ARTICLE IN PRESS

0308-597X/$ - s

doi:10.1016/j.m

�CorrespondE-mail addr

emmabeagley@

solentforum@h

(A. Williams), k

Marine Policy 31 (2007) 619–627

www.elsevier.com/locate/marpol

The Hamble Estuary Partnership and Solent Forum:Duplication or integration?

Stephen Fletchera,�, Emma Beagleyb, Tracey Hewettc, Alan Williamsd, Karen McHughe

aSchool of Conservation Sciences, Bournemouth University, Christchurch House, Talbot Campus, Fern Barrow, Poole, Dorset BH12 5BB, UKbMarina Projects Limited, Unit 12 Cooperage Green, Weevil Lane, Gosport, Hampshire PO12 1FY, UK

cSolent Forum, Hampshire County Council, Environment Department, Winchester, Hampshire SO23 8UD, UKdEnvironment Department, Hampshire County Council, Winchester, Hampshire SO23 8UD, UK

eEnvironment Agency, Colverdene Court, Wessex Way, Colden Common SO21 1WP, UK

Abstract

This paper considers the role of the Hamble Estuary Partnership, a local voluntary coastal stakeholder partnership that is focused on

the coordinated management of a small estuary in the Solent. More specifically, the paper critically examines the relationship between the

Hamble Estuary Partnership and Solent Forum in order to determine evidence of duplication or integration between the two

partnerships. It was found that the aspirations and working principles of the two partnerships were consistent and the methods of

working and focus of activity of each partnership were distinctive yet complementary. However, it was also found that evidence of

vertical policy integration was limited. It was concluded that although the two-tier partnership model presented an opportunity to deliver

vertically integrated policies in the Hamble estuary, this opportunity was yet to be fully realised.

r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Hamble Estuary Partnership; Solent Forum; Coastal partnership; Integrated coastal management

1. Introduction

Coastal partnerships are consortia of coastal stake-holders that ‘‘broadly aim to achieve a more integratedapproach to coastal issues by facilitating co-operationbetween different organisations, raising awareness of localissues, collecting and distributing information, and dis-cussing issues of local concern’’ [1]. Considerable researchhas been undertaken into coastal partnerships includingtheir evolution and current status, their contribution to thedelivery of integrated coastal management (ICM), theirfunding arrangements, their democratic and operationalbasis, and their overall effectiveness (for example, see[2–12]). Within this literature, there is a degree of consensusabout the role and value of coastal partnerships. This

ee front matter r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

arpol.2007.03.007

ing author. Tel.: +441202 966737; fax: +44 1202 965255.

esses: sfletcher@bournemouth.ac.uk (S. Fletcher),

marinaprojects.com (E. Beagley),

ants.gov.uk (T. Hewett), alan.williams@hants.gov.uk

aren.mchugh@environment-agency.gov.uk (K. McHugh).

includes consensus that partnerships are typically poorlyresourced, suffer from high staff turnover, adopt weakdemocratic and representative processes, often have limitedmonitoring systems, and suffer due to their informal rolewithin the prevailing coastal policy framework. Despitethese difficulties, there is also consensus that partnershipsprovide an important opportunity for coastal stakeholdersto discuss coastal issues and to develop more coordinatedapproaches to managing coastal areas.There is considerable variation in practice amongst

coastal partnerships in the UK [13], primarily due to theabsence of a strategic framework for ICM in the UK,which has resulted in the development of coastal partner-ships in a somewhat laissez faire manner. In practice,coastal partnerships have, for the last 15 years, providedthe primary mechanism for ICM in the UK. However,coastal partnerships are not universal in the UK; they tendto be focused on estuarine areas and on a small number ofstretches of open coast. They also exhibit variation in theirsize, organisational structure, and internal governanceprocesses.

ARTICLE IN PRESSS. Fletcher et al. / Marine Policy 31 (2007) 619–627620

In terms of their connection to ICM theory, coastalpartnerships are examples of what has been referred to as a‘‘coordinating mechanism’’ required for the delivery ofintegration [14]. Similarly, they are examples of governancestructures that provide the ‘‘glue’’ that connects coastalstakeholders [15]. These connections reflect the role ofcoastal partnerships in facilitating communication betweenstakeholders and, in doing so, assisting in the establishmentof more coordinated (and ultimately integrated) manage-ment of coastal areas. Coastal partnerships also offeropportunities to deliver horizontal integration.1 This isintegration that occurs at the same level of governancebetween stakeholders. Ecological and physical processintegration occurs through the definition of the areacovered by the partnership. Most UK partnerships definetheir area based on coherent ecosystem or physical units(most commonly estuaries), although these are sometimestempered by practical constraints. Partnerships operate ata variety of scales, with some focusing on local issues whilstothers adopt a more strategic sub-regional or regionalapproach. This variation creates difficulties when seekingto categorise coastal partnerships, as although theygenerally adopt a similar working philosophy and aspira-tions, their practical implementation methods vary con-siderably. In the debate concerning the future role ofcoastal partnerships in the UK coastal managementframework this is problematic as simply using the term‘‘coastal partnership’’ does not necessarily imply a coherentgroup of similar organisations. In this context, under-standing the diversity of, and relationship between,partnerships becomes important.

The area covered by the Solent Forum provides a usefulopportunity to consider the relationship between partner-ships operating at differing scales as there are a number ofdistinctive more locally focused coastal partnershipsoperating within the Solent. These include the Isle ofWight Estuaries Initiative, Chichester Harbour Conser-vancy, and Hamble Estuary Partnership. The Isle of WightEstuaries Initiative encompasses all of the estuaries on theIsle of Wight and is administered by the Isle of WightCouncil. In contrast, Chichester Harbour Conservancy wasestablished by the Chichester Harbour Conservancy Act1971 and provides a legal basis for the management ofChichester Harbour through a partnership based on itsArea of Outstanding Beauty designation. The HambleEstuary Partnership, which forms the focus of this paper, ismore typical of locally focused voluntary coastal partner-ships in the UK.

There are, therefore, two main rationales for this paper.First is that previous research into coastal partnerships hasgenerally focused on individual coastal partnerships ratherthan the relationship between partnerships. This paperseeks to explore the latter issue through considering therelationship between two coastal partnerships that operatewithin the same geographic area: the Solent Forum and the

1For further discussion on integration in ICM theory see [16–19].

Hamble Estuary Partnership. The second main rationalefor this paper relates to the changing policy context of ICMin the UK and the associated uncertainty surrounding thefuture of coastal partnerships in the formal coastal andmarine management framework. A particular point ofcontention is where multiple partnerships exist in the samegeographic area, which could be presented as a waste ofresources and duplication of effort. Since the HambleEstuary Partnership is entirely within the area of the SolentForum, this paper offers a helpful insight into this issue.Although this paper seeks to consider the relationship

between the Solent Forum and Hamble Estuary Partner-ship specifically, it is important to consider practiceelsewhere in the UK in relation to geographically over-lapping partnerships. Overlap appears to be most prevalentin large estuaries or estuarine complexes with several semi-discrete areas, although some examples of partnershipoverlap do exist in open coast areas. Two examples ofoverlapping coastal partnerships are briefly presented hereto illustrate differing approaches to addressing the issuesraised by overlapping partnerships. The first example is theMoray Firth Partnership in North-East Scotland, one ofthe largest coastal partnerships in the UK, which over-lapped with the Cromarty Firth Liaison Group (thatcoordinated management in a small firth feeding into themain Moray Firth). In order to address resource demandsand duplication of effort, the Cromarty Firth LiaisonGroup was absorbed into the administration of the MorayFirth Partnershsip in 2002 [13]. In contrast, in 2005 DevonCounty Council in the south-west of England launched theDevon Maritime Forum to provide a strategic networkingorganisation for stakeholders on the Devon coast. Thissupplemented a number of more locally focused coastalpartnerships already existing within Devon, including theExe Estuary Partnership, the Teign Estuary Partnership,and the Dart Forum. Across the UK there is little patternto practice with respect to overlapping coastal partnershipcoverage, therefore there is no expected model orrecognised approach to this issue.The paper, which is informed by discussion with officers

and stakeholders, focuses on the Hamble Estuary Partner-ship initially in order to establish adequate context for theremainder of the paper. The human and physical char-acteristics of the Hamble estuary are presented in associa-tion with the prevailing management framework, includingthe establishment and work of the Hamble EstuaryPartnership. The equivalent narrative for the Solent Forumis well documented, not least elsewhere in this issue,therefore requires less emphasis in this paper. The paperthen presents a structural and functional comparison of thetwo partnerships before considering their relationship.

2. The Hamble estuary

The Hamble estuary discharges into SouthamptonWater approximately 6 km south-east of the city ofSouthampton (see Fig. 1). The estuary has almost 200 ha

ARTICLE IN PRESSS. Fletcher et al. / Marine Policy 31 (2007) 619–627 621

of mudflats and saltmarsh along its 8 km tidal length, themajority of which is protected by national and interna-tional designations (including Special Protection Area,Special Area of Conservation, Ramsar Site, Site of SpecialScientific Interest, Site of Importance for Nature Con-servation, and Local Nature Reserve). The estuary has along maritime history and was the site of major boatbuilding between the 14th and 19th centuries and is ofregional and national archaeological significance. Theestuary can be characterised as consisting of two distinctivesections—the upper and the lower Hamble. The lowerHamble, as well as being important for nature conserva-tion, is one of the largest recreational boating centres inEurope, with 14 boatyards and marinas and over 3000 rivermoorings. It is also the focus of residential and commercialdevelopment in the estuary, incorporating the villages ofWarsash and Hamble, as well as numerous marinebusinesses, including boat building, maintenance, andchandelry facilities. In contrast, the upper Hamble is ruralin character, has few moorings, comparatively littlerecreational use, and very little development; there arealso areas of semi-ancient woodland in the upper Hamble

Fig. 1. The location of the Hamble estuary within the context of the

Solent.

Table 1

Organisations with responsibilities within the Hamble estuary

Organisation

Crown Estate

Department of Food and Rural Affairs

Department of Transport

Eastleigh Borough Council

English Heritage

Environment Agency

Fareham Borough Council

Hampshire County Council

Natural England

Parish Councils

River Hamble Harbour Authority

Southern Water

Winchester City Council

catchment. Adjacent to the west bank of the upper Hambleis the Manor Farm Country Park, which providesopportunities for quiet land-based recreation.Although reasonably small in geographical terms, the

River Hamble is a complex area to manage, largely as aresult of the numerous organisations that have a respon-sibility or interest in how the river is managed. Theseorganisations are commonly involved in the managementof specific sectors, including navigational safety, natureconservation, water quality, tourism, water-based recrea-tion, marine and terrestrial heritage, town and countryplanning, transport planning, and so on. The Crown Estateis the principal owner of the tidal stretches of the estuary’sriverbed and grants licenses for moorings and otherdevelopments involving the riverbed. Table 1 lists the mainorganisations with responsibility for aspects of manage-ment in the Hamble estuary.

3. Coordination of the management of the Hamble estuary

In the UK, there is no statutory requirement for coastalstakeholders to work together, therefore in order tocoordinate the activities of each coastal sector and toenhance the overall management of the estuary, the RiverHamble Harbour Authority initiated the development ofan estuary management plan on behalf of all estuarystakeholders. Estuary management plans are commonlydeveloped by coastal partnerships in the UK to determinecollective priorities for an area and to develop a pattern ofworking that respects the notion that coordinated workingis better than working in isolation—in doing so, the estuarymanagement plan seeks to embody the principles of ICM.The estuary management plan is a non-statutory plan anddoes not seek to replace any existing statutory decision-making process, but does serve to provide a mechanism tocoordinate existing policies related to the management of acoastal area. This typically leads to the development of newpolicies to fill existing policy gaps and the elimination orreduction of duplication between stakeholders. The policiesand actions contained within an estuary management plan

Responsibility

Owner of sub-tidal land

Disposal of minerals at sea, marine construction

Marine construction

Planning authority to mean low water

Archaeological heritage

Pollution control and flood defence

Planning authority to mean low water

Landowner and strategic planning

Nature conservation

Local government

Statutory harbour authority

Sewerage and water supply

Planning authority to mean low water

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 2

Membership of the Hamble Estuary Partnership

Associated British Ports Marine Environmental Research

Associated British Ports Southampton

Association of River Hamble Yacht Clubs

Eastleigh Borough Council

Natural England

Environment Agency

Fareham Borough Council

Hamble River Boatyard and Marina Operators Association

Hampshire County Council

Hampshire and Wight Trust for Maritime Archaeology

Hampshire County Council Countryside Service

Marine Developments Limited Berth Holders Association

National Farmers Union

National Federation of Sea Anglers

River Hamble Harbour Authority

River Hamble Mooring Holders Association

Solent Forum

The Crown Estate

Warsash Maritime Academy

S. Fletcher et al. / Marine Policy 31 (2007) 619–627622

can only be delivered if the stakeholders who adopt theplan follow through on their commitments. This representsboth the key strength and weakness of an estuarymanagement plan. The weakness is that there is no wayto enforce the implementation of the policies within theplan and many stakeholders often lack the resources tosuccessfully implement actions. However, the strength isthat having gone through the participatory process todevelop the plan, the plan should be ‘‘owned’’ by allstakeholders and present an expression of collectivemanagement priorities for a coastal area. A furtheradvantage is that the voluntary nature of the plans allowsstakeholders to go further than satisfying minimumlegislative requirements by providing wider or morestringent targets and goals. Experience suggests thatvoluntary commitment provides a strong impetus forimplementation, in some circumstances perhaps more thana more formal structure might.

The Hamble Estuary Management Plan [16] wasdeveloped with the active participation of local, sub-regional, and regional stakeholders through a processinitiated in 2001. The process was guided by a steeringcommittee that consisted of statutory and non-statutorygroups that reflected the range of key management issueswithin the estuary (eventually, this group formed thenucleus of the Hamble Estuary Partnership). The processto develop the plan, determined by the Steering Group, wasas follows: first, in order to establish the key managementissues, a scoping survey was sent to 75 individuals and/ororganisations with an interest in the estuary. Eachmanagement issue identified through the scoping processwas evaluated by a topic group consisting of representa-tives with an interest in the activity sector to which the issuerelated. Each topic group developed specific proposals inresponse to the management issues identified. These werecollated and circulated as a draft estuary management planin 2002. In order to gain wider input to the proposedpolicies and to both obtain validation of the proposals andto ratify the draft aims, policies, and actions, a participa-tory stakeholder meeting was held. Following the meeting,the estuary management plan was refined and formallyadopted and launched in 2003.

4. The Hamble Estuary Partnership

In association with the Hamble Estuary ManagementPlan, the Hamble Estuary Partnership2 was launched in2003 in order to facilitate and monitor the implementationof the estuary management plan. The partnership sought toprovide an ongoing forum in which representatives of allstakeholders could discuss management issues arising sincethe publication of the estuary management plan andexchange information and updates on existing or new

2The original title of the group was the River Hamble Estuary

Management Plan Implementation Forum. This title was changed in

2006 to the Hamble Estuary Partnership.

initiatives affecting the estuary. The Hamble EstuaryPartnership meets once every 6 months and is administeredby an officer employed by the River Hamble HarbourAuthority. In common with other coastal partnerships inthe UK, the Hamble Estuary Partnership has no statutorypowers but benefits from the support of local stakeholders.The membership of the Hamble Estuary Partnership ispresented in Table 2. The Hamble Estuary Partnership hasbecome involved in a range of initiatives since its inception,largely adopting an integrating role in relation to specificlocal issues, some examples of which are presented in Table 3.The partnership has one sub-group convened specifically todiscuss issues surrounding the provision of educationalresources and information related to the estuary; themembership of this group is presented in Table 4.

5. Relationship between the Hamble Estuary Partnership

and Solent Forum

It is interesting to note that both the Hamble EstuaryPartnership and Solent Forum are considered in manyformal documents as essentially the same type of coastalpartnership. Whilst both are varieties of coastal partner-ship, the reality is that each has a very different focus andscale. The relationship between the Hamble EstuaryPartnership and Solent Forum is explored in the remainderof this paper. In order to begin that evaluation, the majorstructural and functional characteristics of the HambleEstuary Partnership and Solent Forum are outlined inTables 5 and 6, respectively, and discussed in the followingsections.

5.1. Structural comparison

The most obvious difference between the Solent Forumand Hamble Estuary Partnership is the geographic scale at

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 3

Selected initiatives of the Hamble Estuary Partnership

Addressing runoff from the M27 road bridge

The M27 motorway bridge, when constructed in the 1970s, was not fitted with runoff interceptors, therefore any surface liquids on the motorway drain

directly into the river rather than being diverted into an alternative drainage or storage system. The ongoing impact of the M27 runoff on the river is

somewhat uncertain; however, elevated heavy metal concentrations have been noted in the mudflats under and adjacent to the bridge. However, it is the

threat of a large-scale spill that most concerns the members of the partnership. On behalf of the Hamble Estuary Partnership, this issue was taken forward

by the Environment Agency with the Highways Agency

The future management of Bunny Meadows

Bunny Meadows is an area of saltmarsh separated from the main river channel by a raised bank. Water is allowed to flow through the bank via culverts

(locally known as ‘‘bunnies’’) on top of which runs a public footpath. The management challenge arises from erosion and overtopping of the raised bank

and the potential changes to the ecology of the meadows and the viability (and safety) of the public footpath. Members of the partnership considered that

a collective approach to the management of that area was needed. It was also recognised that limited information on the physical processes and

management options was available. The partnership will contribute to the work being undertaken by the site’s owners to establish future management

approaches to the site

Coordination of Hamble-related information and learning materials

The Education Sub-Group was established to coordinate the development of educational materials and publicly available information related to the

estuary. The work of this group has focused in two areas. First is the development of a website (in collaboration with Southampton Solent University) that

provides a single portal for links related to the River Hamble (www.hamblevalley.org.uk). Second is the development of a series of interpretation boards

around the Hamble estuary, which have a consistent appearance and coherent set of messages. The coordination role provided by the sub-group has meant

that the fragmentation of messages and design, so common in interpretation provision, has been avoided

Student Research Fund

The Student Research Fund was established to encourage local universities and their students to take an active role in providing research to underpin and

refine the policies and management practices related to the Hamble estuary. Students from Bournemouth University, Southampton Solent University,

University of Portsmouth, and University of Southampton have utilised the fund to date; projects have included:

� Metal pollution in the Hamble estuary and its effects on the growth of Spartina anglica

� Concentration of heavy metals in the estuary near to the M27 road bridge

� An evaluation of maritime leisure conflict in the estuary

� A study to evaluate the attitude and practices that the users of the River Hamble have adopted in respect to waste disposal and pollution prevention

The existence of enhanced connections to the local university network has proved to be a useful source of advice and research expertise for the Hamble

Estuary Partnership. The Student Research Fund is thought to be unique in the UK and has been included in a national good practice listing of coastal

management activity. Individual stakeholder organisations have been encouraged to suggest research topics to support their own management efforts

Table 4

Members of the Education Sub-Group

Environment Agency

Fareham Borough Council Countryside Service

Hampshire and Wight Trust for Maritime Archaeology

Hampshire and Wight Wildlife Trust

Hampshire County Council Countryside Service

River Hamble Harbour Authority

Royal Yachting Association

Southampton Solent University

Walking Distance

Solent Forum

Eastleigh Borough Council

S. Fletcher et al. / Marine Policy 31 (2007) 619–627 623

which each partnership operates. The Solent Forum coversan estuarine complex that incorporates three counties and373 km of coast (see introductory paper to this issue),whereas the Hamble Estuary Partnership is focused on asingle estuary, is entirely within one county, and coversonly approximately 22 km of coast. As well as the scale, thegeography of each partnership area is also contrasting. TheSolent has a highly developed coast, featuring heavyindustry and significant infrastructure, including major

settlements and ports, a naval dockyard, internationallyimportant waterways, the New Forest National Park, andinternationally important nature conservation interests.The geographical area of the Hamble Estuary Partnershipis much less developed, with the Hamble valley formingsomething of a less developed corridor in comparison tomuch of the Solent’s developed coast. However, theHamble does share some of the other characteristics ofthe Solent, including areas of international nature con-servation importance and pressure from recreational use.Despite these similarities, the Hamble is less manageriallycomplex than the Solent, with management issues largelyfocused on a limited number of topic areas, most notablynature conservation, navigational safety, local economy,and recreation. Both partnerships were established as aresult of a need identified by a local management authority,neither has legal status, instead choosing to establishconsensus voluntarily, and both partnerships are chairedindependently. The Hamble Estuary Partnership has nodirect funding apart from limited contributions to aStudent Research Fund, with officer support beingprovided by the River Hamble Harbour Authority. Incontrast, the Solent Forum is funded by voluntarycontributions by almost all members of the partnership,

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 5

Structural comparison between the Solent Forum and Hamble Estuary Partnership

Hamble Estuary Partnership Solent Forum

Scale Local Sub-regional

Length of coastline (km) 22 (approx.) 373

Geographic character Single estuary Estuarine complex

Management focus Site specific Strategic

Membership 19 organisations 67 organisations

Date of establishment 2003 1992

Origins The River Hamble Harbour Authority acknowledged

the requirement for partnership working to manage the

estuary, therefore initiated a process to develop an

estuary management plan, which ultimately led to the

development of the Hamble Estuary Partnership

The need for partnership working was recognised in

Hampshire County Council’s Strategy for Hampshire’s

Coast published in 1991. This document attempted to

look strategically and comprehensively at the issues

affecting the county’s coastline and to integrate the

planning and management of coastal land and

associated inshore waters. This led to the Solent Forum

being established in 1992 with a dedicated officer from

1995

Legal status None None

Frequency of meetings 6 months 6 months

Funding Funding is provided in kind by the River Hamble

Harbour Authority through an allocation of staff time

to administer the Hamble Estuary Partnership. All

other members provide their time free of charge

Funding and support in kind is provided by nearly all

member organisations

Website Information-based www.hants.gov.uk/hambleharbour/

emp.html

Network focused www.solentforum.hants.org.uk

Organisational structure Independent chairperson Independent chairperson

Education Sub-group Steering Group

Topic groups

Officer status Employee of member organisation with time allocation

to administer and coordinate Hamble Estuary

Partnership activities

Independent officers funded solely by and for the

Solent Forum and hosted by a partner organisation

Table 6

Functional comparison between the Solent Forum and Hamble Estuary Partnership

Hamble Estuary Partnership Solent Forum

Governance document(s) Terms of reference Constitution

Policy framework Estuary management plan [20] Strategic guidance for the Solent [21]

Research support A Student Research Fund was established to support

the information needs of the partnership. Research is

supported that is relevant to the management of the

Hamble estuary

A Virtual Research Group was established to bring

local academic institutions and consultancies together

to work collectively on Solent-related projects or

individual issues

Monitoring framework There is no formal indicator set for the Hamble

estuary. At the time of writing, the first review of the

Hamble Estuary Management Plan is under way

The Solent Forum has established a set of indicators to

monitor the health of the Solent. The indicators are

updated annually and a ‘‘State of the Solent’’ report

published every 3 years. The Solent Forum also

monitors its business plan and work programme

Communication Formal meetings and occasional officer e-mails. There

is no regular newsletter

Forum events, newsletters, and officer e-mail

communication

Policy formulation Policy is expressed through the estuary management

plan. This was formulated through an inclusive and

consensus-based process that included all members of

the partnership. Whilst other plans existing at the same

scale were considered in the development of the estuary

management plan, more strategic plans were less of a

consideration

Policy is expressed through the strategic guidance for

the Solent. This was formulated through an inclusive

and consensus-based process that included all members

of the partnership. Other strategic plans and policies

were considered. At the time of development, the

Hamble Estuary Partnership was not in existence

S. Fletcher et al. / Marine Policy 31 (2007) 619–627624

with additional funding provided for specific projects. TheSolent Forum also seeks external funding to undertakespecific projects, which the Hamble Estuary Partnershiphas not sought to do.

5.2. Functional comparison

In functional terms, significant distinctiveness existsbetween the Solent Forum and Hamble Estuary Partner-

ARTICLE IN PRESSS. Fletcher et al. / Marine Policy 31 (2007) 619–627 625

ship in relation to the purpose and operation of the twopartnerships. The Solent Forum takes a strategic view ofcoastal management in the Solent and therefore tends toaddress strategic policy and issues at a sub-regional scale. Italso monitors and considers regional and national policydevelopments relevant to members of the Solent Forumand disseminates relevant information at Solent Forummeetings and at specially convened workshops or confer-ences. As such, in its daily operation, the Solent Forumwould not become involved in specific local issues ‘‘on theground’’ preferring to provide a network for communica-tion. For example, the Solent Forum generally does notengage with individual members of the public or localstakeholders over specific issues. In contrast, the HambleEstuary Partnership is entirely focused on specific and localissues concerning the Hamble. The Hamble EstuaryPartnership officer commonly engages with individualmembers of the public and local stakeholders. The HambleEstuary Partnership does not tend to hold special events,but does disseminate relevant information to membersthrough its usual meeting schedule and occasional e-mails.Although the Hamble Estuary Partnership has a website, itis not used for communication. In contrast the SolentForum communicates with its members through a varietyof channels, including its formal meetings, regular e-mails,newsletter, and its comprehensive website. The commu-nication mechanisms of the two partnerships clearlyreflect their contrasting approaches—the Solent Forum asa sub-regional coastal network that requires a range ofcommunication channels and the Hamble Estuary Partner-ship as a more functional body dependent upon personalcommunication.

Despite these differences in focus, the purpose of bothpartnerships is very closely aligned, with both seeking tocoordinate existing management efforts at their respectivescales of operation through adopting the principles of ICMas their guiding ethos. In this respect, the two partnershipsare functionally aligned and could be said to offer somepotential for vertical integration between their respectivelevels of governance. However, to date, both partnershipshave operated entirely independently of each other withpolicies developed in isolation, therefore in no way is theHamble Estuary Partnership seeking to implement thepolicies of the Solent Forum, nor the Solent Forum seekingto provide the policy framework for the Hamble EstuaryPartnership.

The distinctiveness between two partnerships is demon-strated less starkly in their organisational structure andadministration. The Solent Forum has a structure thatconsists of a steering group of key stakeholders, a forumheld every 6 months, and a number of topic groups thatform to conduct specific work and then dissolve upon itscompletion. This structure is administered by two full timemembers of staff. The Hamble Estuary Partnership doesnot have a steering group, with all members invited toattend 6 monthly Hamble Estuary Partnership meetings.The Hamble Estuary Partnership has one sub-group,

focused on education, with research issues considered atfull Hamble Estuary Partnership meetings. This structure isadministered by an employee of the River HambleHarbour Authority whose time is allocated by the HarbourAuthority. The administrative support for each partnershipis therefore distinctive but reflects the contrasting breadthof interests and activities undertaken by each partnership.

5.3. Connections between the Hamble Estuary Partnership

and Solent Forum

The Solent Forum and Hamble Estuary Partnership areconnected by a number of formal and informal links. Themost significant formal link between the partnerships isthrough the respective partnership officers who seek tocoordinate their activities as and when appropriate. Thishas mutual benefits as the strategic approach of the SolentForum allows issues of wider relevance to Hamble EstuaryPartnership members to be identified and fed into HambleEstuary Partnership meetings, whilst the specific issuesrelated to the Hamble provide an insight into how strategicissues unfold locally and help to identify managementchallenges that require a strategic management approachmore aligned with the work of the Solent Forum. Forexample, the issue of obtaining marine consents has beenhighlighted by members of the Hamble Estuary Partner-ship. Since this is an issue that affects certain decision-makers throughout the Solent, the Solent Forum will hosta workshop to examine the issue in order to shareinformation and expertise. As such, there is a two-waymutually beneficial information flow between the partner-ships. An additional formal link is that the chairperson ofthe Hamble Estuary Partnership is a member of the SolentForum and an officer of the Solent Forum is invited to allHamble Estuary Partnership meetings. More informally,there are a number of individuals, most commonly fromcompetent authorities, who are members of both partner-ships, which provide an exchange of information andexpertise. The Solent Forum has also used the HambleEstuary Partnership to extend its communication reach,primarily through using Hamble Estuary Partnershipmeetings as an additional dissemination channel.It is notable that with regard to policy formulation

processes, there is little formal connection between theHamble Estuary Partnership and the Solent Forum, witheach partnership appearing to focus on its own constitu-ency. The differing functional horizons of the two partner-ships almost certainly contribute to this observation, inwhich the Solent Forum seeks to look at its place within theregion strategically, whilst the Hamble Estuary Partnershipis more concerned with local issues. The timings of thepolicy formulation processes of each partnership are alsounconnected, giving little opportunity for mutually sup-portive and aligned policy-making. Similarly, it is not, atpresent, the responsibility of any of the partnership officersconcerned to ensure consistency between partnerships,rather, there is greater focus, understandably, on internal

ARTICLE IN PRESSS. Fletcher et al. / Marine Policy 31 (2007) 619–627626

consistency within the policy programme of each coastalpartnership. It would appear therefore that within theSolent sub-region there have been limited attempts tocoordinate coastal policies at differing levels of governance,although it is suspected that this is an observation thatwould apply to most of the UK coast. For clarity, it shouldalso be noted that policy integration within functionalcoastal stakeholder sectors is long established and wellembedded (for example, within coastal defence, develop-ment planning, and nature conservation sectors wherehierarchical and interdependent plans are typical). Rather,the observation in this paper is that opportunities tocoordinate coastal policy between particular geographicscales (and levels of governance) through coastal partner-ships have not been taken. It is possible to argue that this isnot the role of coastal partnerships, as each reflects aspecific and unique suite of coastal issues. Whilst this is acredible argument for areas with a single coastal partner-ship, the argument is less robust where a multi-tierarrangement of partnerships exists, as the claim of ICMmust be evidenced by vertical policy integration betweenthe partnerships in question.

6. Conclusion

Of particular significance to the management of theSolent is the relationship between the Solent Forum andmore locally focused coastal partnerships within its area, asthis offers the potential to connect a strategic view ofcoastal issues with local expertise in a nested ICMframework. The connectivity between partnerships is animportant issue as the future role of coastal partnerships issomewhat uncertain due to anticipated changes in themanagement framework of the coastal and marineenvironment in the UK. One criticism of the currentdistribution of coastal partnerships is that some stretchesof coast have no partnership coverage at all, whereas otherareas have multiple partnerships operating in the samearea, albeit generally at different geographic scales or levelsof governance. In the first instance, it would appear thathaving multiple partnerships covering the same stretch ofcoast creates duplication of activity. However, through theconsideration of the relationship between the Solent Forumand the Hamble Estuary Partnership it was clear that therewas significant functional distinctiveness between the twopartnerships. Indeed, a notable feature of the comparisonwas that the processes and approaches of the two partner-ships were complementary rather than conflicting and thata mutually supportive and useful relationship had devel-oped and maintained between the partnerships.

However, despite their complementary approaches, day-to-day working, and subscription to the principles of ICM,it was apparent that the policy-making processes of the twopartnerships are unconnected and that there was littleevidence of intentional policy alignment. As such, thepotential for vertical integration between the sub-regionaland local levels of coastal governance is not currently being

realised. In considering the reason for the lack of policycoordination, it is important to recognise the independenceof the partnerships, differing policy cycles, differing periodsof establishment, and perhaps most importantly theabsence of a formal policy framework for the UK coast(at least as far as integrated policy is concerned) throughwhich the work of the partnerships could be coordinated.This is a historical feature of the UK coastal governancelandscape and individual partnerships cannot be heldaccountable for the overall framework in which theyoperate. However, this issue does perhaps represent asignificant challenge for areas where multiple coastalpartnerships exist and how such governance structuresmay develop in the future. Finally, this also presents achallenge for how the success of coastal partnerships ismeasured. Both the Hamble Estuary Partnership andSolent Forum would consider themselves, with goodreason, to be successful coastal partnerships within thecontext of their own targets and aspirations. Yet whenconsidered through the lens of a more holistic view ofICM, and of the Solent as a coherent system, their lack ofpolicy connection potentially presents a more challengingappraisal.

References

[1] Defra. Promoting an integrated approach to management of the

coastal zone (ICZM) in England. London: HMSO; 2006.

[2] Burbridge PR. Lessons learned from local coastal management

partnerships: a report to the Scottish Coastal Forum Scottish Coastal

Forum Research Report No 3. The Scottish Executive and Scottish

Natural Heritage: Edinburgh; 2001.

[3] Edwards SD, Jones PJS, Nowell DE. Participation in coastal zone

management initiatives: review and analysis of examples from the

UK. Ocean and Coastal Management 1997;36:143–65.

[4] King G, Galloway J. Participation in coastal zone management—

mechanisms, procedures and European developments. In: Proceed-

ings of Littoral 1998, 1998. p. 123–31.

[5] Masters D. Action centred networks: the key to decision-making in

coastal zone management. In: Healy S, Doody P, editors. Directions

in European coastal management. Cardigan: Samara Publishing

Limited; 1995.

[6] McGlashan DJ. Funding in integrated coastal zone management

partnerships. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2003;46:393–6.

[7] McGlashen DJ, Williams E. Stakeholder involvement in coastal

decision-making processes. Local Environment 2003;8:85–94.

[8] McGlashan DJ, Barker N. The partnership approach to integrated

coastal management in Britain. In: Smith HD, Potts JS, editors.

Managing Britain’s marine and coastal environment: towards a

sustainable future. Abingdon, London: Routledge and National

Maritime Museum; 2005.

[9] Fletcher S. Stakeholder representation and the democratic basis of

coastal partnerships in the UK. Marine Policy 2003;27:229–40.

[10] Fletcher S. Influences on stakeholder representation in participatory

coastal management programmes. Ocean and Coastal Management,

in press, doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2006.11.003.

[11] Fletcher S. The funding of coastal partnerships in the United

Kingdom: contrasting expectations of funders and Partnerships.

London: The Crown Estate; 2005.

[12] Gallagher A, Johnson DE, Glegg G, Trier C. Constructs of

sustainability in coastal management. Marine Policy 2004;28:249–55.

[13] Fletcher S. Representing stakeholder interests in partnership

approaches to coastal management: experiences from the United

ARTICLE IN PRESSS. Fletcher et al. / Marine Policy 31 (2007) 619–627 627

Kingdom. Ocean and Coastal Management, in press, doi:10.1016/j.

ocecoaman.2006.09.006.

[14] Cicin-Sain B, Knecht RW. Integrated coastal and ocean

management: concepts and practice. Washington, DC: Island Press;

1998.

[15] Olsen SB. Will integrated coastal management programs be sustain-

able?—the constituency problem. Ocean and Coastal Management

1993;21:201–25.

[16] Underdahl A. Integrated marine policy: what? why? how? Marine

Policy 1980:159–69.

[17] Cicin-Sain B. Sustainable development and integrated coastal

management. Ocean and Coastal Management 1993;21:11–43.

[18] Thia-Eng C. Essential elements of integrated coastal zone manage-

ment. Ocean and Coastal Management 1993;21:81–108.

[19] Vallega A. Fundamentals of integrated coastal management.

Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 1999.

[20] River Hamble Harbour Authority. Hamble estuary management

plan. Winchester: Hampshire County Council; 2002.

[21] Solent Forum. Strategic guidance for the Solent. Winchester: Solent

Forum; 1997.