as a natural system.

The system left to its natural devices will restore shoreline stability however the managers of the site faced insistent public pressure to ‘do something’ ‐ “I agree with you that nothing should be done but I have to do something” (LA Engineer).

Questions

W th i t bl i ll & i ll ? (It did id i )Was the compromise acceptable, socially & economically? (It did avoid armouring)

What other options were available to the LA?

What is the most sustainable option?


Rossnowlagh

Belalt strand in Rossnowlagh lies in Donegal Bay in the NW of Ireland. It is backed by dunes along most of its length. Rossnowlagh is a traditional holiday resort which is still developing given its close proximityof its length. Rossnowlagh is a traditional holiday resort which is still developing given its close proximity to Northern Ireland and the strength of the pound against the Euro make it attractive for second‐home purchasers. Land–use consists mainly of caravan sites, holiday homes, a hotel and a public car park. Many houses have been built in areas at risk from erosion.

The site is undergoing progressive retreat and in the last 60 years the central section of the dune front at Rossnowlagh has been eroding at rates up to 0 6m per yearat Rossnowlagh has been eroding at rates up to 0.6m per year.


At Rossnowlagh eight landowners own a total of twenty‐three shorefront properties. Concerns by these private owners about dune retreat and vulnerable development led to the emplacement of rock armour, allowed under Irish Constitution. However since it is the landowners right to defend property to the HWM the rock armour was not placed in one long protection, but in an ad hocmanner over short lengths depending on individual property owner’s choice and ability to pay for such works.

The first rock armour revetment was placed at public expense in 1972 to protect the shorefront hotel. Further rock armour was emplaced in the 1990s and continued for the next decade until 52% of the dune shoreline was armoured in 2000.

Result

While this armour will protect the dune front, the unprotected natural dune sections show evidence of accelerated erosion due to wave reflection and scouring induced by the hard defences.


The static position of this beach and the absence of sand accumulation structures suggest that sand supply may be quite limited and the natural dune sections may have to be armoured in the future to stop further accelerated erosion at these parts.

Conclusion

The placement of the rock armour means that Rossnowlagh beach has no chance of naturally recovering and repositioning to its equilibrium in the future.


2 pictures:

Which site do you prefer?


Should individuals be allowed to implement “their own” protection works?

If so, is this compatible with sustainable development of coastal zones?

If not how are private property rights addressed?If not, how are private property rights addressed?

Should government money be allocated to protect private land?

Should we be able to say “no” to protection?


Documents

Presentation Policy Integration Project - Corepointcorepoint.ucc.ie/FinalDeliverables/CapacityBuilding/ICZM... · Slide Presentation from the Coastal Research and Policy Integration