Wednesday, June 1, 2011

Coastal adaptation

Around the world, coastal defenses are an integral part of climate policy. The risk of flooding is increasing due to a number of factors – the rising sea level (which in the Netherlands is being exacerbated by subsidence), the increasing intensity of storms and rising water levels in rivers. The Dutch parliament is currently looking at proposals for a new Delta Law, which is designed to address these increasing dangers. This law, as well as the legislation that already exists, is among the most advanced in the world. But of course, that is because half of our country is susceptible to flooding, either from the sea or from rivers.
Unlike in the Netherlands, most of the coastal areas around the cities of southern and eastern Australia are in the hands of private landowners. These ‘ocean view properties’ are spectacular, and extremely expensive. That makes it difficult for the government to build coastal defenses. Many interesting legal cases are already underway in this area which will clarify how this aspect of climate law will be put into force in the future. Essentially, the law states that the authorities must create a coastal protection area where they can make provisions for the effects of climate change. This policy will determine whether projects in coastal areas are allowed to go ahead. But what should be done in cases where houses are under threat from the sea?
One of the most famous cases is that of a rich landowner in Byron Bay to the south of Brisbane. The government had decided not to defend a section of the coastal area against the increased risk of erosion, but rather to let nature take its course as a part of a wider plan that involved protecting other, more important areas. The owner of the land decided to take measures to protect the land from erosion himself by renewing the old coastal defenses. The government denied him permission to do this, for the same reason as it had decided not to do so itself. When it looked as if the dispute would be settled in favor of the landowner, the government decided to renew the coastal defenses after all. However, it is clear that this is only a temporary measure until the next storm comes along. There is no prospect of a definitive solution, not least because land owners are opposing the construction of new coastal defenses for the future. After all, this would mean their land would no longer be located directly on the coast, and so it would be worth considerably less...

1 comment:

  1. Interesting, I had heared of a similar case in the UK a few years back of a man fighting for his right to protect his home against the powers of the sea. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/suffolk/7766782.stm

    Aside from state liability from insufficiently protecting their people (zorgplicht), a case could also be made that localized protection on one spot, will speed up erosion in others. By building sea defences where no seaside property exists, the government could inadvertibly be speeding up erosion of areas with seaside property, making a stronger case for state liability. http://www.crjc.org/pdffiles/WATER.final.pdf page 11

    Expensive seaside property can also be a solution to protecting against the sea. In post war Miami a public/private partnership was formed to counter seaside erosion. The results can be seen on these before and after photo's. All in all protecting Miami from the sea cost 64 million dollars, the 1970's. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/69/Beach_nourishment_slide3_pic1_%28USGS%29.jpg

    Finally in medievel times the Dutch shared their responsibility for protection against the sea by obligating anyone with seaside property to also ensure adequate protection against the sea along his particular stretch of coast. All landowners together then ensured a protection for the inland areas. Inability or failure to provide adequate protection on your stretch of coast, meant loss of property (or death) to someone that could offer sufficient protection. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_board_%28The_Netherlands%29

    ReplyDelete