C O M M I S S I O N E D R E P O R T

Commissioned Report No. 271

A review of relevant experience of coastal and marine national parks

(ROAME No. R07NC)

For further information on this report please contact:

Katie Gillham Scottish Natural Heritage Great Glen House Leachkin Road INVERNESS IV3 8NW Telephone: 01463-725 324 E-mail: katie.gillham@snh.gov.uk

This report should be quoted as:

Hambrey Consulting (2008). A review of relevant experience of coastal and marine national parks. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 271 (ROAME No. R07NC).

This report, or any part of it, should not be reproduced without the permission of Scottish Natural Heritage. This permission will not be withheld unreasonably. The views expressed by the author(s) of this report should not be taken as the views and policies of Scottish Natural Heritage.

© Scottish Natural Heritage 2008

COMMISSIONED REPORT

Summary A review of relevant experience of coastal and marine

national parks Commissioned Report No. 271 (ROAME No. R07NC) Contractor: Hambrey Consulting Year of publication: 2008

Background On 15th June 2005 the Minister for Environment and Rural Development in Scotland announced Scottish Ministers “intention to create Scotland’s first coastal and marine national park by 2008” under the National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000. The park was to have the same broad aims as terrestrial parks, namely:

Conserving and enhancing the natural and cultural heritage; Promoting the sustainable use of natural resources; Promoting the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of the area; and Promoting the sustainable economic and social development of its local communities.

Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) has undertaken and commissioned several significant studies to inform its advice to the Scottish Government on this on-going process. In January 2007, SNH commissioned Hambrey Consulting to undertake a review of international experience, including the preparation of 12-15 case studies, to further inform the establishment of Coastal and Marine National Parks (CMNP) in Scotland. Main Findings The cases reveal a huge diversity of context and approaches to the designation and

management of CMNP. Common to all however is a desire to conserve and promote something special, and to manage it for the good of the nation, now and in the future. Increasingly there is also the desire to promote sustainable use, and quality rather than mass tourism, especially in the European parks. CMNP can also serve as a mechanism to deliver Integrated Coastal Zone Management.

Site selection and boundary demarcation may be based on national “top down” ecological/ geographic criteria, or “bottom up” self-selection based on locally perceived need or opportunity. Where sustainable use is emphasised, the latter may be more appropriate.

The key to effective and constructive participation in the designation process lies in building trust, in creating opportunities for informed debate, and in facilitating genuinely representative decision making - which takes a great deal of time, and depends critically upon the composition of steering committees and the park board.

Some stakeholder groups can be highly resistant to national park designation, but several cases reveal that if constructive dialogue is engaged at the outset, with emphasis on sustainable use, then such groups can be strongly supportive.

The development of a management plan prior to, or as part of the designation process has significant advantages: it may serve as a framework for detailed practical debate with all stakeholders; and it can reinforce trust since stakeholders know what they are getting.

For further information on this project contact: Katie Gillham, Scottish Natural Heritage, Great Glen House, Inverness, IV3 8NW

Tel: 01463 725 324 For further information on the SNH Research & Technical Support Programme contact:

Policy and Advice Directorate Support Unit, Scottish Natural Heritage, Great Glen House, Leachkin Road, Inverness, IV3 8NW Tel: 01463 725000 or ascg@snh.gov.uk

Foreword National parks have been around for 135 years - Yellowstone National Park was declared in 1872, followed by several others in the US, Canada, Australia and Latin America (under US influence). African countries saw the establishment of major national parks prior to independence. In Europe, Sweden’s first park was created in 1909. All these early major parks embodied this simple and appealing concept: the protection of outstanding places on behalf of the nation and for the enjoyment of its people. The word national is important: it generates a sense of pride in something special that we should care for. Over the years the concept has changed and evolved, and has been subject to an increasing range of interpretation. In England and Wales the original legislation concerned itself primarily with the preservation of “natural beauty”, and this was only extended to wildlife and cultural heritage in the 1995 Act. This dimension is more technically orientated in some countries, emphasising the need to conserve representative examples of the major ecosystems or land forms (epitomised by park legislation in Canada in the 70s and 80s). Since the 1990s however, sustainable development and sustainable use have become more important, as has the need to conserve cultural heritage and traditional-use rights. Recently there has been increased interest in extending the concept offshore, reflecting both the need for better management of marine resources, and the increasing interest in water-based recreation. We now have a huge range of national and international designations, encompassing national parks, nature reserves, sanctuaries, protected areas and so on which have varied and overlapping objectives. The World Conservation Union (IUCN) has sought to bring some order and consistency to this plethora of terms and designations, however, the reality is that every country, and in many cases each region, has its own needs and priorities, with a corresponding mix of objectives and priorities which may not match the IUCN classification. The term national park means different things to different people, and it is essential to understand this variety of interpretation when setting up national parks. In the early days, national park designation was relatively easy: the areas chosen were typically largely wilderness, and government - as far as it was able - was typically more “top down”. Local interests, if any, would have to give way to national need, and in many cases the rate of change and development was slower. In some cases, national parks were designated for their largely human influenced landscapes, as in the Lake District National Park, and most people who lived and worked there saw no great problem with maintaining the landscape and way of life. In more recent times, however, the word designation has become much more controversial because of the plethora of conservation designations that have arisen over the last two decades, and especially in the UK in relation to SSSI, and across Europe in relation to Natura 2000 sites. Furthermore, the influence of people on land and sea has extended hugely in the last century. Almost any designation may affect the activities of people on land or sea, and there is therefore the potential for conflict. Today we face a range of problems and issues when designating and managing national parks which did not exist to the same extent in the past. Modern communications have opened up previously quiet undeveloped areas. Many potential park areas also have potential for residential development, major tourist attractions and so on. Although parks and tourism are compatible - indeed should be mutually strengthening - there are forms of tourism which may be deemed unacceptable. There is a strong tradition of “tranquillity” as a key feature of national parks.

The approach taken in Scotland so far reflects the evolving situation and places particular emphasis on the role of national parks in promoting sustainable use and enjoyment of the natural environment, while at the same time conserving its essential qualities. The aims for national parks in Scotland are set down in the National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000:

• to conserve and enhance the natural and cultural heritage of the area; • to promote sustainable use of the natural resources of the area; • to promote understanding and enjoyment (including enjoyment in the form of

recreation) of the special qualities of the area by the public; and • to promote sustainable economic and social development of the area’s communities.

This report is based on a series of case studies selected to cast light on both the designation process and the management of established national parks, drawing on experience from throughout the world. The objectives of this research were:

• to provide detailed information and insight into experience from coastal and marine management that is likely to be relevant to the development of a CMNP in Scotland - presented as a series of case histories, from instigation of the initiative/area to current management;

• to highlight examples of best practice from coastal and marine management that are likely to be relevant to the development of a CMNP in Scotland;

• to identify examples of key performance indicators that might be relevant to a CMNP in Scotland;

• to provide an assessment of the lessons arising from this experience which are considered to be of most relevance to proposals for establishing a CMNP in Scotland.

Twenty-six possible case studies were selected initially and assessed and scored against a series of criteria, those which scored best and/or which appeared of particular interest or relevance to the Scottish context were selected for further work. Most of these short-listed cases were then taken through to develop full case studies which are available for download from the SNH website. These case studies represent a very small part of the wealth of experience gained over the last century from throughout the world. Although we have drawn out many specific lessons from this experience, the most important and consistent lessons have been highlighted on many occasions and are confirmed in our case histories:

• successful park designation (in terms of a cost effective process generating broadly based support) requires excellent communication and facilitation skills;

• successful management (in terms of achieving practical objectives) requires strong stakeholder participation and ownership; and

• success in social and economic terms requires us to link an outstanding natural environment with opportunities for high quality local employment, and increased opportunity for education and outdoor recreation.

This report This document is in four parts:

1. An Executive Summary which pulls out some key messages from the mass of experience revealed in the case studies.

2. Overview of key issues and findings, which summarises findings in relation to each of the major themes or issues as specified in the contract.

3. Review of the case studies which provides a more detailed review of these issues as revealed in the various case studies.

4. Annex 1 offers brief introductions to the case studies, the full versions of which are available separately and may be downloaded from the SNH website.

Authors The work was undertaken by a team, with specific responsibilities as follows:

John Hambrey: Project leader; main report; Sweden/Norway case studies Stig Moller-Christensen: Denmark and Germany case studies Sue Wells: France case studies Alison Munro: Finland case study, additional background research Rashid Sumaila: American and Canadian case studies David Lloyd: Australia case studies Bridget Senior: background literature review

Contact details can be found on individual case studies.

Acknowledgements This report could not have been prepared without the help of park professionals and a range of stakeholders who offered us insights into the way coastal and marine national parks have developed and are managed in different parts of the world. Some gave up substantial amounts of time to help us. Specific acknowledgements are presented in each case study.

Contents Page no.

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 2 OVERVIEW OF KEY ISSUES AND FINDINGS 4

2.1 Introduction 4 Diversity 4 Some major trends 4

2.2 Site selection, boundaries and size 5 2.3 Legislation and objectives 6 2.4 Management planning 7 2.5 Administration 8 2.6 Fisheries and natural resource users 9 2.7 Relationships with other institutions and agencies 10 2.8 Involvement, participation and communication 11 2.9 Planning and management mechanisms 13 2.10 Specific actions and initiatives 14 2.11 Benefits and drawbacks 14

3 REVIEW OF THE CASE STUDIES 16 3.1 Initiation and process 16

Time 16 Timing and context 16 Coalitions and conflict 16 Managing conflict 16 Outreach 17 Self selection 17 The role of management planning in designation 17 Science, knowledge and baselines 17 Feasibility studies 18 Iconic species 18 Conclusions 18

3.2 Legislative framework and objectives 20 Legislation development 20 Legislation change 21 Multiple legislation 21 Objectives 21 Balancing use and protection 23 Cultural objectives 24 Recreation and education 25 Definition and delegation of administrative arrangements 25 Planning and management powers 25 Conclusions 26

3.3 The selection of an area for a coastal and marine national park 29 Selection criteria 29 Self-selection and lobbying 29 Boundary delimitation 30 A trend? 33

3.4 Administrative arrangements and management planning 33 Basic organisational and management structures 33 Management planning 35 Zoning 36 Other management tools 38 Regulation 38 Conclusions 38

3.5 Relationships between park management bodies and other institutions 39 Local government 40 Other designations 41 NGOs 41 Fisheries 41 Coordinating committees 41 Conclusion 42

3.6 The relationships between CMNP and fisheries 42 Roles and responsibilities 42 Park specific fisheries management plans and regulations 43 Cooperation with fishermen 43 Fishermen’s knowledge 45 MPAs - through fisheries management initiatives 45 Alternative livelihoods 45 Recreational fisheries 45 Conclusions 46

3.7 Stakeholder participation in planning and management 46 Requirements and opportunities 46 Trust 47 Some examples 47 Conclusions 51

3.8 Specific actions and initiatives under coastal and marine national parks 52 Education and interpretation 52 Enjoyment 53 Conservation and enhancement 53 Research 54 Sustainable use and sustainable development 54 Brands, standards and codes 55

3.9 Achievements, benefits, drawbacks 56 Achievements and benefits 56 Drawbacks 57 Others 58

3.10 Performance Indicators 58

ANNEX 1 INTRODUCTION TO THE CASE STUDIES 61

1

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Diversity 1. The case studies reveal a huge diversity of approaches to, and experience of, Coastal

and Marine National Park (CMNP) designation and management. This diversity relates to both diversity of objectives and diversity of context. A lesson learned in one place may be completely inappropriate in another. Indeed success1 depends in large part on engaging with and understanding local history, social and economic conditions, stakeholder perspectives, and personalities.

Sustainable use 2. There is increasing emphasis on the idea of “sustainable use” within planned or

existing national parks, particularly in Europe, and this is of particular importance in the coastal and marine environment where there is a strong tradition of open access to marine and coastal resources. This idea has significant implications for the way areas are designated and managed. Much greater account must be taken of the range of interests and opinions. In some cases the “win-win” can be identified to satisfy all interests; in other cases a trade-off (at least in the short term) must be negotiated.

Participation and communication 3. Successful participation is the key to successful designation and management, and

was emphasised in all the case studies. In most cases both stakeholders and park professionals felt they should have had more participation, and more time, during the park development or designation process.

4. The key to effective and constructive participation lies in building trust, in creating

opportunities for informed debate, and in facilitating genuinely representative decision making. Several of the cases illustrate clearly that a few poorly prepared public meetings are inadequate, may generate conflict and undermine trust.

5. Several factors contribute to trust and are exemplified especially in some of the

European case studies -

Clarity of purpose - the broad aims of the park; the purpose of consultation and participation.

Clarity of process: how the “participation” will be used; what will happen next and when; who is in charge.

Transparency and openness - no hidden agendas. Belief that opinions will not only be heard but weighed and considered. High quality information in a form which can easily be interrogated and discussed

(maps, images, graphics etc.). Respect for resource-user/stakeholder knowledge. Fair, neutral, well informed and skilled facilitation of meetings, working groups

and indeed the whole participatory process. Outreach to those who are busy, cynical, or isolated.

1 In this report “success” in designation is taken to mean a cost effective process generating broadly

based support. “Success” in park management is taken to mean the achievement of management objectives.

2

6. The designation of national parks is often associated with conflict and some initiatives have been delayed or abandoned as a result. Having multiple objectives (including sustainable use) does not avoid conflict - different stakeholders will apply different weightings and thresholds to the various objectives. It is therefore important to develop a conflict avoidance strategy: identify likely areas of conflict and key players; and identify the best ways of bringing differing perspectives to bear constructively on the park development or management process. Most conflict can be anticipated and mechanisms found to avoid it or manage it constructively.

Site selection, boundary demarcation and zoning 7. The cases reveal a wide range of approaches to site selection and boundary

demarcation, ranging from the use of nationally or internationally agreed ecological criteria (top down) to self selection, where particular communities or local government have proposed that some locally defined area should have a national designation (bottom up). These approaches relate closely to objectives. Where preservation of representative ecological systems or landscapes is the dominant objective, then selection is inevitably top down; where sustainable use is an important objective (as in the Scottish national park legislation), then a greater degree of “self-selection” may be appropriate.

8. Given that Scotland already has a range of designations appropriate to ensuring

conservation of representative ecological systems and habitats (and to a lesser extent landscapes), it may be appropriate to emphasise sustainable use as the primary objective, and allow for some degree of “self selection”. The experience from Denmark is highly relevant here, where a range of local “pilot” park projects are effectively “bidding” for national park status.

9. The size of the park would then tend to relate to the nature of sustainable use. It is

notable that the boundaries of the new and large Parc Marin D’Iroise in Brittany follow existing fisheries management boundaries.

Fisheries 10. Fisheries were a key issue in most of the cases we examined. The views of fishermen

ranged from highly critical to highly supportive, and in the case of Kosterhavets, Sweden, changed from negative to positive as the designation process evolved.

11. Designation may increase opportunities for, or reinforce, existing co-management

initiatives. It may provide opportunities for improving the image of fisheries and for sustainable fisheries labelling initiatives. On the other hand it may be seen as yet another layer of regulation on an already battered and struggling industry.

12. A critical pre-condition for support is trust, based on a frank and open exchange of

information and opinion. Respect for the knowledge of fishermen is vital, and there are opportunities for fishermen and scientists to get together on information exchange and “mutual” training courses.

Management planning 13. The management plan is the key tool or framework for implementing the objectives of

national parks, and can also be used as a mechanism for the delivery of more integrated coastal zone management - something which is widely regarded as desirable.

3

14. In a few cases the management plan was developed prior to designation, and in some cases designation depended on approval of the plan by government and key stakeholders. The French regional parks are designated and implemented through a charter (charte) - an agreement between the various stakeholders and different levels of government on how the objectives of the park will be realised. Support and ownership of these parks is strong.

15. The development of a management plan prior to, or as part of designation has some

significant advantages: it serves as a framework for debate and forces people to sit down and thrash out the detail; it can reinforce trust since stakeholders are involved from the outset and know exactly what they are getting. However, there are resource implications in this approach. All the stakeholders also need to remain engaged in this process if it is to be meaningful, and this may be difficult in the absence of a park itself.

The balance of power 16. If a national park is to be a vibrant example of sustainable use and the conservation of

key social, cultural and environmental values, then local ownership is essential, and the balance of power on the park board or steering committee must reflect this. The Laesoe (Denmark) case study illustrates what can go wrong when the balance appears to shift away from local people.

Benefits and drawbacks 17. Most of the cases we examined were supported by a wide range of stakeholders, and

appeared to generate a range of benefits, including increased economic opportunities, and a sense of pride in place and culture. The French Parc Naturel Regional D’Armorique in particular offers many examples of business development related to education, recreation, culture and sustainable use. Several of the local people we talked to emphasised the necessity of tourism development given the decline in farming and fishing, but equally their desire to see the right kind of tourism at the right level. Quality, not quantity is the key, characterised by respect for the local environment and culture.

18. Nature conservation benefits are perhaps harder to measure, especially in the more

“user friendly” parks, but there were examples of farm landscape restoration projects generating significantly increased biodiversity (Finland, Sweden) and marine management initiatives leading to an observed increase in hitherto declining skates and rays.

19. Many of the cases reveal a remarkable growth in water based recreation - yachts,

motorboats, ribs, kayaks, diving and snorkelling, wildlife watching - and this represents both a significant economic opportunity and a management issue for any park designation in Scotland. “Carrying capacity” for these activities is not merely a technical issue; it relates very much to the kind of environment local people wish to live in, the manner in which the local economy can benefit, and the interests of the country as a whole.

20. Relatively few drawbacks were identified, though this may relate in part to lack of direct

consultation with resource users in the Canadian, American and Australian case studies. Most of these parks are relatively strictly controlled with only limited “sustainable use”, and there is likely to be an “opportunity cost” associated with these restrictions, which would need to be balanced against the identified benefits.

4

2 OVERVIEW OF KEY ISSUES AND FINDINGS The following represents an overview of main findings and lessons learned as they relate to each of the issues or themes identified in the contractual Terms of Reference. A more detailed review of these issues as they relate to the case studies is presented in Section 3.

2.1 Introduction

Diversity 21. The case studies demonstrate a huge diversity in terms of type of national park,

approaches to designation, and experience in management. They cannot easily be assigned to the IUCN categories of protected areas2. They range from wilderness areas wholly owned and controlled by the state to intensively used rural and marine areas subject to a range of ownership, access and use rights. Objectives range from preservation of existing features, restoration of past landscapes, to dynamic and sustainable use and community development. Most experience - and “lessons learned” - must be set in context, and applied with great care.

Some major trends 22. There are two major streams of thought currently shaping the nature of national parks

and other environmental designations, and it is the balance of these different streams in different countries which explains much of the diversity in approaches to national park designation and management. On the one hand there is the desire to protect and preserve or restore representative examples of large scale functioning natural systems or ecosystems and associated habitats. On the other there is the desire to promote sustainable development, sustainable natural resource use, recreation and rural community development.

23. Although these approaches should in theory be compatible, they reflect different

priorities, and the reality on the ground is sometimes one of widely divergent opinions as to how to balance these priorities. Fishermen may consider a significant “no fishing zone” as unacceptable and unnecessary to conserve the general and dynamic qualities of the marine environment; whereas a soft coral specialist may consider a large area as unique and in need of total protection. A compromise, or some form of trade-off may have to be negotiated.

24. However, economies are changing and these interests are converging, especially in

developed countries. There are increasing opportunities for “win-win” initiatives: business development or business success can be related to environmental quality - either directly through tourism and outdoor recreation, or indirectly through product branding and sustainability certification. Evidence also suggests that some types of areas closed to fishing for biodiversity purposes can also lead to improved productivity in the fishery itself.

25. The phenomenal growth of water based recreation - yachts, motor cruisers, RIBs,

kayaks - is a major feature of many cases, and highlights both an opportunity and an issue (carrying capacity) for any potential parks in Scotland.

2 IUCN 1994. Guidelines for protected area management categories. IUCN Gland, Switzerland and

Cambridge.

5

Lessons learned The concepts of sustainable development and sustainable use have significant

implications for the way areas are designated and managed: much greater account must be taken of the range of interests and opinions. In some cases the “win-win” can be identified; in other cases a trade-off (at least in the short term) must be negotiated.

2.2 Site selection, boundaries and size 26. A range of approaches have been taken to site selection and boundary demarcation

which typically fall between two extremes:

Ecological criteria, top down: Selection of representative examples of “ecotypes”. Boundaries are selected based on key habitat boundaries or other features deemed necessary to ensure representation and protection. This approach is best exemplified in Canada which seeks to designate at least one national park representative of 29 “natural regions”, and also in Australia.

Self selection, bottom up: In Denmark communities (effectively local government)

have been asked to develop proposals or “bid” for national park status, although the areas put forward must meet some basic technical criteria. In this case boundaries are likely to be locally negotiated and pragmatic, taking account of local interests and varied stakeholder objectives.

A hybrid approach is also possible where several potential sites are identified on the basis of technical criteria, with final selection based on local support.

27. The size of national parks is hugely varied. Our cases ranged from the proposed 450 km2 Kosterhavets Marine National Park in Sweden, to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park at 350,000 km2. Not surprisingly, the parks in countries with more “wilderness” are typically larger than those in more intensively developed countries. However, size is also closely related to objectives and the nature of management. The French Parc Naturel Regional d’Armorique is large by European standards - 1,720 km2 - covering a relatively intensively used area of land and sea. Because opportunity rather than regulation is emphasised in such regional parks, it has been possible to designate large areas. Where objectives are more related to preservation, regulation is likely to be stricter, and the politically acceptable area correspondingly smaller - in any but the least populated regions.

Lessons learned Site selection and boundary demarcation are related to park objectives. Where

objectives are relatively technical and primarily related to conservation of representative ecosystems and habitats then site selection will necessarily be top down and determined by technical criteria. Where socio-economic and cultural objectives are included, and alternative mechanisms are in place to conserve representative habitats, then some element of self-selection may be appropriate in order to maximise support.

Ideal size depends on objectives, local features and local politics. Pragmatism is

required in the setting of appropriate boundaries, and they should evolve gradually as part of the participation and consultation exercise.

6

Smaller size may facilitate more intensive management; larger size may suit a more “light touch” approach, a wider spread of benefit and opportunities for integrated management of a coherent natural system.

Fragmented and diverse areas are more difficult to manage.

2.3 Legislation and objectives 28. Legislation relating to national parks is hugely complex and varied, and it is impossible

to offer a concise overview. It is clear, however, that some countries have more flexible legislation than others - or at least are able to interpret it in a relatively flexible manner. This is essential if the more participatory approach highlighted below is to have any practical credibility. Participation when one side has all the power is not seen as participation.

29. In most of the countries we examined there has been a shift over the last 20 years or

so from strongly top down preservationist objectives (parks for nature; parks for tourists) to more participatory/sustainable use objectives (parks for local people as well as for nature and tourism). This is reflected in recent changes in legislation in some countries, or simply an evolving interpretation and application, with minor amendments as appropriate.

30. France, by way of contrast, has had a more participatory and community development

model for many years in the form of Parc Naturel Regional, which is notable for its success, at least in terms of support. There is no doubt that such approaches are much less prone to conflict, and appear to generate social and economic benefits as well as greater appreciation and understanding of the natural environment and cultural heritage. The extent to which natural features may be compromised or enhanced under such systems is unclear, although initiatives are now underway to assess performance in these terms.

31. Whatever the legislation and however strong the push for participation, there are many

on the ground who are not yet aware or convinced of the implications of these changes in objectives and approach, and whose experience of past environment related designations is negative. Fishermen and farmers or crofters may still perceive national parks as “for nature and for tourism”, and the IUCN definition of a national park does not help in this regard (a protected area managed mainly for ecosystem protection and recreation). Equally there are those with a specifically environmental agenda who have not yet taken on fully the implications of sustainable use and more participatory planning.

32. In several countries legislation has been developed or changed through a pilot project

process and substantial research (Germany, Denmark, Sweden). This allows stakeholders a practical and focused input to the park development process.

Lessons learned If participation is to be genuine, then legislation should provide a broad framework

of principles rather than being too prescriptive; and/or stakeholders should have an input to legislation development through pilot projects. Every situation is different and the legislation should allow for local and creative solutions.

7

This implies that national (or legislated) objectives for national parks should be such as to provide for clarity of purpose (in terms of national aspirations or commitments) without being overly prescriptive - in other words they should be presented as broad aims or desirable outcomes rather than more specific “operational” objectives or prescriptive guidance. The development of more practical or operational objectives appropriate to a particular area and set of circumstances can then be a key starting point in any participatory process.

Even where legislation appears to be rigid and inappropriate to modern or specific

local circumstances it can be interpreted flexibly, where there is a will, or amended as appropriate.

2.4 Management planning 33. Management plans are a near universal feature of national parks, but there were very

wide variations in the overall approach. Most notably some of the plans were developed as part of the designation process - and designation was conditional on approval of the plan. Fear of the unknown and suspicion of hidden agendas has been a common cause of failure, and this approach - although it may lead to delays in designation - has the substantial advantage of ensuring that everyone knows what they are getting. It also provides a practical framework for dialogue.

34. There is widespread agreement amongst park professionals, that whatever the

legislation may or may not require, a significant or major role for stakeholders in management planning is a precondition for conflict avoidance and effective implementation. Participation increases ownership and responsibility; allays unfounded fears; brings vital stakeholder knowledge to the table; and allows for effective exchange and wide dissemination of ideas. A classic example of this is the “charte” which serves as the basis for the management of Parcs Naturel Regional in France. This amounts to a locally agreed set of objectives principles and mechanisms for the park.

35. Knowledge and high quality information is also seen as fundamental to successful

management by both park authorities and stakeholders. The case studies represent two extremes in this regard - the seven year scientific research programme conducted to inform the management of the German Wadden Sea, and the much more limited (and focused more on socio-economic impact) research possible under the Danish national park pilots. While most stakeholders agreed that a scientific basis for management was essential, there was a feeling in some cases that more use could have been made of local user knowledge - at minimum as input to research focus and design.

36. There was also a feeling from several of the European case studies that research on

issues which might lead to restriction should be balanced by research and/or support for alternative economic activities and sustainable use.

37. Management planning for CMNP can be a powerful mechanism for the implementation

of integrated coastal zone management (ICZM). The “evolving” objectives of national parks, broadly consistent with sustainable development and the “ecosystem approach” are very similar to those for ICZM, and the park authority and plan offers a delivery mechanism and an opportunity to integrate the plethora of coastal initiatives currently found throughout the world, and especially in Europe. Equally, if the park authority

8

lacks sufficient powers, resources or management skills - the park will be just another layer of confusion and bureaucracy.

38. Management plans range from highly prescriptive with strong enforcing regulations

(e.g. American and Australian case studies) to more flexible frameworks encompassing objectives for particular areas or activities to guide partners or stakeholders (as in French regional parks). Yet again, the relative success of these approaches depends on the objectives.

Lessons learned Management planning clarifies the implications of national park designation, and

there is therefore a strong argument for developing a management plan (or at least a clear set of management principles and possible mechanisms) prior to designation, as part of proposal development. This offers a framework for participation and effectively undermines rumour and mistrust.

Management planning must involve local people and stakeholders in a meaningful

way, and should be decentralised and delegated as far as possible, especially where local people will play a significant role in implementation.

Good information is fundamental to good management, but money is easily

wasted. Preparatory research must be clearly focused in relation to objectives, and should be informed by, and draw upon, local and user knowledge. Attention must be paid to socio-economic as well as environmental research.

CMNP can be a force for integration and rationalisation of planning and

management in the coastal zone. The legal status of the plan must reflect the need for overarching integrated management.

Management plans should be more or less prescriptive depending on the nature of

the objectives.

2.5 Administration 39. Administrative needs vary hugely, from the proposals for a very small locally based

core staff of three or four for the proposed marine park of Kosterhavet in Sweden, to major national hierarchical organisations in Australia, America and Canada. The composition in terms of expertise broadly follows the scope and objectives of the park. Most parks however, have:

A board or steering group - typically comprising elected local politicians and

political appointees, whose main task is to approve the management plan and address strategic issues arising (i.e. the decision making body);

A corporate body - typically a park director and professional staff who develop and implement the management plan and routine park activities, sometimes working through local contractors;

Advisory committees and working groups - which advise on more technical issues or undertake more specialist policy development work.

40. The main variations relate to the composition of the board, and its powers relative to

those of the responsible authority - whether this be the county/regional, provincial or national government or a national agency, or some combination.

9

41. There are significant issues about whether environmental NGOs and scientists should be represented on the board or steering group. In Laesoe, Denmark national/ international NGOs on a local steering group (required by national government) came into serious conflict with local interests, and the proposed park is unlikely to be designated as a result. The park professionals we interviewed in several cases had different views on scientists - some believing they should have formal representation on decision making bodies; others believing their role should be purely advisory.

42. There were significant variations relating to the delivery of park services (maintenance,

restoration, guidance/interpretation, policing). These may be delivered by a dedicated professional service (exemplified especially in America/Canada), through contractors, through local trusts, or through “partner” schemes. The latter is exemplified in the German (Wadden Sea) case study where use of the “Park Partner” logo is conditional on training for more effective information provision, guidance and interpretation.

Lessons learned All the professionals we talked to emphasised the need to have strong

representation of key stakeholders in park management - either directly on some form of board, or through influential advisory and working groups.

Administrators should be seen locally. There should be a face to talk to.

Many park services can be subcontracted effectively to the private sector, and

supplementary private sector services can be encouraged.

2.6 Fisheries and natural resource users 43. In almost all the cases we looked at, fishing rights and fisheries management were key

issues, which have sometimes stalled or led to the abandonment of proposals for designation. In other cases fishermen - and especially inshore fishermen - have become key allies in the designation and management process. Farmers have also often been either strongly against or broadly in favour of designations.

44. Fishermen should be natural allies. They understand a great deal about the marine

environment; their livelihood depends on a well managed marine environment; their marketing increasingly reflects a high quality marine environment. That they have so often led resistance to any form of marine designation reflects a tradition of independence and freedom; increasing vulnerability related to the state of stocks and over-capitalisation; and a history of ineffective top down regulation and management.

45. It is notable that in Sweden (Kosterhavets) fishermen have been largely won over after

initial resistance, and that in Canada fishermen actually played a significant role in getting one of the marine parks established. In France also, the local fishermen supported of the designation of the new Parc Naturel Marin D’Iroise.

46. However, fishermen are not a homogenous group, and local inshore fishermen,

especially if they have a tradition of locally based management, are more likely to be supportive than are national fisheries organisations who typically fear restrictions on access in national parks.

47. Given current trends crofters and farmers should again be natural allies. The

Scandinavian case studies in particular show the employment opportunities associated with the restoration of traditional farmed landscape in CMNP. There are also

10

opportunities for marketing niche park labelled products and/or supplying local restaurant and tourist markets. These offer a possible way forward in areas significantly disadvantaged in terms of production and marketing of commodity products for mass markets, and which have seen a decline in farming in recent years.

48. Several of the areas listed as possible candidates for CMNP status in Scotland are

important for fish farming. This is no coincidence: fish farmers actively seek out high quality marine sites to meet the demanding water quality needs of their fish or shellfish, and it is in their direct interests to maintain this high water quality. Again therefore fish farmers should be natural allies - but they fear ever more complex regulation. It is notable that some of the stakeholders we talked to in Sweden said they supported national park designation in Sweden because they were becoming increasingly susceptible to unpredictable and ad hoc development consent decisions. A national park was likely to offer a clearer strategic framework for development and one which they could influence. They would have greater input to management decisions. They were beginning to sit down and discuss what they wanted to do where. If such a vision could be realised it would certainly appeal to Scottish fish farmers.

49. Several of the examples of strong resistance from farmers and fishermen could be

traced to historically poor relations with both scientists and environmental NGOs, which in some cases had been exacerbated by particular forms of engagement and perceived or actual power relationships. This is discussed further under “participation”.

Lessons learned Fishermen, crofters, farmers and fish farmers can be and should be supportive of

CMNP where these emphasise sustainable use, (even if some changes in practice may be required) and are often key players in ensuring success or otherwise. Effective engagement and communication, with agendas and aspirations laid clearly on the table from the outset, can lead to strong support and provide the planning process with a wealth of local knowledge.

Fishermen and farmers are unlikely to see eye to eye with national environmental

NGOs and pressure groups, and bringing these groups together in public meetings or other fora should be handled professionally and with great care.

2.7 Relationships with other institutions and agencies 50. Designation of national parks is all about building support and enthusiasm, and part of

that is building coalitions. Responsibility for the development of proposals for designation of Kosterhavet in Sweden were delegated to county level in the first instance, and support from local municipalities has been vital to success in winning over local public opinion. A similar approach is being taken in Denmark with mixed success.

51. CMNP are also seen as having significant potential for the promotion and

implementation of integrated coastal management. In other words, given sufficient authority, a national park administration can serve as an effective body to facilitate integration of sectoral and governmental initiatives in coastal and marine areas. This may be achieved informally, on an ad hoc basis or more formally through the park management plan.

11

Lessons learned Allowing or encouraging local or regional government to lead and develop

proposals for CMNP has significant advantages, and has worked well in some of the case studies.

CMNPs are likely to be most effective when they coordinate, integrate and facilitate

the plethora of existing initiatives and regulatory mechanisms in the coastal zone. Park managers must therefore be highly skilled managers and communicators, with enthusiasm and leadership skills.

2.8 Involvement, participation and communication 52. Almost everyone we talked to emphasised the need for participation, and most

considered that they should have had more. But this is not just a question of a few meetings. There are a range of ideas associated with participation: communication; consultation; participation in developing ideas; participation in management; representation of particular interests; ownership. There is a huge difference between soliciting a response to an idea (consultation) and developing an idea together, or making decisions together.

53. In many cases technical and/or representative working groups were used to develop

ideas or management strategies. In other cases government officers develop outline plans and mechanisms and test them at public meetings or hearings. There was a view in several cases that public meetings can be dangerous - though they may be politically expedient. They tend to provide a platform for more extreme views; they are rarely (fairly) representative; they can be manipulated by particular interests; they can be sensationally reported. In most cases it is better to engage with specific stakeholder interests on a bilateral basis and through working groups. Once ideas are fairly well developed, then public meetings and hearings can be useful and are less likely to be controversial.

54. The amount and timing of information presented to stakeholders about a possible park

and its management plan is also critical. If too little information is available there may be confusion and rumour, or a tendency to suspect a hidden agenda, or a view that the authorities don’t know what they are doing and are incompetent. Too much information and prescription is seen as top down and threatening. In France, Canada and Scandinavia there were examples of this.

55. Designation of any kind is fundamentally threatening to many existing users, and trust

needs to be built. Indeed it is a precondition for effective participation. People will engage constructively if they understand the designation process; if they understand the government’s “agenda”; and if they feel that their knowledge and perspective will be taken into account. A neutral, informed and respected facilitator is essential. Either a professional facilitator, or skilled local politician may be able to play this role.

56. Lack of clarity - e.g. in relation to zoning, boundary demarcation, regulatory powers, the

balance between different objectives - all lead to mistrust, as demonstrated in several cases. This does not mean that the process should be top down: rather that existing (or likely future) powers and procedures in relation to these issues should be clearly spelt out, and that government or agency policy or agendas (if they exist) should be laid clearly on the table.

12

57. There may be opportunities to actively build mutual trust and respect. In the Kosterhavets (Sweden) case for example, fishermen attended training courses in basic ecology at the local marine research station. These appear to have worked well, not least in terms of building up personal relationships. This idea might be turned on its head however. “Mutual” training courses might be conceived on which training of fishermen by scientists is balanced by training of scientists (and planners) by fishermen - drawing on both their knowledge of marine ecology as well as the practice of fishing. It is hard to see that this could do anything other than increase knowledge and build trust.

58. In some cases, the need for more active “outreach” was emphasised - to ensure the

participation of the busy private sector, the cynics, youth, women etc. A range of techniques is available to do this which did not appear to have been used in any of the cases we examined.

59. Most professionals we talked to also emphasised the need for on-going consultation, to

allow for continued ownership and adaptation of management mechanisms to changing circumstances and opportunities as required. A strong face-to-face presence on the ground is crucial for maintaining ownership and easing communications.

60. However good the participatory process, national parks may still fail to get off the

ground. Several factors need to come together to ensure success of a national park - and in particular a convergence of national and local interests. Several parks were rejected initially by local interests but were later accepted. In part this relates to shifting perceptions of national parks and their management, and in part to the changing nature of rural and coastal economies - and in particular the decline in fishing and farming and the increase in recreation.

61. Conflict was common to many of the cases studies, and is widely associated with any

form of environmental designation. Despite this none of the cases we explored had a clear conflict avoidance or conflict management strategy, nor had conflict situations been generally handled using professionally trained staff or referenced professional conflict avoidance tools and techniques.

Lessons learned A constructive development and designation process - built around effective

communications, discussions, meetings and workshops - needs strong guidance and leadership without disempowerment.

Participation - and especially public meetings - can go badly wrong. A participatory

process requires thorough preparatory research on the understanding and perspective of the various stakeholders, and ideally neutral but well informed professional management and facilitation.

Gaining agreement on broad objectives (usually within a national framework) is

important in building mutual trust and respect, but does not necessarily avoid conflict. At a practical level there will always be differing interpretations of individual objectives, and different stakeholders will apply different weightings to different objectives. As noted elsewhere, developing a management plan (prior to final designation) will help clarify these issues of interpretation, and prioritisation of values.

The decision making process needs to be clear. Can “participants” influence

decisions? If not, they cannot be expected to participate positively.

13

Participation should be pro-active, engaging a representative sample of

stakeholders and population.

Sufficient accessible information must be on the table up front to allay fears, but should not be so prescriptive as to be seen as top down.

There are major sensitivities when designating any form of national park. It takes a

good deal of time to engage with all stakeholders, thrash out issues and misunderstandings, explore ideas and generate solutions. On the other hand it is important to maintain momentum.

Choose a time or a place where local and national interests are likely to coincide.

However well presented and managed the proposals for national park designation may be, there is likely to be conflict and controversy.

Proposals for designation are likely to generate conflict. A conflict avoidance and

management strategy should be developed at the outset and used to guide communication, participation and consultation.

2.9 Planning and management mechanisms 62. The management plan was the key management tool in virtually all cases. The charte

used in French regional parks is perhaps slightly different in so far as it is less technical and more of a set of agreed principles by which the various parties agree to abide. This allows greater freedom to develop appropriate mechanisms to deliver the objectives in accordance with the principles.

63. Zoning is common but not universal, typically representing a range of levels of

protection from virtual exclusion in highly protected core zones, through intermediate zones with regulated access to open access areas within which coastal and marine recreation and education is actively encouraged. These approaches are perhaps used in their most highly developed form in Australia, America and Canada. In Europe a more practical and pragmatic approach has tended to be used, with specific areas marked for specific purposes or forms of regulation. Again this is related to the greater need to take account of existing uses in these parks.

64. A range of more specific mechanisms may be used including by-laws, codes of

practice, sometimes enforceable (for example the whale watching regulations in Saguenay-St. Lawrence).

Lessons learned New regulation should be minimal and represent a response appropriate to the

degree of threat. Voluntary measures can work well and promote trust. Management plans must be adaptable and informed by all stakeholders.

Most cases were meant to develop new plans every 5 to 10 years, but there were

clear difficulties in updating every 5 years where the process was participatory. A 7-8 year planning cycle is probably the most appropriate.

14

2.10 Specific actions and initiatives 65. Education is high on the agenda of most parks - both publicly funded through ranger

services and interpretation centres - or privately promoted through courses and educational holidays. Several parks were established close to marine biological laboratories or other marine research centres and this allows for both high quality science input to the management process, and opportunities for high quality education. Some parks have established, or propose to establish some form of “Marine College” or “Nature College” to promote more broadly based educational opportunities. Private education initiatives also appear to thrive in national parks: eco-tours, holiday “courses”, “eco-musees” and so on.

66. Regulation ranges from the relatively light touch of the regional parks in France to

highly restricted activity in core zones of American, Canadian and Australian parks. Voluntary regulation and codes of practice are also encouraged and can work well - as evidenced by self imposed restrictions on trawling in the Koster-Fjiord Natura 2000 site. Intermediate are the enforceable codes of practice on whale watching in the Saguenay-St. Lawrence.

67. Appropriate and sustainable business development and promotion is increasingly

included in park objectives, but our cases revealed few significant initiatives in terms of advice or funding.

68. Similarly branding cropped up as an important idea in many of the cases, but as yet

there are relatively few practical examples. In the Wadden Sea (Germany) case “National Park Partner” became an important quality brand particularly for the tourism sector and an effective way of putting out park messages (compulsory training and independent certification). Fishermen and seafood processors are also becoming increasingly interested because of their poor reputation, as exemplified in the Kosterhavets (Sweden) case.

69. Awards can be important. Thus in Sweden local fishermen were given an

environmental award by the local municipality for their work in helping to bring about agreement on how to protect soft and hard corals from trawling.

70. Several of the Canadian parks emphasised the value of an iconic species to underpin

promotion, education, awareness and branding initiatives.

Lessons learned The private sector can be highly effective in exploiting the opportunities associated

with national parks, including local product development, accommodation, recreation, education and interpretation.

An iconic symbol - such as an attractive animal or plant - can serve as a tool for

raising awareness of conservation needs, as a focus for education and research, and as a brand or symbol of a quality environment and quality natural resource management.

2.11 Benefits and drawbacks 71. Benefits associated with national park designation appear to be significant. In Sweden

for example a survey of local government showed almost universal support and belief that designation was associated with benefit - in terms of strong tourism and recreation

15

and associated economic development, while at the same time conserving the qualities of the area. In other words they considered that they had achieved their objectives. Our cases also generally revealed positive attitudes and evidence of significant economic activity associated with educational and recreational opportunities. Benefits are likely to be greatest for those rural communities and economies in decline because of the decline in employment and opportunity in agriculture and fisheries. A recent review of Unesco designations (world heritage sites, biosphere reserves, geoparks) also revealed generally positive impact3.

72. In some cases restrictions on activities such as fishing may increase (though this was

by no means universal). As yet there is no research (in respect of our cases) showing clearly that this had had either a positive or negative impact on the fishing economy. Generally, where significant economic activity or benefit appeared to be threatened, accommodation has been achieved.

73. Increased tourism necessarily generates pressures on the environment, on local

communities and infrastructure, and a strategic response is required to mitigate these.

Lessons learned CMNP can generate significant benefits and may be highly regarded by local

authorities. This applies in particular to the “light touch” parks which enhance image and promote tourism and associated activities.

Nature conservation benefits are more difficult to define, but designation ensures

that if habitat is lost or degraded, questions will be asked, and some form of response is much more likely than outwith park boundaries.

There may be some costs to some stakeholders or sectors. Attention must be paid

to ensuring that alternatives are developed.

3 Hambrey Consulting 2007. Social, economic and environmental impact of Unesco designations.

Report for Scottish Natural Heritage.

16

3 REVIEW OF THE CASE STUDIES

3.1 Initiation and process 74. Table 1 summarises some key events in the initiation and designation procedures of a

selection of the case studies. Some general points can be drawn from an examination of process and these are discussed below. More detail on specific issues is presented in the rest of this section.

Time 75. The most striking feature of the majority of case studies is the time between initiation of

the idea - relating to a particular location - and the setting up of a national park. This amounted to between 5 and 30 years - and typically around 10. The long lead in time relates partly to the complexity of national park legislation and planning, and partly to the controversial nature of most designations, with subsequent difficulties in reaching agreement on boundaries, zones (where applicable) and management. Several examples came close to failure and were subsequently resurrected “when the time was right”. It is notable that the rather rapid process in Denmark has been fraught with difficulty. However, some other cases noted a loss of momentum when things do not move fast enough - or rather when things stopped happening because of, for example, delays related to national legislation. Take time, but maintain momentum.

Timing and context 76. Timing is also critical. Stakeholder perceptions of environment related initiatives are

changing, and attitudes to national parks will be strongly influenced by other events. Laesoe fishermen had a relatively good experience relating to Natura 2000 management and this has helped take the project forward, despite an earlier failure. Farmers in Denmark on the other hand had bad experiences with Natura 2000 and this created major problems.

Coalitions and conflict 77. Designation has often been driven by a coalition of interests - sometimes surprising

allies. This applies even in countries such as Canada where site selection is in theory based on representation of the best examples of “natural regions”, landscapes or ecosystems.

78. The coalition may be surprising, and a full understanding of the interests of the various

stakeholders and the history of their relationships is a pre-condition for effective engagement with stakeholders. For example the cases reveal that fishermen can be either strongly negative or highly supportive of marine park initiatives. Their relationship with environmental NGOs is on the other hand likely to be more consistently negative, and this was the cause of the probable failure of the Laesoe national park initiative.

79. In Europe the role of local government in terms of direct support or more neutral

facilitation has been important - in particular in breaking down the mistrust of national initiatives and designations of any kind.

Managing conflict 80. Despite the supportive coalitions, it is clear that national park designation is

controversial and can go badly wrong. Participation is essential for success, but

17

participation does not guarantee success - indeed, if badly managed it can inflame conflict. What is needed is the right kind of participation at the right time and based on the right information. It is surprising therefore that rather few of the initiatives used professional communications and facilitation services, and none apparently developed a clear conflict avoidance and management strategy. Where professional facilitators and communicators were used (e.g. Danish Wadden Sea and Kosterhavets) their role was appreciated, though the need for knowledge of local conditions and relationships, as well as technical understanding of natural resource management and use issues was emphasised.

Outreach 81. Participation in public meetings is typically limited and often unrepresentative, and

several cases emphasise the need for more pro-active approaches to engage people in developing ideas for a park and expressing opinions. Despite this there were few examples.

Self selection 82. Site selection is discussed in more detail below, but one dimension is worth addressing

here. In most cases one or more potential sites are identified by national authorities at the outset of the process. In the case of Denmark however, although a preliminary list of areas was developed by two national authorities for pilot project involvement, one of these dropped out because of lack of support from local government, and another (Laesoe) opted in - on the initiative of the local government. This mirrors a current process for the selection of fisheries co-management initiatives in Sweden, where proposals from local government and stakeholders are assessed by government authorities. While such procedures seem likely to greatly increase local ownership, responsibility and involvement, it does not necessarily lead to success, as the Laesoe example demonstrates. Whoever initiates, at some point there is likely to be a clash between local user interests and national interests or NGO interests - which must be anticipated and planned for.

83. Nonetheless self-selection for national park status has many attractions, particularly in

countries where mechanisms for representative based nature or landscape conservation are already in place - as in most of Europe.

The role of management planning in designation 84. In two cases, Saguenay-St. Lawrence (Canada) and Kosterhavets (Sweden), the

development of a management plan was a key part of developing proposals for a park, and indeed park designation and approval is dependent upon an agreed management plan. The advantage of such an approach is that everyone knows what they are getting; it reinforces trust and allows for genuine participation. However, there are resource implications associated with such an approach. All the stakeholders also need to remain engaged in this process if it is to be meaningful, and this may be difficult in the absence of a park itself.

Science, knowledge and baselines 85. The cases again illustrate a huge range in terms of the use of scientific and socio-

economic data in developing a national park. The Wadden Sea (Germany) represents the scientific extreme with a dedicated seven year research programme designed to establish the basis for more targeted and effective management under new legislation for an established park. Although clearly of great value, this was criticised by some for taking little account of local and user knowledge and concerns, either in research design or in research implementation. And in the case of the Danish Laesoe pilot,

18

there was criticism of the time and money spent on deriving scientific baselines - rather than on more immediate and local needs.

86. On the other hand the use of detailed bathymetric and ecological survey in the waters

around the Koster Islands allowed for clear and informed negotiation between fishermen and conservationists with respect to strategies for protecting soft and hard corals. Indeed this was deemed to have been a key factor in building trust and relationships.

Feasibility studies 87. A feasibility study is required under the Canadian National Marine Conservation Areas

Programme, but the scope of such studies is largely restricted to an assessment of the area against the national selection criteria.

88. Few of the European cases appear to have been subject to comprehensive feasibility

assessment or cost benefit studies - despite the fact that the issue of “added value” is a frequent question arising in stakeholder discussions. The question is particularly pertinent now that there are so many designations related to environmental quality in the widest sense. An exception was the pilot for the Danish Wadden Sea National Park, in which socio-economic cost/benefit studies played a significant role. These were deemed to have been useful, and allowed in particular for the appraisal of alternative approaches.

Iconic species 89. Several of the professionals we spoke to in Canada emphasised the need for an iconic

species as a focus for awareness raising and as a symbol for an established park. For example, the status of the beluga was a key factor in designating Saguenay-St. Lawrence. This has been less of an issue in Europe where the emphasis in recent designation initiatives has been much more on sustainable use.

Conclusions 90. The approach and process for development and designation of CMNP is hugely varied,

though one particular feature is near universal: it takes a long time, especially if stakeholder participation is to be taken seriously. Professional facilitation may speed up the process and reduce conflict, but must be anchored with sound local and technical knowledge.

91. The proposal development and designation process may be led by local government,

or by a national government department or agency, or a combination of these. It is unclear that any particular model is superior. Adherence to a few well known management principles does however appear to be important:

Clarity of aims and procedures. Genuine participation (rather than just consultation) of key stakeholders in

proposal development and/or management planning. Outreach to stakeholders unable to fully participate for reasons of location,

inadequate representation, lack of time etc. Understanding of stakeholder perspectives, relationships and coalitions, and

appropriate conflict prevention and management. Cost benefit analysis in relation to controversial issues to ensure that genuine

concerns are fully and fairly addressed.

19

Table 1 The designation process: examples of key events in setting up selected coastal and marine national parks

Kosterhavet, Sweden Marine interest identified/highlighted in late 70s. In 1989 a nearby marine science station urgeddesignation but rejected by local communities. NGOs pursued possibility and raised awarenessof marine value. In the late 90s relations between conservation and local fishermen improved asa result of an effective Natura 2000 agreement. In recent years steadily growing interest fromlocal business in sustainable development and sustainable tourism. Swedish EnvironmentalProtection Agency proposes pilot study in 2004. Initially significant mistrust, but clearcommunication and local government support has largely allayed fears and most stakeholderspositive. Likely designation in 2009. SW Archipelago, Finland Technical survey/baseline studies in 70s led to initial proposals. Working group comprisingstakeholders and local politicians established between 1973-75. Then national process for NPdesignation and new legislation (Act and Decree passed 1982). Park established in 1983. Mostconflict has been post designation and mainly related to hunting. Brittany Parc Naturel Marin D’Iroise (PNMI), France 1988 Reserve Biosphere D’Iroise established. MPA for Iroise Sea formally proposed in 1989.1992 Iroise Reserve Nationale Naturelle established. 1995 feasibility study for a marine ParcNational. In 1996 a “mission” or advocacy/project office established. 1999 scientific studyundertaken. 2000 preliminary consultation. 2003 working groups. 2006 legislation amended toallow for creation of Parc National Marin (promoting sustainable use as well as conservation).2007 national MPA agency established. 29th June 2007 PNMI gazetted by Decree. Laesoe Marine National Park, Denmark 2001: Wilhjelm report recommends establishment of national parks. 2002: “9 Points programme”for national parks. 2002/3 Ministry of Environment and Recreation Council contribute 20millionDKK each to support pilots. 2003 Laesoe Commune Council applies and is approved as a pilot(1 of 7) early 2004. Citizen meeting to present pilot and discuss. Representative steering groupestablished; thematic working groups established. Steering committee votes against continuingpilot (boundary issues) but after negotiations commune board and steering group decide tocontinue. 2005 local referendum held - 58% against v. 42% for. Pilot report submitted, butdesignation unlikely. Wadden Sea National Park, Germany 1978 Trilateral Wadden Sea (conservation) Agreement. Park established in 1985 using traditional“top down” national park law, but with relatively limited restriction. 1990: seven year in-depthscientific research and monitoring programme initiated. 1997 two year participatory processinitiated with more than 200 public meetings. Many conflicts of interest - especially fishermen,farmers and NGOs. New national park law passed in 1999. Zoning and somewhat strongerregulation than original park. Wadden Sea National Park, Denmark 1978 Trilateral Wadden Sea Agreement. 1987 designated as Ramsar site. 2002: “9 Pointsprogramme” for national parks. 2002/3 Ministry of Environment and Recreation Councilcontribute 20million DKK each to support pilots. 2003: public meeting and stakeholderconsultation on Wadden Sea National Park concept. Counties apply for pilot project. 2004 seriesof public information meetings. Working groups appointed - 6-9 meetings during pilot. 2005working group findings presented at public forum. Problems with other environmental legislationleads to alienation of farming community. Minister agrees on need for public hearing. October2005 report submitted to minister. 2006 draft law submitted for public and parliamentary review.Law likely to be established June 2007 and 3 of the 7 pilots likely to be taken forward as firstnational parks in Denmark.

20

Table 1 cont.

3.2 Legislative framework and objectives

Legislation development 92. The case studies exemplify a range of legislation related to national parks and Marine

Protected Areas (MPAs), some of it 50 or more years old, and some of it currently under development. The legislation therefore reflects not only variations between countries but also changes in approach over time. In the past, legislation was typically developed in a very top down manner, with consultation limited (and mainly to the elite). More recently legislation has been subject to far greater consultation and participation, and in recent years in Europe, stakeholders have played a significant role in the development of legislation. This is exemplified particularly in the case of Denmark, where pilot projects for marine parks have been used as part of the process for the development of legislation. In Sweden the existing law requires a specific Act for each national park, and again this has allowed for the proposed marine park project (Kosterhavet) to play a significant part in legislative development.

93. Although these approaches have the significant

advantage of allowing for tailor-made legislation for particular areas, and much greater participation in the framing of legislation, they can also lead to uncertainty and confusion about the nature of any proposed park, and the implications for stakeholders.

Biscayne National Park, USA A proposal for an oil refinery in 1962 stimulated opposition from local citizens (resource users,fishers, environmental groups) which raised awareness of special qualities of Biscayne Bay.More than 6 years of battling against oil and other business interests, and taking the debate tonational level, led to establishment of Biscayne Bay National Monument in 1968. Saguenay - St. Lawrence Marine Park, Canada The area was identified under the 1986 National Marine Conservation Areas Programme.Subsequently dead belugas were washed ashore, stimulating significant media coverage. In1988 a coalition of concerned citizens and organisations began a push to clean up and press for amarine park. The International Forum on survival of beluga served as a focus and stimulus fororganisation. This was then built on by agreement between federal and state governments in1990. In 1993 potential boundaries were identified. In 1996 an interim management plan wasdeveloped prior to official designation in 1998. Pacific Rim National Park Reserve, Canada In the 1960s, citizens groups/societies lobbied provincial and federal officials (Sierra Club;Canadian Parks and the Wilderness Society). Also fitted with the need to represent the 29“nature regions”. Establishment was stalled for 30 years, mainly related to private land claims.On-going boundary modifications related to this.

Box 1 - Legislation development in Denmark

The “9 Point” National Nature AreasPlan emphasised ‘….that localcommunities were given theopportunity to participate in theprocess of national parkdevelopment…’ and that ‘…the codeto success was local ownership.’Hence, local participation became asuccess criterion for the currentgovernments’ environment andnature policy and will serve to framethe country’s national park legislation.

21

Legislation change 94. Countries which have had national park legislation for some time are inclined to update

it periodically. In Germany (Wadden Sea) there has been a major research programme and participatory process which will lead to the modification and refinement of the existing law.

95. In France there have been two major forms of national park in the past: Parc Naturel

Regional, and Parc National as well as a range of other conservation designations. While the regional parks (which are to a large degree “voluntary” and locally driven) have been broadly successful and well supported, the “top down” national parks have been controversial, primarily because of the strictly controlled core zones. Neither was deemed appropriate or sufficient for the designation of marine parks, and in the revised legislation of 20064 a new designation “Parc Naturel Marin” was created, the requirements for which build on the previous experience for regional and national parks. The key features of this new legislation are the greater weight afforded socio-economic and sustainable use objectives, the greater emphasis on participation, and the establishment of a national MPA agency to promote and coordinate MPA marine parks and other MPA initiatives, including Natura 2000 sites.

Multiple legislation 96. A common issue arising in the cases is the plethora of legislation which applies to the

rights and management of land, coast and sea. Marine park legislation often finds itself at the centre of an ancient and organic web of coastal and marine laws and traditional rights, and it is difficult to understand or assess its actual or potential powers. Indeed, so complex is the law in Denmark, that the Wadden Sea Pilot abandoned its attempts to summarise the legislation as an aid to more informed public participation. At least 13 laws were found to be relevant to the management of coastal and marine waters, and a national park would have to work within these. Indeed, developing the project highlighted the need for rationalisation.

97. Several countries have the ability to designate marine areas under different forms of

legislation. Canada for example has the Oceans Act, the National Marine Areas Conservation Act and the National Park Act, all of which can be used to designate MPAs of one kind or another. The two Canadian cases are designated under different legislation: the National Parks Act was used for Pacific Rim; and the National Marine Areas Conservation Act was used for Saguenay-St. Lawrence. The latter is much more “user” friendly with sustainable use as a key dimension.

98. In most countries fisheries legislation tends to over-ride national park law - or serve as

the means for the implementation of national park management initiatives. In other words it is typically both more powerful, and arguably more effective at delivering fisheries management. In most countries fisheries legislation is also associated with well established procedures for stakeholder participation in management initiatives and mechanisms. Most countries have therefore opted to work through fisheries legislation, and this has been helped by the increasing emphasis on sustainable fisheries in the Common Fisheries Policy in Europe.

Objectives 99. Objectives tend to define and frame legislation, and guide its implementation. The

cases illustrate a wide range of approaches - from very simple and general objectives,

4 La loi relative aux parcs nationaux, aux parcs naturel marin, et aux parcs nationaux regionaux.

2006.

22

which can be readily adapted to local circumstance - to more rigorous and prescriptive objectives. As noted above, objectives and associated legislation may be developed on the basis of experience from pilot projects, informed by experience with previous legislation, or derived from international obligations or specific technical commitments. Some of the objectives associated with the park legislation of the countries studies are summarised in Table 2.

100. Broadly speaking these objectives fall into four classes:

i) Technical nature conservation: designed to secure protection of representative landscapes and ecosystems/environmental types, and particular species or habitats.

ii) Fire fighting: designed to protect exceptional natural resource values (use values; aesthetic/cultural values; representative values) from identified pressures.

iii) Sustainable use and rural community development. iv) Recreation and education.

101. The American/Canadian cases tend to emphasise the first and fourth, the Australian cases 1, 2 and 4, and the European cases 3 and 4. There has also been a tendency for sustainable use to be given greater weight in more recent legislation, especially in Europe. This reflects both the need to take account of existing social and economic structures, and the existence of alternative designations and mechanisms to protect areas of high ecological value.

102. The range of objectives, and the weight afforded these different classes is critical to

gaining support and generating effective implementation. More highly populated areas, and areas where many people are dependent on the use of local resources, will not respond well to objectives weighted in favour of protection, and will need to be convinced that sustainable use will not only be tolerated but will be actively promoted. This is particularly the case in the marine environment where natural resource use may be closely related to tradition and culture. Wilderness areas on the other hand can be subject to more rigorous protection objectives. In Canada the Pacific Rim Park was designated under the National Parks Act, whose objectives are weighted in favour of technical conservation, and in particular the maintenance of “ecological integrity”5. Saguenay-St. Lawrence on the other hand was designated under the more recent National Marine Conservation Areas legislation which allows for more of a balance between objectives, and specifically for sustainable use. This greater flexibility seems to have been broadly welcomed by park managers.

103. There are significant differences between countries in Europe. In the Danish sector of

the Wadden Sea under the national park pilot, there is greater emphasis on social, economic, community development and cultural heritage objectives than in the German sector (under its new park legislation), despite the fact that both countries operate under the Wadden Sea Tri-partite agreement. The Danish sector pilot also places greater emphasis on access, recreation, local “ownership” and participation in decision making.

104. The French regional parks (Parc Naturel Regional, PNR) are perhaps the best example

of the more “people friendly” parks, and unusually, have been around for a long time.

5 Ecological integrity is defined by Parks Canada as “a condition that is determined to be

characteristic of its natural region and is likely to persist, including abiotic components and the composition and abundance of native species and biological communities, rates of change and supporting processes.” (Canada National Parks Act)

23

Established under a 1967 decree and subsequent 1993 legislation, their purpose is to protect and enhance natural and cultural heritage (patrimoine), and promote social and economic regeneration in rural, mountain and maritime areas. There are now 45 PNRs covering 13% of France, and encompassing 3 million inhabitants. They are implemented through a co-management approach - a charte or detailed agreement is drawn up between the various parties (stakeholders, local government) which sets down the basic principles for management of different areas and sectors, and the mechanisms which may be used. The park and its associated administration have no regulatory powers, but through the charte are able to exert substantial influence on development and management. Many of the lessons from the regional park process have been applied in drawing up the new 2006 national park legislation in France, particularly with respect to the new Parc Naturel Marin. These are intended to ensure participation and benefits. Management will be locally based, although a state oversight will ensure international obligations are met.

105. The proposed objectives for Kosterhavet in Sweden are typical of the modern

“balance” and are very similar to those already established in broad terms in the Scottish legislation. How they work in practice remains to be seen.

Balancing use and protection 106. Since many new or proposed parks have multiple objectives encompassing ecological,

socio-economic and sometimes cultural objectives, the question inevitably arises as to mechanisms by which they can be balanced. Although the ideal of sustainable development suggests that there should be no conflict between socio-economic and ecological objectives, this is often not the case in practice, and especially in the short or medium term. Most legislation offers rather limited guidance in this regard, though where it does, it tends to favour ecological objectives.

107. For example, in the case of the Wadden Sea (Germany), the objectives and

management strategy are set down in a specific law for the park - relating primarily to habitat and ecology. And although “unreasonable impairment” upon the interests and practices of local population is to be avoided, “….nonetheless all issues of use and exploitation have to be impartially considered in the light of the overall protection aims of the national park (and the trilateral agreement for the Wadden Sea)”. This is considered to be acceptable because “the conservation of nature by the national park should lead to an improvement of the living and working conditions of the population within the region through positive impact on tourism and reputation”. In practice this approach may require some trade-offs between current socio-economic benefits and potential future ones, or between different groups, and there may be some short-term losers.

108. The Laesoe (Denmark) pilot is particularly interesting in this regard. The local steering

group developed its own term to emphasise the need to define nature conservation in such a way as to ensure that it does not unreasonably restrict natural resource use. They coined the term “dynamic conservation” which implies a much less preservationist approach, and one which allows for adaptive management (e.g. of fisheries) in response to the changing state of the resource.

24

109. The wording of the legislation is not the only factor here. There are variations in

interpretation and application - and revisions are possible. In Norway for example, “sustainable use” is not a phrase used in the original (and now rather old) legislation, and this omission has limited public support in respect of Ytres Hvaler proposed Marine Park. Yet across the border in Sweden, the proposed objectives for Kosterhavet Marine Park include sustainable use - and indeed specifically balance conservation “in line with sustainable use of marine resources” - despite the fact that such phrases cannot be found in the enabling legislation. Although the overall objective for Kosterhavet follows the existing law, four amendments were proposed by local and regional institutions through a participatory process, which include sustainable use of the park as described above. These were approved by the statutory body (Swedish Environmental Protection Agency) earlier this year. The amendments will be part of the final decision taken by the Swedish parliament and government during 2009.

110. In practice in most cases the balance between use and preservation is achieved

through zoning, with specific areas subject to more limited or specific objectives. This may be specifically developed as part of the park plan, or may be related to existing more specific designations (such as Natura 2000 sites, nature reserves etc.).

Cultural objectives 111. The inclusion of cultural conservation objectives is important for gaining wider support.

The Breton Regional Park for example has received substantial public support, in large measure because it appeals to the pride of the Breton people, and allows them to exploit this in cultural events and interpretation centres and “ecomusee”. In Kosterhavet (Sweden) and SW Archipelago (Finland), the initiatives to restore the landscape and traditional meadow management have directly supported local jobs and contributed to goodwill.

Box 2 - Laesoe Island: A Vision for 2055The Danish Island of Laesoe developed their own objectives or outcomes - A vision for 2055. This verymuch reflects local needs in balance with nature - or “dynamic conservation”. The following is an abbreviatedversion. For the full version see the Laesoe case study. • Laesoes’ nature is preserved and strengthened in its diversity at sea and land. The many unique

habitats and biotopes are conserved through dynamic nature management principles. • Conservation of the marine biological diversity represents Laesoe’s trademark and forms the basis for

continued information transfer to the local community and tourists concerning the dynamic relationshipsbetween land and sea, as well as the island’s cultural heritage.

• A park steering committee, predominately represented by the local communities, is responsible for thepark management.

• Demography - after a long period of a declining population there is an increase to the 2000 populationlevel.

• Agriculture - has adapted to the new possibilities the marine park has given - quality rather than quantity.• Commercial fishing - has achieved an improved catch potential through a self-management contract

negotiated between the fishing association, local authorities and national park. The spin-off from thenational park to the fisheries is the marine parks ability to improve spawning and nursery groundsresulting in a better stock potential. In addition the fishermen on Laesoe have obtained a specialpermission to land all by-catch - no eatable fish are thrown overboard. The demand for fresh andprocessed marine products has increased due to the increase in tourists visiting the park.

• Recreational fishing thrives due to the introduction of a semi-commercial fishing license (as a secondaryincome opportunity) which allows recreational fishermen to sell part of their catch.

• Laesoe University - high profile research is being conducted in all disciplines related to the national parki.e. environment, biology, renewable energy, knowledge transfer, health and fitness, and the dynamicsbetween people and nature.

• Sustainable tourism - tourism has increased, but not explosively. The main increase in tourism is ‘out-of-season’ since a marine national park offers year round attractions.

25

Recreation and education 112. Whatever the balance between sustainable use and conservation, all parks place

strong emphasis on providing opportunities for outdoor recreation and education. This is indeed the “national” objective and is fundamental to the idea of a national park. A typical example is the relevant objective of the Biscayne National Park in Florida: “to preserve and protect for the education, inspiration, recreation, and enjoyment of present and future generations a rare combination of terrestrial, marine, and amphibious life in a tropical setting of great natural beauty.”

Definition and delegation of administrative arrangements 113. The US National Parks Service Act defines in some detail the National Parks Service,

and this has developed over many years into an established branch of government with a clear hierarchical structure. At the other extreme, the recent process for developing national parks in Denmark is being built upon a series of pilots, with specific proposals for administrative arrangements being developed for each, though national government has also had a say in this. The legislation will then be developed based upon experience from and proposals by the pilots. In Sweden the existing enabling legislation allows for some flexibility in administrative structure, which again is being developed through a locally based participatory process.

114. The level at which park legislation is developed also varies. In Germany the provincial

government (e.g. Schleswig Holstein) is responsible for park legislation. In Sweden the “county level” administration is taking forward the park development process. This delegation/decentralisation seems to work well and is likely to generate a greater sense of ownership and “buy-in” to the park ideals and process. In France, national legislation caters for a range of park types, including regional parks, which are largely autonomous.

115. In Canada there exists a rather unique agreement (1990) between the federal

government and the province of Quebec to work together in the creation of a marine conservation area in the Saguenay-St. Lawrence region. This has resulted in on-going collaboration on legislation and implementation. More specifically it resulted in two parallel complementary acts detailing administrative and managerial authority as allocated between Parks Canada and Parks Quebec. The Pacific Rim case represents a national park reserve - a specific form of national park where they may be outstanding rights or interests of First Nation Peoples. Pending any treaty or negotiation it will be subject to general national park objectives and regulations. In the case of Saguenay-St. Lawrence discussions and agreements with First Nation interests may take precedence over the National Marine Conservation Area legislation.

Planning and management powers 116. Powers afforded to park administrations vary from complete control and management,

reinforced by land ownership in several countries (especially Canada), to a variety of less “top down” functions including integration/facilitation, monitoring, promotion and interpretation.

117. The French experience suggests that the less powerful “regional parks” are both

popular and effective, although impact on nature conservation values has not been rigorously monitored and is unclear. Experience in the SW Archipelago (Finland) also suggests that the relatively soft touch “biosphere reserve” with its emphasis on community development in line with nature conservation may be as effective as the more powerful and conservation focused national park.

26

118. However, where there are many competing local and national interests and rights, a plethora of legislation, and a range of competing agencies and sectoral organisations, there is an argument for greater powers to ensure integration, rather than yet another organisation with limited or ambiguous powers. The Danish Wadden Sea pilot steering committee suggested that management of their park be given special legal status to give flexibility and integrative power - for example allowing them to meet strategic targets, or determine an appropriate number of dispensations for consent under other forms of environmental legislation.

119. The relative merits of these various approaches remain unclear - we did not have an

operational case which clearly illustrated a relatively powerful yet locally devolved administration with multiple objectives - which might be termed an “integrated coastal zone management authority”, though the German Wadden Sea National Park and the new French Parc Naturel Marin d’Iroise have some of these characteristics. Nor did any of the case studies have integration and rationalisation as a specific objective, although the farming sector in Western Jutland sees an opportunity for more local control and less bureaucracy under a locally managed national park.

Conclusions 120. The cases reveal a huge diversity in legislative arrangements reflecting the variety of

existing legislation in different countries and the timing of the development of legislation. Much of the older legislation is rather top-down allowing for only limited local and stakeholder input. Most of the more recent legislation is more flexible, promoting more bottom up approaches and allowing for significant local government and stakeholder input.

121. Some countries have a single national law relating to all the parks in the country;

others have broad framing legislation, but require further acts in respect of particular parks. This latter approach allows for more “tailor-made” approaches, but increases the costs and administrative burden of designation.

Tabl

e 2

Exam

ples

of c

oast

al/m

arin

e na

tiona

l par

k ob

ject

ives

- as

set

dow

n in

legi

slat

ion,

or a

s de

velo

ped

for p

artic

ular

par

ks u

nder

“u

mbr

ella

” ai

ms

set d

own

in n

atio

nal l

egis

latio

n N

ote

that

for s

ever

al p

arks

whe

re th

e or

igin

al o

bjec

tives

wer

e ve

ry lo

ng a

“pré

cis”

of t

he a

ctua

l wor

ding

has

bee

n us

ed

Cou

ntry

/Cas

e O

bjec

tives

P

arc

Nat

urel

Reg

iona

l d’

Am

oriq

ue, F

ranc

e

Con

tribu

te to

the

econ

omic

and

soc

ial d

evel

opm

ent o

f the

sub

-regi

on;

U

nder

stan

d, p

rote

ct, e

nhan

ce a

nd e

ncou

rage

an

appr

ecia

tion

of th

e na

tura

l env

ironm

ent;

U

nder

stan

d, p

rote

ct, e

nhan

ce a

nd e

ncou

rage

an

appr

ecia

tion

of th

e cu

ltura

l her

itage

;

Enc

oura

ge fu

rther

sup

port

for t

he p

ark

and

its g

oals

bot

h lo

cally

and

furth

er a

field

. P

arc

Nat

urel

Mar

in d

’Iroi

se,

Fran

ce

P

rom

otio

n of

kno

wle

dge

and

unde

rsta

ndin

g of

the

mar

ine

envi

ronm

ent;

P

rote

ctio

n of

des

igna

ted

mar

ine

site

s of

impo

rtanc

e;

S

usta

inab

le d

evel

opm

ent o

f eco

nom

ic a

ctiv

ities

dep

ende

nt o

n th

e se

a.

Kos

terh

avet

s M

arin

e N

atio

nal P

ark,

Sw

eden

(p

ropo

sed)

C

onse

rvat

ion

in li

ne w

ith s

usta

inab

le u

se;

P

rote

ctio

n of

nat

ural

, cul

tura

l and

rura

l her

itage

;

Pro

mot

e un

ders

tand

ing

and

know

ledg

e;

P

rom

ote

rese

arch

and

dev

elop

men

t rel

ated

to s

usta

inab

le u

se o

f mar

ine

and

terre

stria

l eco

syst

ems.

W

adde

n S

ea N

atio

nal P

ark,

G

erm

any

P

rote

ctio

n of

the

Wad

den

Sea

for f

utur

e ge

nera

tions

;

Und

istu

rbed

dev

elop

men

t - le

ave

natu

re to

itse

lf;

R

ecre

atio

n an

d na

ture

exp

erie

nce.

W

adde

n S

ea, D

enm

ark

(pro

pose

d)

C

ontri

bute

sus

tain

able

dev

elop

men

t of t

he W

adde

n S

ea re

gion

;

Dev

elop

in li

ne w

ith o

bjec

tives

set

forth

for t

he N

atur

a 20

00 a

reas

and

the

Trila

tera

l Wad

den

Sea

Pla

n;

G

ive

the

natu

re ‘f

ree

reig

n’ to

dev

elop

;

Con

serv

e an

d pr

omot

e cu

ltura

l her

itage

;

The

park

mus

t be

secu

red

by lo

cal o

wne

rshi

p an

d pa

rtici

patio

n in

the

deci

sion

-pro

cess

es o

f its

man

agem

ent.

Laes

o M

arin

e N

atio

nal

Par

k, D

enm

ark

(pro

pose

d)

Goa

ls (a

long

list

) arr

ange

d un

der:

Con

serv

atio

n; U

tilis

atio

n; &

Com

mun

icat

ion/

parti

cipa

tion.

Dev

elop

men

t obj

ectiv

es:

So

cio-

econ

omic

dev

elop

men

t;

Com

mun

ity d

evel

opm

ent;

C

ultu

ral h

erita

ge;

E

xper

ienc

e an

d un

ders

tand

ing;

Nat

ura

2000

com

mitm

ents

,

Trila

tera

l agr

eem

ent p

rinci

ples

;

Und

istu

rbed

nat

ure

(esp

. int

erna

tiona

lly re

cogn

ised

val

ues)

;

Loca

l ow

ners

hip

and

parti

cipa

tion

in d

ecis

ion

mak

ing.

27

Tabl

e 2

cont

.

Cou

ntry

/Cas

e O

bjec

tives

A

rchi

pela

go N

atio

nal P

ark,

Fi

nlan

d

To p

rote

ct th

e na

ture

and

the

cultu

re o

f the

Arc

hipe

lago

Sea

;

To s

afeg

uard

the

tradi

tiona

l way

s of

util

isin

g th

e na

ture

;

To p

rese

rve

a liv

ing

com

mun

ity in

the

arch

ipel

ago;

To p

rom

ote

envi

ronm

enta

l res

earc

h an

d ge

nera

l int

eres

t in

natu

re.

(Whe

n fir

st e

stab

lishe

d su

stai

nabl

e de

velo

pmen

t had

a le

sser

pro

file.

The

abo

ve w

as d

efin

ed in

the

1993

Act

) P

acifi

c R

im N

atio

nal P

ark

Res

erve

, Can

ada

N

atio

nal p

ark

legi

slat

ion:

“To

prot

ect a

nd p

rese

nt n

atio

nally

sig

nific

ant e

xam

ples

of C

anad

a’s

natu

ral a

nd c

ultu

ral h

erita

ge,

and

fost

er p

ublic

und

erst

andi

ng,

appr

ecia

tion

and

enjo

ymen

t in

way

s th

at e

nsur

e th

eir

ecol

ogic

al a

nd c

omm

emor

ativ

e in

tegr

ity fo

r pre

sent

and

futu

re g

ener

atio

ns.”

(Eco

logi

cal i

nteg

rity

is d

efin

ed a

s “a

con

ditio

n th

at is

det

erm

ined

to b

e ch

arac

teris

tic o

f its

nat

ural

regi

on a

nd is

like

ly to

per

sist

, in

clud

ing

abio

tic c

ompo

nent

s an

d th

e co

mpo

sitio

n an

d ab

unda

nce

of n

ativ

e sp

ecie

s an

d bi

olog

ical

com

mun

ities

, ra

tes

of

chan

ge a

nd s

uppo

rting

pro

cess

es.”)

B

isca

yne

Nat

iona

l Par

k,

US

A

P

urpo

se o

f Nat

iona

l Par

ks S

ervi

ce is

to …

“co

nser

ve th

e sc

ener

y an

d th

e na

tura

l and

his

toric

obj

ects

, and

the

wild

life

th

erei

n an

d to

pro

vide

for

the

enjo

ymen

t of t

he s

ame

in s

uch

man

ner

and

by s

uch

mea

ns a

s w

ill le

ave

them

uni

mpa

ired

for t

he e

njoy

men

t of f

utur

e ge

nera

tions

.”

Man

agem

ent o

f mar

ine

sanc

tuar

ies

for t

heir

spec

ial c

onse

rvat

ion,

recr

eatio

nal,

ecol

ogic

al, h

isto

rical

rese

arch

, edu

catio

nal

and

aest

hetic

reso

urce

s.

Sag

uena

y-S

t Law

renc

e M

arin

e P

ark,

Can

ada

N

atio

nal M

arin

e C

onse

rvat

ion

Are

a le

gisl

atio

n: “

To p

rote

ct a

nd c

onse

rve

for

all t

ime

natio

nal m

arin

e ar

eas

of C

anad

ian

sign

ifica

nce

that

are

rep

rese

ntat

ive

of t

he c

ount

ry's

oce

an e

nviro

nmen

ts,

and

to e

ncou

rage

pub

lic u

nder

stan

ding

, ap

prec

iatio

n an

d en

joym

ent o

f thi

s m

arin

e he

ritag

e so

as

to le

ave

it un

impa

ired

for f

utur

e ge

nera

tions

.” M

PA

s - A

ustra

lia

• E

nsur

ing

that

all

activ

ities

are

eco

logi

cally

sus

tain

able

and

und

erta

ken

in a

ccor

danc

e w

ith b

est e

nviro

nmen

tal p

ract

ices

; •

Ens

urin

g th

at n

atur

al v

alue

s of

site

s ar

e no

t ina

dver

tent

ly lo

st th

roug

h un

plan

ned

incr

ease

s in

use

; •

Ens

urin

g th

at c

ultu

ral a

nd h

isto

ric h

erita

ge v

alue

s ar

e pr

otec

ted;

•

Sep

arat

ing

conf

lictin

g us

es;

• M

anag

ing

inte

nsiv

e us

e to

ens

ure

it do

es n

ot d

eval

ue v

isito

r exp

erie

nce

at p

opul

ar d

estin

atio

ns o

r dis

plac

e ot

her u

sers

; •

Man

agin

g th

e sp

atia

l dis

tribu

tion

of a

ctiv

ities

; •

Man

agin

g th

e im

pact

of c

omm

erci

al fi

shin

g, c

olle

ctin

g an

d m

aric

ultu

re o

n ot

her u

sers

and

con

serv

atio

n va

lues

; •

Man

agin

g th

e im

pact

of t

ouris

m o

n ot

her u

sers

; and

•

Ens

urin

g th

at th

ere

is a

man

agem

ent f

ram

ewor

k fo

r de

cisi

on m

akin

g to

avo

id th

e ov

eral

l cum

ulat

ive

impa

ct o

f cas

e by

ca

se a

sses

smen

t, pa

rticu

larly

in h

igh

grow

th/u

se a

reas

.

28

29

3.3 The selection of an area for a coastal and marine national park 122. Site selection and boundary setting for CMNP depends on many factors including:

Objectives Natural geographic and landscape characteristics Stakeholder and resource user groups Existing administrative boundaries Practical considerations - existing natural resource use or economic boundaries The need or otherwise to purchase land (required for some designations)

Selection criteria 123. Some examples of the official criteria used in the cases are presented in Table 3. In

many of the cases we examined, the areas chosen for possible designation as a CMNP were identified and chosen on the basis of their outstanding ecological or landscape features, and the nature of these features largely determined the size of the area. This applied in particular to the American, Canadian and Australian cases, where the purposes of the parks were clearly centred on ecological interest. In Canada for example, the parks are chosen as representing each of 29 identified “unique nature regions”. The goal is to have at least one park representing the best examples of each type.

124. However, there are some important exceptions. Reflecting rather different objectives,

several of the more recent or proposed European parks were selected more on the basis of potential for tourism, recreation and sustainable use - albeit based on a high quality natural environment.

125. New Australian MPAs are mainly selected because of economic threats to commercial

values - fisheries, tourism, diving - rather than bio-regional representativeness. The collapse of many fisheries has been a particular stimulus, as has conflict beween different user groups. Nonetheless Australia also seeks to meet its obligations under the 1992 Biodiversity Convention - “habitats and bioregions to be protected in a comprehensive, adequate and representative process”.

Self-selection and lobbying 126. However tight the selection criteria, there is always likely to be an element of self-

selection. As the introductory section discusses, local stakeholders or interest groups have often played a significant role by lobbying for designation.

127. Marine science laboratories and NGOs have often played a significant role - identifying

and raising awareness of particular marine conservation interest. The marine research laboratories in Brittany and Tjarno in Sweden both played a role in promoting national park and other marine designations. In Canada also - despite apparently rigorous selection criteria based in large part on ecosystem/landscape representation - NGOs and other interest groups have played a significant role in promoting a site for designation.

128. This “self-selection” can be formalised. In the case of Denmark, a short list of areas

was agreed by the Ministry of Environment and the recreational agency and municipalities or “County Councils” were asked to “bid”, or make a proposal to the national government for designation. Laesoe was not included in the original short list, but the local municipality unilaterally requested inclusion. It is notable also that in Italy

30

(although we lack a case study), the general public may propose an area for designation.

129. In Sweden this “bidding” approach has been extended to an MPA initiative, which runs

in parallel with the national parks initiatives, though in the case of the Koster Islands, the two processes are being coordinated. In this latter case the location and size of the proposed MPAs were initially proposed by local fishermens’ organisations, and in taking this forward, the perspective of fisheries and nature conservation scientists is now being introduced to the process.

130. The Canadians emphasised the importance of an “iconic species” in building support

for a designation and in promoting it subsequently. The beluga population in Saguenay-St. Lawrence was a key factor in site selection and in promoting and securing designation.

Boundary delimitation 131. Boundaries for some of the earlier parks and those in America/Canada were defined

largely on technical basis, sometimes following detailed survey. Such a systematic approach however is almost always tempered by practical and political realities.

132. For the SW Archipelago National Park in Finland for example, a baseline study led to

technically based boundary proposals. A stakeholder working group then worked with these proposals. Some areas of conservation importance were left out because of strong local opposition, although they have subsequently been included in the Natura 2000 series. Land purchase options also determined feasible boundaries (national parks lands in Finland must be owned by the state). A national park committee ultimately had the last say - without the use of hard and fast criteria.

133. The proposed boundary for Kosterhavet National Park follows the existing “trawl” line,

inside which trawling is not allowed. Given that there may be negotiations on fisheries management within the park area, it makes sense to take account of existing boundaries and restrictions.

134. In France the boundaries for the Parc Naturelle Marin d’Iroise were also defined

pragmatically. The local fishermen were keen to see a large area designated so that they could use the designation to enhance their image and develop marketing opportunities. Ecologists were also keen to allow for a holistic ecosystem based approach. The 12 nm limit was therefore chosen. Equally, northern and southern boundaries were set as straight lines for ease of demarcation, corresponding also to local area based fisheries management regimes.

135. In the Laesoe case, the definition of boundaries became highly contentious and may

well have sabotaged the initiative. Two approaches were proposed - the use of the 10 m depth contour (supported by most local interests and especially the fishermen) and a boundary encompassing several Natura 2000 sites and other existing designations (supported by the NGOs).

136. Rather few cases have boundary definition related to local administrative boundaries,

although in the case of French regional parks, boundaries correspond to those of the relevant communes and new communes can “opt in” thus extending the boundaries.

Tabl

e 3

Exam

ples

of c

riter

ia u

sed

for t

he s

elec

tion

of a

n ar

ea a

nd d

efin

ition

of b

ound

arie

s fo

r coa

stal

/mar

ine

natio

nal p

ark

stat

us

Cou

ntry

/Cas

e Se

lect

ion

crite

ria a

nd b

ound

ary

issu

es

Size

P

arc

Nat

iona

l Reg

iona

le

d’A

rmor

ique

, Fra

nce

Land

scap

e, c

ultu

ral h

erita

ge, e

cosy

stem

s, w

ater

cou

rses

, fau

na, s

cien

tific

inte

rest

/uni

quen

ess;

gro

win

g pr

essu

re -

tour

ism

, fis

hing

, agr

icul

ture

. 17

2,00

0 ha

Par

c N

atur

elle

Mar

in,

Fran

ce

Mar

ine

biod

iver

sity

: rar

e sp

ecie

s; re

pres

enta

tive

N. A

tlant

ic m

arin

e ec

osys

tem

s; s

eabi

rds

and

mam

mal

s; k

elp

beds

; so

cio-

econ

omic

impo

rtanc

e of

nat

ural

qua

litie

s; g

ood

scie

ntifi

c da

ta.

Icon

ic c

hara

cter

istic

s: w

inds

, sw

ell,

curr

ents

all

stro

ng.

Oue

ssan

t is

the

mos

t wes

terly

poi

nt o

f Fra

nce

with

60

m

cliff

s, 5

ligh

thou

ses

incl

udin

g th

e ta

llest

in E

urop

e. S

eabi

rds

and

mam

mal

s (s

eals

, dol

phin

s, o

tter)

.

321,

000

ha

Kos

terh

avet

s, S

wed

en

(from

the

natio

nal p

ark

legi

slat

ion)

C

onsi

st o

f are

as w

ith re

pres

enta

tive

or u

niqu

e ty

pes

of la

ndsc

ape

in a

sys

tem

cov

erin

g w

hole

cou

ntry

;

Con

sist

of u

ntou

ched

nat

ural

, or n

early

nat

ural

land

scap

e;

C

onta

in la

ndsc

ape

form

atio

ns,

feat

ures

or

natu

ral e

nviro

nmen

ts t

hat

are

mag

nific

ent

or h

ighl

y un

usua

l and

w

hich

hav

e hi

gh s

cien

tific

val

ue;

C

over

a la

rge

area

, nor

mal

ly a

t lea

st 1

,000

hec

tare

s;

C

an b

e us

ed w

ithin

rea

sona

ble

limits

for

outd

oor

recr

eatio

nal p

urpo

ses

and

rese

arch

pro

vide

d na

tura

l val

ues

not t

hrea

tene

d.

45,0

00 h

a

Wad

den

Sea

, Ger

man

y H

igh

plan

t an

d an

imal

div

ersi

ty;

one

of t

he la

rges

t ar

eas

of t

idal

mud

-flat

s in

the

wor

ld;

mou

lting

site

for

ent

ire

Eur

opea

n po

pula

tion

of s

held

uck;

Ger

man

y’s

only

bre

edin

g po

pula

tion

of g

rey

seal

; nu

rser

y ar

ea f

or c

omm

on

porp

oise

.

441,

500

ha

Wad

den

Sea

, Den

mar

k N

urse

ry g

roun

d fo

r fla

tfish

sto

ck;

10 m

illio

n m

igra

ting

wad

ers,

duc

ks a

nd s

eabi

rds;

bre

edin

g gr

ound

for

spo

tted

seal

; Nat

ura

2000

and

Ram

sar s

ite.

900,

000

ha

Laes

oe, D

enm

ark

Sel

f sel

ecte

d.

Gre

at v

arie

ty o

f sea

dep

ths,

sub

stra

te, b

athy

met

ry, r

ock

and

cold

wat

er c

oral

; sev

eral

Nat

ura

2000

si

tes;

blu

e lo

bste

r, sm

all s

hark

s, p

orpo

ise

and

seab

ird c

olon

ies,

stra

tegi

c m

onito

ring

loca

tion

in m

iddl

e of

kat

tega

t; su

stai

nabl

e us

e of

nat

ural

reso

urce

s an

d op

portu

nitie

s fo

r sus

tain

able

tour

ism

. “A

Gre

en Is

land

in a

Blu

e S

ea”.

147,

400

ha o

r 24

1,80

0 ha

SW

Arc

hipe

lago

, Fin

land

R

epre

sent

ativ

e an

d di

vers

e ar

chip

elag

o - e

ndan

gere

d sp

ecie

s, g

eolo

gy, l

ands

cape

, bio

dive

rsity

. O

rigin

al s

elec

tion

larg

ely

polit

ical

. 48

,000

ha

Paci

fic

Rim

, C

anad

a (P

arks

Can

ada

sele

ctio

n cr

iteria

)

P

rote

cts

ecos

yste

ms

and

land

scap

e fe

atur

es re

pres

enta

tive

of th

e na

tura

l reg

ion;

Con

side

rs th

e ex

iste

nce

of s

igni

fican

t cul

tura

l her

itage

feat

ures

or l

ands

cape

s;

A

ccom

mod

ates

hab

itat r

equi

rem

ents

of v

iabl

e po

pula

tions

of w

ildlif

e sp

ecie

s na

tive

to th

e na

tura

l reg

ion;

Incl

udes

an

undi

stur

bed

core

whi

ch is

rela

tivel

y un

affe

cted

by

impa

cts

orig

inat

ing

from

sur

roun

ding

land

scap

e;

C

onsi

ders

com

petin

g la

nd a

nd re

sour

ce u

ses;

Doe

s no

t fra

gmen

t sen

sitiv

e, h

ighl

y di

vers

e or

pro

duct

ive

natu

ral c

omm

uniti

es;

M

aint

ains

dra

inag

e ba

sin

inte

grity

;

Pro

tect

s ex

cept

iona

l nat

ural

phe

nom

ena,

and

vul

nera

ble,

thre

aten

ed o

r end

ange

red

wild

life

and

vege

tatio

n;

O

ffers

opp

ortu

nitie

s fo

r pub

lic u

nder

stan

ding

and

enj

oym

ent;

R

esul

ts in

min

imum

long

-term

dis

rupt

ion

of th

e so

cial

and

eco

nom

ic li

fe p

artic

ular

ly in

the

surr

ound

ing

regi

on;

D

oes

not e

ncom

pass

per

man

ent c

omm

uniti

es; a

nd

C

onsi

ders

pos

sibl

e th

reat

s to

the

long

-term

sus

tain

abili

ty o

f the

are

a's

ecos

yste

ms.

51,0

77 h

a

31

Tabl

e 3

cont

.

Cou

ntry

/Cas

e Se

lect

ion

crite

ria a

nd b

ound

ary

issu

es

Size

B

isca

yne,

USA

Stru

ctur

al a

nd e

colo

gica

l div

ersi

ty;

R

epre

sent

ativ

e of

trop

ical

coa

stal

sys

tem

(rar

e in

the

US

);

Cor

al re

efs;

reef

fish

;

Sea

gras

s; m

angr

ove;

Bird

s; u

nder

pinn

ing

of d

etrit

us b

ased

food

web

s;

N

urse

ry h

abita

ts;

S

peci

fic ra

re/e

ndan

gere

d sp

ecie

s;

A

rcha

eolo

gica

l site

s.

73,4

53 h

a

Sag

uena

y-S

t. La

wre

nce,

C

anad

a (c

riter

ia

used

in

a

feas

ibilit

y st

udy

with

inpu

t fro

m

fede

ral

and

prov

inci

al

depa

rtmen

ts,

stak

ehol

ders

)

W

heth

er th

e po

tent

ial N

MC

A re

pres

ents

regi

onal

eco

logi

cal,

biol

ogic

al a

nd c

ultu

ral f

eatu

res;

If th

ere

is p

oten

tial f

or v

isito

r edu

catio

n an

d en

joym

ent;

Whe

ther

ther

e is

min

imal

con

flict

with

reso

urce

use

rs; a

nd

If

the

area

is u

sefu

l for

eco

logi

cal r

esea

rch

and

mon

itorin

g of

crit

ical

hab

itat a

nd e

ndan

gere

d sp

ecie

s.

Spe

cific

crit

eria

use

d to

just

ify s

elec

tion:

Con

fluen

ce z

one;

Stru

ctur

al, h

ydro

logi

cal d

iver

sity

;

Abu

ndan

ce o

f kril

l and

ass

ocia

ted

mar

ine

mam

mal

s an

d se

abird

s;

H

uman

use

- 14

arc

haeo

logi

cal s

ites.

Maj

or h

isto

ric tr

ansp

ort c

orrid

or re

sour

ce z

one;

Out

door

act

ivity

;

Exi

stin

g pa

rtial

ly s

urro

undi

ng te

rres

trial

Sag

uena

y N

atio

nal P

ark

sinc

e 19

83.

Larg

e si

ze re

late

d to

ope

n m

arin

e ec

osys

tem

s +

need

for a

coo

rdin

atio

n zo

ne b

eyon

d st

ated

par

k bo

unda

ries

113,

800

ha

Gre

at

Bar

rier

Ree

f, A

ustra

lia

(from

‘G

uide

lines

fo

r M

PA

s’)

M

ust i

nclu

de th

e fu

ll ra

nge

of e

cosy

stem

s id

entif

ied

in IM

CR

A b

iore

gion

s (c

ompr

ehen

sive

ness

);

Mus

t ha

ve t

he r

equi

red

leve

l of

res

erva

tion

to e

nsur

e th

e ec

olog

ical

via

bilit

y an

d in

tegr

ity o

f po

pula

tions

, sp

ecie

s an

d co

mm

uniti

es (a

dequ

acy)

;

Sho

uld

reas

onab

ly re

flect

the

biod

iver

sity

of t

he m

arin

e ec

osys

tem

they

com

e fro

m (r

epre

sent

ativ

enes

s);

M

ust i

nclu

de s

ome

high

ly p

rote

cted

are

as (i

.e. n

o-ta

ke a

reas

) in

each

bio

regi

on;

Th

e se

lect

ion

mus

t be

driv

en b

y sc

ient

ific

info

rmat

ion

but t

he a

bsen

ce o

f sci

entif

ic c

erta

inty

sho

uld

not b

e a

reas

on fo

r pos

tpon

ing

thei

r est

ablis

hmen

t (pr

ecau

tiona

ry p

rinci

ple)

;

The

sele

ctio

n m

ust

incl

ude

effe

ctiv

e an

d hi

gh-q

ualit

y pu

blic

con

sulta

tion

with

app

ropr

iate

com

mun

ity a

nd

inte

rest

gro

ups

in o

rder

to a

ddre

ss s

ocio

-eco

nom

ic a

nd s

ocia

l iss

ues;

and

Mus

t hav

e se

cure

sta

tus

(i.e.

sta

tus

that

can

onl

y be

revo

ked

by a

par

liam

enta

ry p

roce

ss).

38,0

00,0

00 h

a

32

33

A trend? 137. Most of the parks now being established in Europe are less driven by the need for

representation of landscape, ecosystem and biodiversity, and more driven by tourism and sustainable use or development considerations. This represents a marked change from earlier national parks both in continental Europe and in Canada and Australia. It reflects both the shift to more inclusive objectives and also the existence of other designations which effectively represent the variety of natural systems, such as Natura 2000 sites and national nature reserves.

138. Whatever the approach, boundary definition will tend to be more contentious than in

the past. Interest groups are better represented and the media is more powerful. It is notable that discussion of boundary changes to UK parks between 1991 and 1993 were so controversial that the process was dropped.

3.4 Administrative arrangements and management planning

Basic organisational and management structures 139. Administrative arrangements range hugely from the hierarchical centralised structure in

the US, Canada and Finland, to more locally devolved or delegated structures as in the French regional parks or in the proposed marine park in Sweden. Almost all however comprise some form of management board or steering committee, supported by stakeholder representative advisory committees, specialist technical committees or working groups, and coordination committees to ensure integration with other bodies with a management role.

140. The classic top down structure is epitomised in the US. The National Parks Service is

part of the Department of the Interior. Each of seven regions has a director, with individual parks run by a superintendent. Regional directors are responsible for strategic issues, PR etc. while superintendants deal with day to day management of individual parks. A national cadre of rangers deal with issues on the ground and provide the focus for education and interpretation. There is a national list of rules applicable to all parks.

141. At the other extreme, although not fully formulated, the proposals for the relatively

small Kosterhavet Marine Park in Sweden envisage a locally based park/interpretive centre manager, an education officer, and a maintenance/operations officer. Park services, such as guides and practical work will be contracted out.

142. In Finland (SW Archipelago National Park) there have been significant changes over

the years. Between 1988 and 1993 the park was managed by a locally based and largely independent unit within Metsähallitus6. This comprised 10-14 full time staff and up to 30 in summer. A local advisory committee ensured input from local stakeholders and local government. In 1994 this advisory committee was replaced by one for the biosphere reserve (the advisory committee of the outer archipelago) and in 2006 the organisation was rationalised and the local management unit disbanded. The park is now run under a centralised Natural Heritage Services Unit covering 25 parks. This unit comprising 14 staff (plus seasonal workers/contractors) deals with nature conservation; recreational services; area management and fishing and hunting.

6 “Metsähallitus is a state enterprise that administers more than 12 million hectares of state-owned

land and water areas. Metsähallitus has the challenging responsibility of managing and using these areas in a way that benefits Finnish society to the greatest extent possible.” (Metsähallitus website)

34

Although this is good for the development of specialist skills, the face to face presence on the ground has been lost, and current management sees this as a significant weakness. However, this has been compensated to some degree through the presence of the complementary biosphere reserve management committee.

143. Saguenay-St. Lawrence is probably unique in having two governing organisations -

Parks Canada, and Parks Quebec established under Federal and Provincial Government respectively. Although this may appear confusing and clumsy, experience appears to be positive with a feeling from park managers that the arrangement ensures an appropriate balance between national/international and more local interests, and also ensures a very large resource of expertise.

144. The French regional parks (Parc Naturel Régionale d’Armorique) are managed by a

“syndicat mixte” or board of 28 elected members drawn primarily from the regional (Brittany) council, Department (Finistere) and the local communes. This board defines policy and approves budget, in accordance with the “charte” or agreed principles on which the park is based (see management planning). Park management is implemented through the park director with a substantial staff of 52 permanent and 47 seasonal workers, including scientists, rangers, foresters, planners, GIS specialists, tourism specialists, socio-economists and boatswains. A scientific committee comprising mainly stakeholder representatives, plans and guides research. The focus of research was previously primarily related to the biosphere reserve but increasingly addresses socio-economic and impact issues. The budget of around 3m Euros is drawn primarily from Brittany Region and Finistere Departement, with a modest contribution also from local communes, a tax levied on new buildings and projects, and entrance fees to three PNRA eco-musees.

145. The newly established Parc Naturel Marin is somewhat different with slightly less local

government and more stakeholder representation in management. A management committee is responsible for developing a management plan, monitoring, and integrated management. This comprises representatives from government (minority) communes and local authorities, professional associations, management bodies for protected areas and key experts. The committee can establish thematic commissions or working groups on key development and management issues as required. Park staff will report to and be paid by the new national MPA agency - but appointments are approved by the management committee. Most of the finance will come from national government.

146. The Wadden Sea National Park (Germany) is run by a substantial locally established

administration, with around 100 staff: 40 in monitoring and research; 30 in services and education; 20 in protection and 10 support staff. Two advisory councils guide the administration, comprising mainly political and technical appointees. The park is also supported by the German National Parks Service.

147. Proposals for the Danish Sector of the Wadden Sea included two models supported by

different interests. Both included a park board, an advisory committee, and a local community forum, but the nature and level of representation was somewhat different with greater local representation in one model. The community forum is interesting in so far as this was specifically designed to exclude “interest organisations” - in other words simply to represent the views of the average local citizen and review management plans and other initiatives. For the sake of better integration and streamlining of conservation management, it was also suggested that Natura 2000 site management be delegated to the national park board.

35

148. In the case of Laesoe no concrete proposals were put forward, rather a set of principles:

Management decision making should be delegated to the local level; Management should be guided by the concept of “dynamic conservation”; Management should be based on scientifically valid data; A master plan should be formulated; Park management should encompass Natura 2000; Administration and management should be primarily funded by the state.

Management planning 149. All the cases examined included proposals for, or provision for the development of a

management plan. However, there were significant differences in terms of responsibilities for plan development, timing and frequency, approval and implementation.

150. Perhaps the most important difference relates to timing, and Canada has two relatively

extreme examples. Under the National Parks Act, used to designate the Pacific Rim National Park, the minister is responsible for the preparation of a management plan in accordance with the “ecological integrity statement”, within five years of designation. The ecological integrity statement defines the baseline and principles against which to frame all management and business plans. In effect this ensures the area is maintained as near pristine wilderness, with strict limits to any form of human related disturbance.

151. In the case of Saguenay-St. Lawrence, designated under the Canadian National

Marine Conservation Areas programme, an interim management plan must be prepared prior to the creation of the park. This has the significant advantage of providing a very clear framework for debate, with more opportunity for stakeholder input. Subsequently the Minister of Canadian Heritage is responsible for tabling a park management plan - reviewed by provincial partners - at least every seven years. This in turn ensures collaboration between national and provincial agencies.

152. In France, in the case of regional parks, management is guided by a charte - which

amounts to a co-management mechanism or agreement between local government, key stakeholders and national government, and which is approved through ministerial decree. The charte comprises a broad plan which lays out how 5 missions or general aims will be realised:

Protect the natural and cultural heritage or patrimoine; Contribute to land planning and management (aménagement du territoire); Provide education for and disseminate information to the public and promote

public use of the area; Undertake pilot activities and models in relation to awareness raising and

heritage protection and contribute to research; Contribute to economic, social and cultural development and to improved quality

of life. 153. The charte is developed or renewed through review of the previous charte (where this

exists), questionnaire survey, issues identification (consultation), and working groups of stakeholders addressing key themes such as landscape, culture, sustainable tourism and agriculture. Each charte has a 12 year life.

36

154. Some parks may have several plans relating to different areas. Biscayne (USA) has a general management plan, originally produced in 1983 and only updated in 2001. This includes a general plan, a fisheries management plan (recreational and commercial) and also an interpretive management plan.

155. The Laesoe pilot (Denmark) proposed that any management planning should adhere

to the principle of “dynamic conservation” - a form of adaptive management allowing for sustainable use in line with the current state and potential of the resource. This term was coined to counter the more precautionary and preservationist interpretation of sustainable use put forward by environmental NGOs.

156. Archipelago National Park in Finland has a 46 page management plan developed by

Metsähallitus and confirmed by Ministry of the Environment. This was first confirmed in 1990, and revised in 2000 (zones). The next plan will include planning for the Natura 2000 site.

Zoning

157. Zoning, implicit or explicit, is a common feature of MPAs and national parks. It ranges from highly formalised zones as in the Canadian and Australian examples, to a far less spatially defined strategy or set of management principles for particular categories of land/water and associated sectors in the French regional park model.

158. Zoning may be required under

international agreement. The trilateral (Denmark, Germany, Netherlands) agreement covering the Wadden Sea states that: “zones shall be established covering the most sensitive areas where no recreational activities are allowed”.

159. Many European marine parks are already effectively zoned through existing

designations: Natura 2000 sites, biosphere reserves, and Ramsar sites, although in many cases management structures for these areas are poorly defined. Indeed this ambiguity about the powers associated with Natura 2000 sites was a cause of confusion and mistrust in several cases. On the other hand, in the case of Kosterhavets, the Natura 2000 process had been used to define highly specific (and relatively small) no trawl zones, or areas where particular practices should be observed, and this had contributed to trust in developing the park proposal. In Laesoe, restrictions are already in place for these existing “zones”: no water scooters are allowed in wild bird conservation areas and speed is restricted to less than 8 knots in one of the reserves.

160. Existing fisheries management regimes are also spatially defined in most countries,

and these are taken into account in any zoning, especially as - in most countries - fisheries legislation and management over-rides national park powers. In France in particular there are a wide range of spatial management initiatives.

Box 3 - An example of existing formal zoning: Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine

Park

Preservation zone - No development, v.limited access except for strong education/research reasons. No permanent facilitiesunder normal circumstances.

Natural environment zone - No hunting orfishing. Research, public education and lowintensity recreational activity allowed. Minimaluse of engines or facility development.

Conservation zone - Reasonable useconsistent with maintaining structure andfunction of marine ecosystems. Fishingpermitted but may be subject to tightermanagement (see fishing). Hunting may bepermitted. Permanent facilities allowed.

37

161. Zones can range from highly restrictive - no use; scientific access only - to zones

specifically set aside to promote and support water sports, fisheries, aquaculture, bathing or other activities.

162. Policing of zones is clearly an issue in all but the smallest examples, although

problems were not highlighted in any of the cases we examined. 163. Unofficial or voluntary zoning and seasonal

restriction also occurs. In the German Wadden Sea, there is a voluntary agreement between the park and fishermen to protect moulting shelduck by keeping away from the area during the moulting season.

164. As for boundary demarcation, zoning can be

highly controversial, and uncertainty about zoning contributed to problems in several cases. In the case of the Danish Wadden Sea pilot, the issue of zoning, and in particular the inclusion or otherwise of agricultural land divided the local community. As with many cases the problem was not with zoning per se - but rather the unknown implications in terms of possible future restriction, given one of the goals of the park, which is to secure large areas without human interference. The issue of zoning for this pilot was not resolved prior to the submission of the pilot report.

165. There is mixed experience with the timing of the establishment of zones. As for

management planning, some parks seek to put in place zones as part of the designation process, while others see it as something to be worked on once the park is up and running. In the case of the Laesoe pilot, it was agreed that zoning should not be defined until the park was set up - knowledge was limited and there was caution about premature and irreversible definition of boundaries and associated rules. Fear of the unknown was less significant here because the project proposed a very locally representative management structure and the principle of “dynamic conservation”. In Kosterhavets, zoning will be a specific part of the park proposal, but because the process is sufficiently accommodating of local interests and sustainable use, as well as positive previous experience of limited zoning under Natura 2000, there is little controversy or uncertainty.

166. In the case of the Park Naturel Marin d’Iroise zoning is not specifically required under

the legislation, and will not be discussed until the park is established to avoid fuelling opposition, although there is already reference to three possible zones including a core zone based on the existing biosphere reserve.

167. Some legislation applies specific limits to the extent and power of zoning. Thus the

Finland 1996 Act sets clear limits on the extent to which exclusive zones can be created. This can only be done for the protection of rare/significant animals and plants. Even here the military and scientists may be allowed in.

Box 4 - Some proposals for zoning for the Danish Wadden

Sea pilot

Nature zones - relatively pristine areas with existing protection status/mechanisms. Two sub-zones - undisturbed, and managed recreational.

Culture zones - agricultural land and scattered housing. Conserve cultural landscape while securing active farming sector.

Urban and industrial zones - Strengthen cultural environment and ensure recreation and private sector development.

In practice agriculture and fisheries interests were opposed to these zones and agreement was not achieved.

38

Other management tools 168. In Canada any new activity or alteration within a park requires environmental

assessment.

Regulation 169. The use of regulation as opposed to awareness raising and voluntary measures varies

enormously between cases. The French regional parks rely primarily on voluntary measures and positive initiatives; many of the Australian and Canadian parks have regulation which constrains activity or behaviour to a greater or lesser degree dependent on the zone. The following are just a few examples of the types of regulation found:

Canada: standard national regulations pertaining to all national parks: e.g. fishing

regulations; wildlife regulations; business regulations. Park specific regulations such as (Saguenay-St. Lawrence) a limit on number of whale-watching boats; training required for whale watching boats; clear rules for boats in presence of marine mammals - speed, numbers, approach etc.

Wadden Sea, Germany: no hunting. SW Archipelago, Finland: hunting only for local residents. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park: wide range of regulations and permit or licensing

schemes for almost all activities and varying between a large number of different zones. These may include, for example seasonal closures; complete exclusion of all activities from core zones; limits on number or size of vessels, numbers of moorings, or number of visitors; restrictions on anchoring; exclusion zones for aircraft etc.

170. The acceptance of regulation, and compliance, will depend to a large degree on

previous use. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park was established well before many of the existing pressures became significant, and users have “grown up” with the rules. Applying new regulations on well established activities is a very different issue, and is likely to meet strong resistance. This explains the much more limited use of rules and regulations in European parks.

Conclusions 171. There needs to be clarity in planning and management procedures, and in particular

the relationship with other planning frameworks, mechanisms and tools needs to be clear. Ideally the national park management plan should serve as a framework and guidance for the development and application of all other plans (e.g. local authority plans; nature reserves etc.). This does not necessarily have to be legislated for: in France the Parc National Regional have no legislative power, but the management guidance is effectively delivered through the charte, or agreement, which forms a framework for the application of national mechanisms or local by-laws etc.

172. There appears to be significant advantage in developing a management plan before

designation, at least in terms of broad principles. This serves as a framework for discussion and participation and ensures that everyone knows exactly what is involved. In several cases there was confusion - and mistrust - as to what the implications of designation would be. However, some cases explicitly avoided such “pre-designation planning”, or indeed clarity as to the implications (for example) of any zoning, arguing the need for flexibility, and avoiding conflict prior to designation. The argument seems weak, and perhaps reflects fear of conflict and a lack of any clear strategy to deal with it.

39

173. Zoning is always likely to be controversial, but in many cases zoning in effect already exists. Many of the parks encompassed, overlapped or were part of other designations with differing objectives and levels of protection, and in most cases this would automatically serve as the starting point for any park related zoning. In those cases where there are specific protected areas already in place - such as Natura 2000 - park designation may serve as an opportunity for clarification of their implications, and more public involvement in discussion of management options, something which is clearly required in several countries.

3.5 Relationships between park management bodies and other institutions 174. This can be crucial to the successful development of a national park. A very large

range of government departments, local government, institutions and organisations are likely to be affected by park designation, and their cooperation and support is normally critical to success. In many cases parks can only achieve their objectives through other organisations. Furthermore, coastal and marine parks commonly serve as a coordinating and integrating mechanism for diverse and sectoral natural resource management activities. As such their relationship with all other relevant management organisations - government and non-government - is crucial.

175. Some examples of these diverse relationships are presented in Table 4. This is not

meant to be in any way comprehensive or representative - the relationships are far too many and complex to summarise here - but it does offer a partial insight into the range and scope of these relationships.

Table 4 Some examples of key relationships in developing and managing marine

national parks

Park Some key relationships France Parc Naturel Marin d’Iroise; France Parc Naturel Régional d’Amorique

Local marine science laboratory and university make major contributions to establishing baselines and management information. NGOs manage nature reserves within regional park and biosphere reserve. Biosphere management committee. Conservatoire du Littoral. Public body which buys vulnerable natural sites and delegates management for biodiversity. Contrat de Baie - stakeholder contract for integrated watershed management: state, region, department, water agency - all sign.

Kosterhavets Marine National Park, Sweden (proposed)

Local municipality mayor served key role in supporting and facilitating exploratory “independent” public meetings. Local marine science laboratory made major contribution too, providing basic management information. Fisheries Department in same corridor as county conservation officer - has greatly facilitated relations with fishermen and the development of appropriate co-management agreements.

Archipelago National Park, Finland

Biosphere reserve is coordinated by SW Finland Regional Environmental Centre reporting to Ministry of Environment. Biosphere reserve committee - facilitates closer contacts between park management (Metsähallitus) and with local people. Interreg coastal sustainability project; sustainable tourism project.

40

Table 4 cont.

Park Some key relationships Pacific Rim National Park Reserve, Canada

The national park is the core area of the Clayoquot Biosphere Reserve. The biosphere reserve trust, which aims to promote sustainable development while maintaining healthy ecosystems, is a key partner. First Nations have a claim to the land and play a significant role in management through a coordinating committee.

Biscayne National Park, USA

Many civil organisations, trusts etc. work in partnership with the park authority: e.g. education and awareness, volunteer programmes. Tourist organisations are important partners, particularly for dissemination of educational material and park regulations.

Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park, Canada

NGOs and citizens groups raise awareness of park ‘opportunity’. Tourist organisations key partners in promoting the park and best practice. Coordination committee with municipalities adjacent to or upstream of the park - to further the aims of the park through management, education, opportunity etc. Coordinating committee with federal and provincial government, regional organisations, First Nations Council. Department of Fisheries and Oceans still retains control of fisheries management. Harmonisation committee - provincial-federal.

Local government 176. The support of local government is essential - at commune, municipal and county

levels. In several cases local government has played a major part in park development - directly through the local government led pilots in Denmark for example, or indirectly by playing a major facilitating and communications role as in Kosterhavets (see participation).

177. In France, under the regional park system, local government are key players in signing

up to the “charte” and play a major role in implementing the agreement through planning powers and bye-laws. In countries where the parks cover large “wilderness” areas park authorities tend to be relatively independent of local authority, operating in parallel and usually with greater powers over any form of development.

178. In Australia a close working partnership has developed over the last 30 years between

the State of Queensland (with jurisdiction over adjacent coast and land) and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (a commonwealth (Australia) statutory authority), including a joint approach to management planning, and permit assessment, and complementary marine/coastal zoning. The park authority maintains comprehensive policy coordination arrangements with all Queensland Government agencies with responsibilities for policy, environment, local government, maritime issues, catchments planning and fisheries.

179. Perhaps surprisingly, given the powers of many national park authorities, we came

across no examples of conflict between local government and park authorities, suggesting that in most cases national parks are seen as positive and complementary to the activities of local government.

41

Other designations 180. Many parks coincide with, encompass, are part of or overlap other national and

international designations such as nature reserves and sanctuaries, Natura 2000 sites, biosphere reserves, Ramsar sites etc. This coincidence has not always been a happy one. Thus in Denmark, experience with EIA for farm activities within a Natura 2000 site was a significant contributory factor for opposition to the Wadden Sea proposals. By way of contrast, positive experience in Sweden of agreement between conservation interests and fishermen in relation to a Natura 2000 site has contributed to good progress with the Kosterhavets Marine Park proposal.

181. There is potential for significant confusion about the implications of the many

overlapping designations, and stakeholders have frequently commented on this. This is both a problem and a challenge for CMNP, which may have the power, capacity or inclination to seek integration between the various designations and management initiatives. In some cases the park has a clear and specific responsibility in this regard. For example in the German Wadden Sea National Park, the park authority is responsible for managing Natura 2000 sites and other designated areas in accordance with the appropriate EU or international protocol. The Danish Wadden Sea pilot has also proposed that a future national park board should have responsibility for Natura 2000 management.

182. In France management of nature reserves and “conservatoire de littoral” is frequently

delegated to NGOs or local trusts. Management of watersheds and some coastal waters is undertaken through a “Contrat de Baie”. The regional park already works closely with these groups and associated committees, and this will also be the case with new marine parks.

183. The relationship between the SW Archipelago management team and the local

biosphere reserve management committee has already been highlighted. They depend on this committee to a large degree to be the “local face” of natural resource management and serve as a communications gateway between local people and the park management.

NGOs 184. The role of national and international NGOs is a difficult and controversial issue and

requires sensitive handling when developing national parks. In several cases NGOs played a significant role in raising the profile of the area and highlighting the need or opportunity for designation. On the other hand local user interests are sometimes intimidated by national or international NGOs, particularly at public meetings, or where they serve together on steering or working groups.

185. In Laesoe (Denmark) the conflict between local interests and representatives of

national and international NGOs led to stalemate in taking forward the park proposal, and significant local opposition. In Sweden (Kosterhavet) early attempts to develop a marine park failed largely as a result of conflict between local user groups and NGOs.

Fisheries 186. Fisheries departments and fisheries management organisations play a key role in both

designation and management, and are dealt with separately below.

Coordinating committees 187. In many cases relationships with other organisations are formalised through various

coordination committees - especially with respect to government, government

42

departments and agencies at different levels, but also with particular interest groups. This is highly developed in the case of the well established Australian and Canadian parks, and is used for example to formalise and regularise input from First Nations in Canada.

Conclusion 188. National park management typically finds itself in (and ideally close to the centre of) a

network of complex traditional, political, economic and social relationships. This presents significant opportunities for promoting rationalisation and coordination with respect to marine and coastal issues, while at the same time promoting park objectives. Park professionals have to deal with a huge range of interests and organisations, and their powers may intimidate some interests. Park managers must therefore be highly skilled communicators and facilitators, capable of enthusing, capable of organising and coordinating, yet open and sensitive to different perspectives and opinions. In other words highly professional managers.

3.6 The relationships between CMNP and fisheries 189. Many CMNP are located in rural areas where fisheries are an important traditional

activity, often strongly associated with local communities, culture and architecture. Equally fisheries in such areas often have a significant effect on marine resources and biodiversity. Marine park management therefore goes hand in hand with sustainable fisheries management.

190. Recreational fisheries are increasing rapidly in many countries, and in some cases now

comprise a significant proportion of the catch (see the Kosterhavets and Brittany case studies). They are also seen as a significant opportunity for development in marine parks. In most cases management of recreational fisheries is limited or non-existent and in some cases this is becoming an issue and a source of conflict between recreational and commercial fishers.

Roles and responsibilities 191. In most of the cases we examined fisheries management remains in the hands of

existing fisheries management regimes, typically controlled by a government department, and for inshore fisheries, sometimes by local area management systems. In some cases (for example in France) there already exist quite sophisticated spatial management regimes relating to inshore fisheries and shellfish farming, and corresponding existing or proposed marine park authorities seek to influence these where appropriate in accordance with park objectives. Relatively few of these regimes are legally required to implement recommendations made by park authorities and associated bodies, but there is nonetheless usually a close relationship, and fisheries management objectives are increasingly converging with those for marine parks, especially since the recent changes in the Common Fisheries Policy and the emphasis on sustainable fisheries and ecosystem based management throughout the world.

192. In France for example, under both the well established regional park, and under the

new marine park, inshore fisheries management initiatives will remain in the hands of a local area group comprising the regional prefecture, IFREMER (science advisory service based in Brest), and the local and regional fishermen’s associations. In Canada (Pacific Rim National Park) the national Department of Fisheries and Oceans is in charge, but is shifting steadily to more participatory and ecosystem based management, which will bring it increasingly in line with the park objectives. It has

43

already established the “West Coast of Vancouver Island Aquatic Management Board” - a stakeholder group with an advanced role in marine decision making and management, which works closely with the park authorities.

Park specific fisheries management plans and regulations 193. Several of the parks (e.g. Biscayne, USA) have developed dedicated fisheries

management plans as part of the overall park management plan. Biscayne National Park has worked with Florida Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation Commission to develop a fisheries management plan for the park - with significant input from other agencies, universities, and the general public. A multi-stakeholder working group finalised a draft fisheries management plan which is now out for further consultation. It is likely to include size and catch limits, area closures, and license fees which will help to pay for ranger enforcement. This followed a 2001 report which suggested the need for a multi-species recovery strategy in the park, to be closely coordinated with Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and Florida State Government.

194. Some parks have chosen a more direct route. During the procedure to revise the law

relating to the German Wadden Sea National Park, a framework bilateral agreement (to 2016) was drawn up between park authorities and fishermen.

195. Specific rules or regulations for fisheries may apply to particular park zones, although

these are more usually agreed and implemented by national fisheries departments. In the Saguenay-St. Lawrence marine park for example, Zone 3 (least restricted) is open to fishing and aquaculture subject to “protecting the area’s ecosystems, maintaining viable fish stocks and adhering to the objectives of the National Marine Conservation Areas programme”. In practice fishing activity in this zone is determined by an agreement between Parks Canada, Parks Quebec and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) - who have legal responsibility for implementing an appropriate management plan. However, any new proposal for fishing or aquaculture will be subject to stock assessment and environmental impact studies.

196. In France, the Park Naturel Marin

d’Iroise will have no executive responsibility for fisheries management within the park (which remains with existing national and regional fisheries management organisations). Nonetheless it does have a fisheries action plan which spells out its aspirations for fisheries management and development (see Box 5) and will work closely with the relevant authorities to implement this.

Cooperation with fishermen 197. Though historically antagonistic to any form of restriction, especially in the name of

nature conservation, many fishermen are now becoming more interested in effective

Box 5 - Fisheries Action Plan for Park Naturel Marin d’Iroise

• Promote sustainable use of marineresources - support the collaborativemanagement of fisheries, encouragetechnical solutions to reduce catch wherenecessary and make it more selective;encourage protection of key habitats such asnursery areas; assist with restoration of over-exploited stocks; monitor and researchimpacts of fishing.

• Support commercial inshore fisheries toestablish sustainable livelihoods, for exampleby developing a label for products from thePNMI.

• Assist with sustainable management of thekelp industry - undertake research requiredfor management, monitor the impact ofharvesting etc.

• Support maritime activities on the islandsthat will lead to a stabilised population, incollaboration with the PNRA.

44

Box 6 - Environmental award for fishermen of Koster

Two fishermen from the Koster area (Skattegat) have recently received an environmental award from the local municipality of Stromstad. The award is for work in achieving agreement on management to protect soft and hard corals within the Natura 2000 marine site, and for promoting more environmentally friendly trawl gear, including separator screens to reduce by-catch and lighter gear to reduce seabed impacts.

local management regimes - especially under co-management agreements - and the possible market opportunities associated with sustainably managed fisheries. This is highlighted in the Brittany cases, where local fishermen not only supported the new marine park, but actually pressed for a large area to be designated to maximise market opportunity. Many of the fishermen in the Koster (Sweden case) are also supportive of the proposed park, anticipating the opportunity to improve their rather negative image and perhaps gain market advantage. Furthermore, a tighter local management regime may increase the informal barriers to entry (effectively keep bigger boats out by making it uneconomic for them) thereby increasing the returns to local fishermen.

198. Not surprisingly therefore, national fisheries organisations may be less supportive of

these new arrangements, and indeed this appears to be the case in Sweden. The strong support in France may also be explained by the existing relatively powerful local fisheries management regime and strong local area based fisheries representative organisations. It is notable that in Scotland representation of the small boat inshore fisheries sub-sector is relatively weak, with fishermen’s organisations stronger at national level and dominated by the interests of larger offshore vessels. This may make support for a marine park in Scotland more difficult to achieve, especially if a tighter local inshore management regime is anticipated.

199. Nor is support from local fishermen universal, by

any means. In the German sector of the Wadden Sea there has been much conflict in the lead up to re-designation under the new legislation. The local fleet is relatively small and weak, and historically they have been subject to heavy restriction, including specific restrictions developed under the park, as opposed to the fisheries management regime. The objective of the park is clearly nature and recreation, not sustainable use. For example, no cockle and scallop fishing is allowed; no mussel dredging of natural beds; and mussel culture is restricted to specific zones. The shrimp fishery on the other hand is controlled under national fisheries law. The local fleet of around 100 vessels is allowed within the national park as a result of a compromise achieved during drafting - but in practice they fish increasingly further offshore.

200. Even where fishermen have been historically negative to environment related

restriction, they may respond positively when initiatives are presented in a positive and sensitive way. The Koster example in Sweden has already been noted. Another example is Laesoe Island in Denmark where fishermen have already agreed to an initiative to restore and protect a rock-reef, under the EU “Blue Reef” project, by implementing a no-fish zone. Fishermen, and especially locally based fishermen, are as keen to conserve the marine environment - and especially nursery areas - as anyone, so long as the short term costs are not crippling.

201. In some cases cooperation may be enhanced by working through existing fisheries

management institutions, where these are trusted and working well, rather than seeking to establish new regimes. In the case of Kosterhavets (Sweden) management of fisheries within the park has already been explicitly delegated to a new co-management group working in the area.

45

Fishermen’s knowledge 202. It is clear that one of the reasons for the historic antagonism between scientists and

fishermen in many countries has been the lack of account taken by scientists and fisheries departments of fishermens’ knowledge. This was raised in particular in the Danish and German case studies. The scientists knowledge is limited and rigorous; the fishermens’ knowledge is far greater but perhaps less rigorous. Bringing the two together could yield enormous benefit, and there are indeed many initiatives to do this. There are also major opportunities for fishermen to be contracted to undertake research and monitoring themselves, especially within marine national parks.

203. An initiative relating to the Koster case study is instructive in this regard. The locally

based marine science laboratory at Tjarno established a 4-day basic marine ecology training programme for fishermen. This strengthened personal relations between fishermen and scientists, and increased mutual respect. More than 60 fishermen have now taken the course, many as a result of peer pressure from other fishermen. There is now talk (emanating from the fishermen themselves) of such training being a requirement for fishermen operating under a new co-management initiative.

MPAs - through fisheries management initiatives 204. In many of the countries we studied there are initiatives to establish MPAs as part of

the fisheries management regime (as opposed to park management). In some cases there may be opportunities to bring these together. The reef initiative in Laesoe has already been mentioned. The soft and hard coral areas protected under the Natura 2000 agreement in the Koster Fjiord, Sweden, already seem to be showing signs of positive impacts on stocks of skates and ray. If these pilot highly protected areas begin to show positive results, the potential for designating more such areas with fishermen’s support - or on the basis of fishermen’s initiative - will undoubtedly increase, with wider benefits for nature conservation. Identifying areas likely to generate both fisheries and nature conservation benefits should be a priority for developing more MPAs.

Alternative livelihoods 205. Any proposed increased restriction on fishing activity, where this may negatively impact

income, must be balanced through the promotion of alternative income generating activities if the support of the local community is to be maintained. The Parc Naturel Regional d’Armorique includes water to 30 m depth. Although the park has no legal jurisdiction over fisheries, the charte includes a specific objective to diversify the artisanal fishery, and this undoubtedly strengthens the positive image of the park amongst local communities.

206. There are commonly a range of opportunities for diversification. In the German

Wadden Sea some fishing boats have converted to “marine safari” vessels. In the Koster Islands, some small boat fishermen see opportunities for recreational fishing trips. Although there are undoubtedly opportunities, these need to be appraised realistically: it is rarely possible or necessarily desirable to transform large numbers of fishermen into marine tourist guides, and seasonality is often a major constraint in the commercial development of these activities, especially in temperate countries.

Recreational fisheries 207. Recreational fisheries are a significant and increasing activity in many marine parks.

They offer potential as “sustainable use” activities and can generate significant direct and indirect income. Recreational fisheries also offer a possible alternative income source for fishermen with limited knowledge of wildlife but substantial knowledge of fisheries.

46

208. However, recreational fisheries may also pose a threat - both to stocks themselves and

to commercial fishermen, who may see it as a significant unregulated pressure on the resources they depend on (see Brittany case). In the Iroise Sea recreational fishermen outnumber professionals, with around 5,000 p/a collecting molluscs and crustaceans at low tide; and 4,500 engaged in line, pot and net fishing from boats - the latter taking on average 60 kg each/yr. There is a substantial recreational fishery for lobster around the Koster Islands in Sweden, with “recreational” boats allowed up to 14 pots each. The recreational boating sector is increasing very rapidly in both these areas, and the recreational “take” is likely to become substantial.

209. In Canada and the US, recreational fishing is also a major activity - so much so that

rock cod stocks have been seriously depleted in some parts of the Pacific Rim National Park Reserve and surrounding waters. An initial voluntary approach failed to remedy the situation, and since 2002 a stakeholder participatory process, including First Nations, recreational, and commercial fishermen, led to the identification of several Rockfish Conservation Areas. These were officially defined in 2007 including several within the park.

210. One of the problems with recreational fisheries is the lack of, or very limited nature of

representation, and the almost complete lack of any form of organisation. This makes any kind of voluntary approach almost impossible to implement, and policing extremely difficult. Licensing, used in several of the cases (see for example SW Archipelago, Finland), can address this to some degree, and is certainly a pre-condition for more effective management of any kind.

Conclusions 211. Fisheries management is a key consideration for any form of CMNP. Broadly speaking

the objectives of fishermen are sustainable management of marine resources, and though there are differences of interpretation relative to those with biodiversity interests, this perspective nonetheless serves as an excellent starting point for improved management. There are also significant pressures on fishermen to demonstrate more sustainable fisheries practices coming from both government and the market place - and these, on top of the evident need to restore many fisheries - should make engagement with fishermen increasingly positive and productive. This more positive environment is also being reinforced by the increased respect being afforded to fishermen through co-management and similar initiatives.

212. Fisheries management nonetheless remains a highly sensitive issue in many of the

cases examined, and it must be treated with caution and common sense. The development of mutual respect - between scientists, conservationists and fishermen - is a pre-condition for progress, and can be promoted through effective exchange of knowledge before specific management issues are addressed. Some of these issues are dealt with in more detail in the section on participation below.

3.7 Stakeholder participation in planning and management

Requirements and opportunities 213. Stakeholder participation was a big issue in all the cases we examined - in most cases

the biggest. Professionals involved in park management all emphasised the importance of effective participation - in park development (including in some cases associated legislation) and in park management. With one exception they also

47

emphasised the need for more time in order to undertake effective consultation and participation, and the need for on the ground face to face discussions.

214. Thorough consultation and/or participation is a requirement of most national park

legislation and especially in the more modern European legislation. Despite its importance the precise nature of participation - and guidance - is rarely spelt out in the legislation, and there is a huge range of forms of participation.

215. Participation in the national park development and management processes ranged

from consultation, in which stakeholders were encouraged to review plans and proposals through published documents or public meetings and hearings; to participation in decision making itself - a process which implies decision by consensus or voting. In the latter case the balance of representation becomes a key political issue. Between these extremes - and commonly used in national park development and management - was participation through advisory, working or steering groups.

216. Whatever the methods used it is still going to be hard to get the right information to the

right people. Several of the stakeholders we talked to indicated that there was not enough information - they did not know what was going on.

Trust 217. The key to effective participation of any kind is trust, which is typically hard won and

easily lost. Some of the stakeholders we talked to were cynical: “yes, we were consulted, but will it influence decisions?”. Several factors contribute to trust and are exemplified in some of the case studies:

Clarity of process - how the “participation” will be used; what will happen next -

and when; who is in charge? Belief that opinions will not only be heard but weighed and considered. Transparency and openness - no hidden agendas, frankness. High quality information in a form which can easily be interrogated and discussed

(maps, images, graphics etc.). Respect for resource-user/stakeholder knowledge. Fair, neutral and skilled facilitation of meetings and working groups. Outreach to those who are busy, cynical, isolated, women, youth.

218. Although maps are typically a key tool, they have to be used with care. Any line pre-

drawn or area pre-shaded may cause instant negative reaction from those who use the area. Lines and shading are something to be done once trust is established and objectives agreed.

Some examples 219. Each of the cases has its own interesting story or stories to tell in relation to

participation, and it is difficult to summarise these here. History, experience and personalities are all key factors which influence the success or otherwise of participatory processes, and it is dangerous to draw out too many “lessons learned”. Nonetheless there were some interesting issues to highlight.

The Charte 220. Perhaps the most participatory approach is that used in the French regional parks,

which are managed in accordance with a “charte” or agreement between the various levels of government and key stakeholders. This necessarily means that highly restrictive forms of management are unlikely to be agreed; equally it means that where

48

agreement is reached, implementation is likely. On the whole these parks appear to be very widely supported and have generated significant benefits.

Representation and “outreach” 221. There is a fundamental dilemma in consulting over national parks: how to balance local

and national interests, and how to balance user interests with those of wider society. None of the cases offered an easy solution to this, although neutral, informed, respected and professional facilitation can help.

222. In Denmark, the government determined to have major stakeholder input to the

development of a set of seven pilot projects which would in turn inform government legislation for the official establishment of parks - including three or more of the pilots. The Laeso pilot illustrates a key issue of representation and the balance of power. It requested that the pilot be developed under the guidance of a steering group with mainly local stakeholder representation plus the relevant government agency. In practice this was turned down and the central government required that three representatives of national/international NGOs should be included. The disagreements between local interests (especially fishermen) and the NGOs led to a stalemate - particularly over the issue of boundaries - and the process lost both support and momentum.

223. This was not only a clash of opinion, but of culture. Fishermen are typically hands on

characters, unfamiliar with and dismissive of technical jargon, full of practical knowledge, and sometimes blunt - and this contrasts strongly with the average politically savvy NGO lobbyist. Fishermen are local, NGO representatives are usually not. Wherever possible it would probably be better to get local environmental scientists involved.

224. Only certain types of people tend to get involved in public meetings, fewer types get

involved in working groups, and steering committees tend to be dominated by the established elite (typically male, over 50). Although this was identified as an issue in several cases, none had sought actively to overcome these problems, except for Laesoe (Denmark) where a local referendum was used to gauge opinion. This turned out to be negative on balance and has made designation unlikely. While a referendum appears useful on some levels they have some major flaws - the simplification of the debate, the issue of timing (public opinion changes) and so on.

225. The Scandinavian cases suggest that more active “outreach” approaches to

participation are required. Being “on the ground” - a familiar face - is very much part of this as the Finland case demonstrates. But there are a whole raft of techniques which seem to be rarely used in Europe, including various telephone or postal “polling” and prioritisation techniques; focus groups; structured workshops; more bilateral meetings with specific groups to avoid the likely confrontations and posturing at public meetings; communications strategies and so on. There is substantial experience of many of these in Australia, especially in relation to the Great Barrier Reef, and they are discussed in detail in the Australian cases.

Organisation and participation - the French recreational fishery 226. The existence of representative organisations and their nature is also a key issue. The

French professional fishermen are well represented at local, regional and national level, and these organisations are key players in developing any new management initiative. Local fishermen’s organisations supported the new Parc Naturel Marin d’Iroise. Recreational fishers on the other hand are not professionally represented, and this makes their participation problematic. Furthermore, in this case, some

49

recreational fishers were strongly opposed to the park and indeed led an anti-park lobby. Gauging the level and importance of this opposition was problematic, and developing any management initiative with the active involvement of recreational fishers will be difficult. Again, more pro-active approaches will probably be needed, but this involves more time and cost.

227. It is notable that in the case of Pacific Rim Park in Canada, initial attempts to introduce

voluntary measures to reduce the pressure of recreational fishing on rock cod fishery failed. This is an area which needs to be addressed as the levels of recreational fishing increase, especially in marine parks.

The busy private sector 228. It is always difficult to get active members of the private sector to engage in discursive

public meetings. In Germany (Wadden Sea) the “Park Partner” business promotion and standards scheme was an effective tool for getting the private sector engaged and supportive. Similar schemes related to the French regional parks have also been effective, and have probably contributed directly to support for the new marine park.

History, scientific knowledge, fishermen’s knowledge 229. The development of a marine national park at Kosterhavets in Sweden appears to be

progressing well, and relationships with the local fishermen are broadly positive, and in some cases strongly supportive. This has not always been the case. When the quality of the marine environment was first highlighted and suggestions for an MPA first put forward and promoted by scientists and environmental NGOs, fishermen were very wary. Public meetings, at which NGOs were both vocal and articulate did not help, fishermen felt intimidated, their livelihoods were threatened, and they became strongly opposed, resulting in abandonment of the idea.

230. The situation changed in the late ‘90s however during discussion over Natura 2000

designation and management. Scientists developed high quality ROV video and bathymetric maps to illustrate the quality of the marine environment in the deep water trenches. This served as a basis for informed and constructive discussion between fishermen and scientists/conservationists resulting in agreement to avoid certain key areas when trawling and to seek to modify gears to reduce environmental impact more generally. The fear of blanket restrictions had been lifted, and constructive negotiation begun. Relations have been broadly positive since.

231. This contrasts with the situation in Denmark, Germany and France, where the Natura

2000 process has been perceived as unclear and unpredictable, creating substantial mistrust and negative impacts on national park discussions.

232. In several cases (France, Denmark and Germany) there was antagonism between

fishermen and marine scientists, mainly related to past experience of disagreement over seal management, other predators such as cormorant, or controversial quota restrictions. There is a general feeling amongst fishermen that their enormous practical knowledge and experience is disregarded. This can be overcome - as exemplified in the Koster case where the presentation of information by scientists stimulated additional and complimentary information from fishermen. The value of training courses for fishermen is also exemplified in this case.

Too much information - too little information 233. A key dilemma for any organisation or project charged with the task of developing a

CMNP will be how much information, how many ideas, to put on the table at the outset. The need to avoid the perception of hidden agendas has been mentioned elsewhere,

50

but if the agenda is too clear and too detailed, then people will see the process as top down. If on the other hand it is apparent that there is no agenda, then there is a danger that government will be cast as incompetent and fumbling: “Even they don’t know what this is all about!”.

234. The appropriate level of prescription will depend on government policy, local history,

procedures, personalities and so on. In Kosterhavets (Sweden) there was a feeling initially that there was inadequate information - people were unsure and wary. They responded relatively well to a public hearing at which initial proposals were made. This positive response related probably to all the previous work on the ground, and also the history of genuine local participation in decision making over fisheries management.

235. There may also be fundamental communications issues for some kinds of information.

In the Danish Wadden Sea pilot, the steering group thought it would be useful if stakeholders participating in discussions and working groups understood the mass of legislation as it applies to land and water use in the area. They sought to produce a simple guide. This turned out to be impossible - perhaps a contradiction in terms. The legislation was, quite simply, too complex to simplify.

The trusted go-between - Kosterhavets 236. In Kosterhavet (Norway), the mayor of the local municipality became involved in the

park development process at a time when there were significant fears and reservations. He was able to chair a series of local meetings, independently of the “official” process - and therefore seen as neutral - to generate a set of key questions which residents, resource users and other stakeholders were concerned about. This served as an excellent informal background and basis for the official “public hearing” which was organised subsequently, and which specifically addressed these and other questions. In practice the local mayor and municipality supported the park initiative, and this has further smoothed its progress.

The tricky public meeting 237. The cases reveal several examples where public meetings may have actually

undermined progress towards designating a national park. The example in Sweden has been discussed above. Often those with extreme views are the first to speak at such meetings, and inclined to dominate discussions. Equally, relatively moderate organisations may stake out a relatively extreme position as a form of political manoeuvre or posturing.

238. Public meetings are often politically necessary, and can be very effective at kicking

something off, or winding a process up. The negotiation in the middle is typically better dealt with through bilateral discussions or working groups. The chair of any meeting needs to have undertaken substantial background research on stakeholder perspectives in order to manage a constructive meeting.

A face on the ground - or working through local organisations 239. When SW Archipelago was designated as a national park in Finland there was

relatively limited stakeholder involvement, and significant local opposition. The park was designated nonetheless, and local people came to terms with it, especially when the government offered use rights for fishing, firewood, and hay, and generated contract employment for landscape management work. The situation has changed now, and the development of new park management plans requires a highly consultative process, with public information, meetings, workshops and hearings. A special guide has now been produced by Metsähallitus (the government agency responsible for park management) on the participatory processes required.

51

240. However, Metsähallitus faces a fundamental problem of trust and credibility since it lost

its local office during a rationalisation process. Local managers think that the loss of a familiar local face on the ground is a significant weakness. Fortunately there is a more local organisation related to the biosphere reserve, and this is able to engage more easily and directly with local stakeholders, thus maintaining good and constructive relations.

241. In Kosterhavets (Sweden) the existence of a broadly supportive local council and local

development trust has also made participation much easier and more positive. To some degree these organisations empower local communities to engage with government and “higher” authority becomes less of a threat.

Conclusions 242. Whatever the level of participation - whether it be consultation and review, or genuine

participatory decision making - there has to be trust, and there has to be clear process. People need to know what they will get from participation - how their views will be taken into account. They also need to know the existing government or agency agenda and its rationale. Talk of ecosystem based management is not particularly helpful in this regard - stakeholders will wish to address solid and practical management issues, and they need good information.

243. One way of achieving this, exemplified in several case studies, is to work on a

management plan as part of the lead-in to designation. This will offer a clear and practical framework around which to build discussion, identify problem areas and build consensus. Everyone knows what it is all about and has a real sense of contributing to the process. This is the basis for the French regional parks, was required for Saguenay-St. Lawrence (Canada) and will be required before final designation of Koserhavets in Sweden.

244. Professional independent facilitation and communication may help defuse conflict and

promote creative and constructive dialogue. This approach was used in some cases, and was generally appreciated, though it is clear that such professionals must understand the local context, and have a basic grasp of some of the more difficult technical issues if they are to be respected and effective.

245. Genuine representation of both stakeholders and the wider public is a major issue, and

attempts to achieve it were relatively limited. Neither public meetings nor working groups will really engage the average public or the dynamic parts of the private sector. More consideration needs to be given to how to get these people involved or at least to assess their views.

246. Things are quite likely to go wrong when seeking to develop a CMNP. Any initiative

should be accompanied by a conflict avoidance and management strategy - based on a clear understanding of the local context and the perspectives and culture of the various stakeholders.

247. The more specific examples or “stories” presented above illustrate a key point:

everywhere is different - in terms of history, legislation, culture, personalities - and consultation/participation processes must be designed based upon a thorough knowledge and understanding of this context. There are a few universal rules, but effective participation involves being sensitive and responsive, with participatory processes constantly tailored, refined and adapted as required.

52

3.8 Specific actions and initiatives under coastal and marine national parks

Education and interpretation 248. Education and interpretation is probably the most important activity of all the parks we

explored, and is particularly highly developed in the Canadian, American and Australian cases, which are supported by highly professional and dedicated national or provincial ranger services.

249. Some form of central visitor centre or interpretation centre is almost universal, and in

several cases includes a major aquarium, such as the Oceanapolis in Brest. Typically one or more centres are run by the park authorities, and a series of smaller centres or information points are scattered strategically through the park. In Saguenay-St. Lawrence for example there is a network of 13 interpretive sites covering the major interests of park.

250. Many parks encourage the

private sector to provide interpretive centres, with the classic examples being the “ecomusees” or discovery centres promoted by the Parc Naturel Regional d’Armorique in Brittany. Under the second “10 year plan” the park promoted and supported the development of an impressive network of centres designed to promote enjoyment, understanding and sustainable use. There are now roughly 20, catering to both routine visitors and schools, focusing on a range of subjects and activities including traditional and rare breeds and varieties, nature and wildlife, seabird studies, minerals and rocks, arts and crafts, Breton culture, and so on. Several of these centres have been able to source significant external funding.

251. Guided tours are near universal, often provided by the private sector, sometimes

associated with purpose designed heritage trails. Fun fests and family days are also important, especially in the Canadian parks, typically associated with hands on learning experiences, snorkelling, short lectures etc. The Whale Festival, a celebration of the migration of 22,000 grey whales, has become a major event for the Pacific Rim National Park.

252. On the more formal side, Biscayne Bay (USA) offers overnight field trips for school

groups, provides resource and classroom curriculum materials, and special workshops for teachers. Distance learning and virtual tours are also available. Students are encouraged to assist park biologists to undertake practical research training. The

Box 7 - The Rosaire Corbin Award This award, created to honour Abbot Rosaire Corbin by theSaguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park CoordinatingCommittee in collaboration with the four relevant tourismassociations, has three objectives. It seeks to:

recognise and reward the endeavours of anindividual or organisation for its exceptionalachievements in educating, interpreting or raisingawareness about the marine park’s natural orcultural resources;

perpetuate the memory of Abbot Rosaire Corbin andthe values he conveyed through his work in teachingscience to young learners; and

foster distinctive effort and excellence in theenhancement of the cultural and natural heritageassociated with the marine environment of theSaguenay Fjord and the St. Lawrence Estuary, andin educating the public regarding this heritage.

The Rosaire Corbin Award is presented annually by themarine park at a regional tourism award gala (Galasrégionaux des Grands Prix du tourisme Québécois), heldon a rotational basis in the Charlevoix, Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean, Manicouagan and Lower St. Lawrence regions. Recent winners: Explos-Nature (environmental sciencesummer schools); and the group for research andeducation of marine mammals.

53

Pacific Rim Park (Canada) also has dedicated learning programs and runs a schools support programme. Park “interpreters” offer daily programs on natural and cultural heritage, and provide guided coastal and forest walks. In addition the park endorses some non-profit private organisations which offer outdoor education and travel, with emphasis on ecological systems. Studies in the US have demonstrated that environmental educational activities associated with the Gulf of Farallones National Marine Sanctuary have generated and retained interest in marine conservation beyond the boundaries of the park.

253. More novel perhaps is the initiative between the marine biological laboratory of Tjarno

in Sweden and fishermen. Four day training courses on marine biology and basic ecology have proven highly effective in improving relations between scientists and fishermen.

Enjoyment 254. Most national parks are also major visitor attractions, with numbers ranging from

50,000 to 700,000 p/a in our case studies. The parks seek to promote visits and recreation on the one hand and manage visitor pressure on the other.

255. Boating - yachts, kayaks and motorboats - is a major activity in most coastal and

marine parks and has seen rapid increases in recent years. In Brittany there are now permanent moorings for 10,000 boats, and 5,000 marina berths. 70,000 pleasure craft sail the Iroise Sea each summer, generating 12m Euros in income and 600 direct jobs. Scuba diving is also a major activity in most parks. Again in Brittany there are 150 dive sites associated with 120,000 dives a year.

256. Other major outdoor activities include walking, horse riding, and cycling. The Pacific

Rim Park has developed the 77 km “West Coast trail” which is now used by 8,000 hikers each year. In general however, the park authorities support enjoyment indirectly. In the Parc Naturel Regional d’Armorique for example, grants have been made available for the conversion of cottages into “gites”.

Conservation and enhancement 257. This ranks alongside education and awareness as the major area of activity and

initiative on the part of parks. In most cases this activity is very specific and directed, dependent on the particular conservation interests of the park. Many of the initiatives have already been addressed in previous sections.

258. The two main approaches might be termed protectionist/preservationist, and

restorative/creationist. The former approach is exemplified in the more restrictive and exclusive forms of zoning. In most Australian, American and Canadian parks, a core area - which may be related to some existing nature conservation designation - is highly protected with human impact reduced to a bare minimum. In less restricted zones human activity may be restricted by licensing or specific regulations and protocols, designed to protect the ecological interest in general, or specific important or vulnerable elements.

259. In the Wadden Sea, Germany, the cockle and scallop fishery has been banned, and

this is likely to happen also for the mussel fishery in line with the provisions of the trilateral agreement between the three Wadden Sea countries of Denmark, Germany and Holland.

260. Examples of demonstrated success include the protection of the beluga in Saguenay-

St. Lawrence and the greatly increased seal populations in the Wadden Sea.

54

261. Restorative initiatives were found in particular in the Scandinavian parks or proposed

parks, with restoration of the traditional meadow/clearing/forest management systems and associated landscape a feature of both SW Archipelago (Finland) and Kosterhavets (Sweden). These activities not only generate an attractive and interesting landscape, they also lead to increased biodiversity, employment for local people, and preservation of traditional working methods and skills. The restored “wooded meadows” of the SW Archipelago in Sweden for example have led to the recovery of 368 species, many of which are endangered.

Research 262. Research is also a key activity in many parks, and the strong association with marine

biological laboratories in several cases further strengthens this. However, the increasing emphasis on sustainable use and community development - especially in European parks, has led to an increase in socio-economic research. Indeed this is now the major area of research in the French Parc Regional Naturel d’Armorique covering for example the relationships between park designation and the economy, incentive mechanisms etc.

Sustainable use and sustainable development 263. Parks can serve as excellent testing grounds for delivering more sustainable use of

natural resources and the re-invigoration of coastal rural communities, and this is emphasised increasingly in Europe. Fisheries is an obvious area for this kind of initiative. In the Wadden Sea, Germany, mussel beds used to be actively managed and harvested, with product exported to Holland. Restrictions have led to a shift to exploitation of brown shrimp, mainly outside the park area, which is landed directly at List Harbour in front of restaurants. This provides a quality fresh local product for tourists and a better price for fishermen. Both French and Swedish fishermen anticipate being able to capitalise on park designation through better management, enhanced image and some form of certification of a sustainable fishery.

264. Recreational fisheries are also seen as a significant opportunity for many parks,

including the opportunity for professional fishermen to shift to services for recreational fisheries. This will have to be combined with very clear management regime however if the existing problems with fisheries management are not to be exacerbated.

265. The French Parc Naturel Regional d’Armoriqe appears to have been particularly

successful in promoting environment related economic activity, through grants, advice, developing brands, standards and codes.

266. Although there is typically less emphasis on sustainable use in Canada, these issues

are nonetheless going up the agenda. Businesses in the coordination zone around Saguenay-St. Lawrence for example have benefited substantially from park related tourism activity and are increasingly involved with park management issues.

267. In Finland, the Archipelago Biosphere Reserve places particular emphasis on

sustainable use, including facilitating the development of village plans for sustainable development; seminars on fisheries as a livelihood; sustainable recreational fishing initiatives; sustainable tourism; new natural products; housing and bio-energy. They have also developed a network of waste disposal facilities for boats - of particular importance in the Baltic which is susceptible to eutrophication.

55

268. As part of its drive to promote a green and sustainable image, Laesoe Island (Denmark) provides free public transport in the islands to try to keep traffic under control. Needless to say this is also very popular.

Brands, standards and codes 269. There is much interest in branding as a means of market segmentation and securing a

premium on local or speciality products. Parks are seen as a possible commercial opportunity in this regard. Related initiatives can also be used to specifically further the objectives of the park.

270. The German Wadden Sea National Park runs a “Park Partners” scheme. Any local

business (for example accommodation, restaurants, transport, guided tours etc.) can sign up to this, but they are required to undergo a training course about the park and its objectives, ecology and wildlife, and undergo independent accreditation. The scheme ensures that they have the knowledge to pass on to visitors, guests and clients, raise awareness, and at the same time gain credibility as a responsible accredited enterprise.

271. Awards are an effective means of rewarding and promoting better individual initiative - see example in Box 8.

272. A park may also promote its own general “brand”. Thus the Parc Naturel Regional d’Armorique specifically markets “Voyages Naturel” - ten day activity/education holidays - in association with a foreign tour company. This park also supports the “Plongee Label Bretange” a standard for environmentally sound diving, and Hotels au Naturel - a specific standard requiring quiet, quality, natural surroundings. It also

Box 8 - An example of a framework for action and initiative: Parc Naturel Marin d’Iroise

• Enhancement and dissemination of knowledge on marine ecosystems - inventories and mapping,monitoring, evaluation of the impact of human activities on marine resources; publication ofinformation; education programmes.

• Maintenance of threatened and rare species and their habitats - propose suitable zoning systems;support protected areas and their management authorities; apply the requirement of the Natura 2000network for marine sites; encourage the participation of stakeholders in monitoring.

• Reduction of land-based sources of pollution, and minimise pollution risk from marine sources andports - participate in mechanisms to reduce pollution (SAGEs, Contrats de Baie etc.), manage coastalwetlands and contribute to the necessary research; support research and analysis of priorities andmechanisms for reducing other forms of pollution and assist with monitoring (eg. undertake cost-benefit and economic valuations).

• Manage mineral extraction e.g. progressively reduce and eliminate maerl exploitation. • Promote sustainable use of marine resources - support the collaborative management of fisheries,

encourage technical solutions to reduce catch where necessary and make it more selective;encourage protection of key habitats such as nursery areas; assist with restoration of over-exploitedstocks; monitor and research impacts of fishing.

• Support commercial inshore fisheries to establish sustainable livelihoods, for example by developing alabel for products from the PNMI.

• Assist with sustainable management of the kelp industry - undertake research required formanagement, monitor the impact of harvesting etc.

• Support maritime activities on the islands that will lead to a stabilised population, in collaboration withthe PNRA.

• Assist with the conservation and promotion of the maritime archaeological and architectural heritage,in association with relevant local authorities and organisations.

• Support the development of tourism, leisure and water-based activities compatible with the protectionof marine ecosystems, through contributing to the establishment of education and discovery centres,and in partnership with the PNRA and other relevant organisations, the establishment of appropriatetourism ‘ecolabels’.

56

assists with the promotion of other independent standards such as “Gites Panda” in association with WWF.

273. In some cases standards and codes are applied more rigorously. In Saguenay-St.

Lawrence, the whale watching code is now effectively applied as a set of regulations.

3.9 Achievements, benefits, drawbacks

Achievements and benefits 274. Broadly speaking the achievements of the parks - or the park development process -

selected for the case studies were substantial and varied. The following are just a few highlights.

275. The bringing together of fishing interests with those of the park - in other words the

promotion of more sustainable and collaborative fisheries management in the French and Swedish cases is a tremendous achievement with many lessons for Scotland.

276. The very positive nature of the French regional park in terms of community

development, and strong public support is also impressive. To some degree this provides a model for the newer parks in Europe where sustainable use and community development are considered to be as important as (and complimentary to) nature and landscape conservation. This approach is likely to be particularly effective in those cases where the more protective approach to biodiversity conservation is already catered for by existing nature conservation designations. In these cases the park can be used to complement existing designations - adding value to them at the same time as increasing public awareness, appreciation and understanding.

277. The Parc Naturel Regional d’Armorique

also demonstrates the wide range of opportunities associated with a high quality natural environment - there has been significant entrepreneurial activity associated with the ecomusees, educational and activity holidays. Economic benefit has also been registered in the “coordination zone” around the Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park in Canada.

278. Positive nature conservation, associated in particular with landscape and culture also

appears to have been a significant achievement in some parks and represents an opportunity in others. As pointed out by the Conservation Officer of Vastra County in Sweden “We make tremendous efforts to preserve or restore old buildings; why not make the same effort with some farmed landscapes, many of which are not only more ancient, but also very beautiful and tremendously rich in biodiversity?”

Box 9 - Saguenay-St. Lawrence National Park - some key achievements

Cooperation between national and

provincial government. Enactment of Marine Activities (whale

watching) Regulations (2002). Discovery network. More visitors. Environmental education. Focus for research. Inflow of federal and provincial

government spending on infrastructurearound the park.

Direct employment - 27 full timeemployees.

Strengthened community involvement inplanning and management of naturalresources.

57

279. The Australian and Canadian parks perhaps excel in the arena of awareness and education, and the “wilderness experience”. There is a huge amount to be learned from the scope and diversity of their activities in these areas.

280. Creating a more predictable planning environment was also flagged as a possible

benefit in several cases - in particular through rationalising and coordinating management of all the various designations, and facilitating better sectoral integration. Some stakeholders in Sweden made it clear that they want some stability. Governments come and go, agency policy changes, but the park has a clear management strategy which they can influence. Canada, a bit like the UK, has 36 federal and 20 provincial laws relating to coastal and marine management, in addition to international commitments. A marine park can serve as a focus for bringing these together in a more unified and strategic plan.

281. In Sweden, surveys of local government show that national parks are generally

perceived as bringing benefits. Surveys of local people in Brittany showed appreciation and pride in the park. Recent studies from the UK7 tend to support the view that designations of this kind are likely to generate net benefits.

Drawbacks 282. A key objective of national parks is to raise awareness, appreciation and

understanding, yet some of the projects to develop national parks have gone seriously wrong, and simply served to inflame antagonism between local resource users and outside environmental NGOs or holiday home owners, or indeed between these and state environmental agencies. This can be avoided but requires great skill in terms of timing, approach and the quality of the facilitation process.

283. There can be social and economic costs. In the case of the Wadden Sea, German and

Danish fishermen now have reduced economic opportunities as a result of restrictions on fishing. This may not matter if new alternative livelihoods are created, although some loss of “fishing culture” is inevitable. Either way these issues must be handled with great care if national parks are not to be seen as insensitive, elitist and top down institutions.

284. There is also a real danger of simply adding an extra layer of bureaucracy and further

complicating already complex decision making processes in the coastal zone, especially where the parks powers and role are unclear. Confusion about the nature of all the designations and their implications was evident in some of the European cases.

285. Some restrictions imply significant loss of rights. Thus within the proposed Swedish

park in Kosterhavets, there are likely to be restrictions on the speed of boats, on landing from boats, and on barbecues etc. While these may well be justified, they will undoubtedly be seen as restrictive of individual access rights by some - and especially the leisure boating community.

286. Increased tourism is usually registered as an economic benefit, but it also represents

increased pressure, as does more specific activity such as recreational fishing. The term carrying capacity is often used when discussing this dilemma, but unfortunately carrying capacity is almost impossible to define. The key is to anticipate and mitigate pressure, and be responsive to emerging problems.

7 Hambrey Consulting 2006. Social, economic and environmental benefits of Unesco designations.

Research Report for Scottish Natural Heritage.

58

Others 287. Many other benefits and drawbacks were cited in the various cases, and these along

with the above are summarised in Table 5 below. Table 5 Some of the benefits and drawbacks identified in the cases Clearly whether these are realised or not depends entirely on the approach to park designation and management Benefits and strengths Drawbacks and weaknesses Enhanced and more integrated planning and management of natural resource use i.e. an institution to deliver ICZM

An extra layer of bureaucracy; ultimately a top down approach

Improved and more participatory fisheries management

Top down restrictions imposed on fisheries

Increased exposure to a high quality natural environment and awareness of the need for sustainable management

Stimulus to tourism in general and enterprise and employment based on high quality environment and landscape

Increased visitor related pressure on environment and local culture/community

Focus and resource for interpretation, education and research

Funding channelled into outside researchers rather than local users

Model for sustainable use, sustainable business and sustainable community development

Huge scope and potential, limited resources

Poplation stabilisation (Brittany) Continuing population decline (Danish Wadden Sea)

New social and political networks created Better recreational infrastructure Loss of access rights to some attractive

recreational resources Greater exchange of knowledge with fishermen Limited use of user (fishermen’s) knowledge Opportunities for branding, standards, awards Restoration of biodiversity rich, attractive farmed landscapes

Limited powers for protection of biodiversity

Positive impact on biodiversity Loss of some fishing and hunting opportunities Local pride in environment and local culture

3.10 Performance Indicators 288. Generally speaking performance indicators were poorly developed, although in several

cases there was awareness of the need for better performance monitoring, and this is being explored in current and future planning rounds.

289. The Wadden Sea (German sector) was perhaps the most advanced, with detailed

wildlife and environmental monitoring, and some socio-economic monitoring feeding into the tri-lateral monitoring and assessment programme for the Wadden Sea. This work is built around “issues of concern”: climate change; nutrients and pollutants; commercial fisheries; recreational activities and agricultural practice. The monitoring also has to consider requirements of the Water Framework Directive, Birds and Habitats Directives, Ramsar, Bonn, and OSPAR Conventions.

59

290. The programme is not simply indicator based. Thematic reports, Quality Status Reports (most recent published 2004) and overall assessment reports (ecological status, issues of concern, potential measures) are required on a regular basis. A range of regional and national authorities are in charge of monitoring, and a new research station is being built at Sylt which will play a significant role for the whole of the Wadden Sea.

291. The Parc Naturel Regional d’Armorique has not

in the past used formal indicators, but this will be addressed in next charte. It is likely that these will be based on the “Indicators of sustainable development” developed by the EU ICZM working group on indicators and data.

292. In Canada, the Pacific Rim National Park

Management Plan will include a “long term ecological vision”; ecological integrity objectives and corresponding indicators, though these are yet to be developed.

293. Some other cases, while lacking comprehensive monitoring, nonetheless considered

the following to be important performance indicators:

Stable population Local “ownership” and pride Sustainable communities Increased recreational value for users Employment Number of active partnerships Local products Branding initiatives Standard environmental monitoring Fry on fish nursery grounds

Box 10 - Some of the indicators being used for the German Sector of the Wadden Sea

Stocks of seals Migratory breeding birds Mussels Eel grass Green algae Coastal vegetation structure Oil pollution Socio-economy (not specified)

60

61

ANNEX 1 INTRODUCTION TO THE CASE STUDIES The case studies vary somewhat in style and detail, although they all follow the same basic format. All cases involved review of readily available information (literature, web resources) followed up with telephone interviews with local park professionals. For most of the European cases we also made site visits and talked in person to key park staff and selected stakeholders. This was not a rigorous impartial survey - limited time and resources meant that we interviewed those easily contacted and willing to talk, and these were usually (though not always) recommended by our primary contact. The cases are therefore coloured by personal opinion and particular perspectives, although we tried to minimise bias through “triangulation” wherever possible. Six different authors from four different countries carried out research, conducted interviews, and drafted the case studies; and other than minor editing and formatting their case studies have been left largely unchanged. There is therefore significant variation in style and emphasis, and we see this as strength rather than a weakness. Table A1 provides a full list of case studies and some of the key issues or examples associated with each which have informed the main report. This is followed by short 1 page introductions to each of the case studies providing basic information on location, size, scope, objectives, and key issues. The full case studies can be downloaded as independent documents from the SNH website. Table A1 Full list of case studies and key features

Case Some key issues addressed in the case study 1. Parc Naturel Régional d’Armorique, Brittany, France 172,000 ha

Local government driven. The charte (local/national government/agency/stakeholder agreement) serves as basis for park management. Strong local support and socio-economic benefit; much associated entrepreneurial activity - tourism, environmental education/activity holidays, eco-musees.

2. Park Naturel Marin d’Iroise, France 321,000 ha

Newly established June 2007 and associated with a new national MPA authority. First of its kind in France - will be a pilot for future PNMs. Fisheries and water-based recreation and tourism major activities; overlapping protected area designations and management bodies; well supported by tourism industry and professional fishermen but opposed by strong recreational fisheries lobby.

3. Kosterhavets Marine National Park, Sweden (proposed) 45,000 ha

Co-management. A successful balance between top down and bottom up approaches? Detailed history of evolving and improving relationships between fishermen, scientists and nature conservationists; protection of deep water soft and hard coral; parallel fisheries co-management initiative and MPA initiative; restoration of rural landscape and traditional farming; visitor/interpretive centre; strong support from local business.

4. Wadden Sea National Park, Schleswig Holstein, Germany 441,500 ha

“Re-designation” involving substantial local participation but also driven by large scale research and monitoring programme. Successful establishment of a National Park Partner brand resulting in a high level of support from the tourist sector; high profile communication and information strategy; high level of external national funding.

62

Table A1 cont.

Case Some key issues addressed in the case study 5. Wadden Sea National Park, Denmark 133,900-154,400 ha (alternate proposals)

Pilot project illustrating importance of local administration. Conflict associated with proposed zoning; use of professional facilitator; socio-economic and welfare economic models used to evaluate the costs & benefits; ‘time factor’ as a constraint in mobilising the local community and developing trust; alternative/strengthened livelihood opportunities; eco-farming & tourism; fishermen and farmer role in management of invasive species.

6. Laesoe Island Marine National Park, Denmark (pilot proposal) 147,400-241,800 ha (alternate proposals)

An example of a very “bottom up” approach. Stakeholder agreement on benefits of park, but irreconcilable disagreements on scale and boundaries; use of local referendum; sustainable Norwegian lobster fisheries; restoration and management of both natural and cultural heritage landscapes; seasonality of tourism; carrying capacity of tourism; “dynamic conservation” - local interpretation of sustainable use; manufacturing of local high quality products.

7. Archipelago National park, Finland 48,000 ha

A well established park which has evolved through several administrative phases. Strengthened through association with biosphere reserve - more local contact; more positive sustainable development priorities; economic impact of park and associated tourism; restoration and management of traditional landscapes and farming practice; local hunting rights cause ongoing conflict.

8. Pacific Rim National Park Reserve, Canada 51,100 ha

A traditional “top down” representative park, tempered by status as a reserve and claims by First Nations. The need for public support and the role of NGOs; nature of advisory board; communication of park objectives and approach; “optimal” levels of public consultation; promotion and awareness raising through “iconic species”; working with local (First Nation) communities; indicator monitoring programme; relationship with biosphere reserve; zoning.

9. Biscayne National Park, Florida, USA 70,000 ha

Well established park with major emphasis on interpretation. History of residential, commercial and industrial development pressures; strong, simple legislation; importance of education and interpretation; mangrove, seagrass and shoreline protection underpinning fisheries; fisheries management; cultural and historic dimensions (wrecks etc.); carrying capacity; financial issues.

10. Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park, Québec, Canada 113,800 ha

Balance between “top down and “bottom up” with significant emphasis on “sustainable use”. Iconic species (beluga); compensation for opportunities foregone; the importance of “champions” for the cause; whale watching regulations; environmental education; research; infrastructure development; job creation; community organisation; carrying capacity; property values and displacement of locals.

11. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, Australia 35,000,000 ha

Classic well established, highly zoned and regulated park. Zoning and permitting systems; management planning and public/stakeholder involvement; public education; collaboration with Queensland State authorities and local government; administration; visitor numbers and contribution to regional economy; ecological representation.

12. Cape Byron Marine Park, Australia 22,000 ha

Designation primarily related to ecological representation. Tourism pressures on the park and local users; moorings - liability and safety; bait collection and recreational fishing; closures and restrictions on commercial and recreational fishing; fishing effort displacement; $4.3m quota/license buy-back scheme; use of focus groups in defining rules and regulations. Zoning v. management plans.

Note that the French cases and the Australian cases have been bundled together as single “country cases” allowing for the inclusion of a general country or regional overview providing context for the individual cases.

63

Parc Naturel Régional d’Armorique, Brittany, France Location and size Includes four geographically defined areas of Finistere, northern Brittany: Ouessant-Molene Archipelago (Ushant Islands); Crozon Peninsula; Monts d’Arree; and estuary of the River Aulne. Total area 172,000 ha. Scope Primarily terrestrial, but includes 60,000 ha of marine water to 30 m depth (the marine area also falls within the proposed Parc Naturel Marin d’Iroise); other protected areas lie within its boundaries including the Reserve Biosphere d’Iroise and several terrestrial nature reserves. Objectives

Contribute to the economic and social development of the sub-region; Understand, protect, enhance and encourage an appreciation of the natural

environment; Understand, protect, enhance and encourage an appreciation of the cultural heritage; Encourage further support for the park and its goals both locally and further afield.

Status Established since 1969; currently undergoing the fourth 10-year revision of its charte (management agreement); managed using collaborative approach between communes and regional government (i.e. not national level). Issues and initiatives The PNRA is considered to have contributed to rural regeneration and sustainable development, and has introduced ecomusees on a wide range of themes which promote the natural and traditional heritage, as well as provide education facilities and tourism attractions. The complexity of protected area designations both within and adjacent to PNRA has caused some difficulties in communication and collaboration. Although marine waters are included, the PNRA has no competence over these.

64

Parc Naturel Marin d’Iroise, Brittany, France Location and size Iroise Sea, off the westernmost point of Finistere; total area c. 321,000 ha. Scope Entirely marine apart from emergent rocks and uninhabited islets; extends from territorial sea limit to high water mark, excluding the Rade de Brest. Objectives

Promotion of knowledge and understanding of the marine environment; Protection of designated marine sites of importance; Sustainable development of economic activities dependent on the sea.

Status Approved and gazetted in July 2007 as France’s largest MPA and first protected area under a new designation Parc Naturel Marin. Includes components of other protected areas (e.g. subtidal parts of PNRA and RBI). Issues and initiatives Primary issues to address will be fisheries and water-based recreation and tourism (sailing, water-sports); the issue of overlapping protected area designations and management bodies have yet to be resolved; specific role of PNMI over and above that of other protected areas and existing fisheries management mechanisms not entirely clear; well supported by tourism industry and professional fishermen but a strong recreational fisheries lobby is opposed to the concept; the PNMI has potential as a new, comparatively well-funded initiative to bring all the interests together and develop new mechanisms; will be a pilot for development of future PNMs.

65

Kosterhavets proposed Marine National Park, Sweden Location and size Northern Skagerrak/Bohuslan, including a small group of Islands close to the Norwegian border and abutting a second proposed Marine National Park (Ytre Hvaler) in Norway. Close to the old trading town of Strömstad, 150 km south of Oslo and a similar distance north of Göteborg. Area not finalised but proposal for 450 km2. Scope Technically marine, but substantial adjacent nature reserves on land allow for comprehensive and integrated development planning. Objectives (short)

Conservation in line with sustainable use;

Protection of natural, cultural and rural heritage;

Promote understanding and knowledge;

Promote research and development related to sustainable use of marine and terrestrial ecosystems.

Status Proposal, likely to be endorsed and officially designated in 2009 as the first marine national park in Sweden. Issues and initiatives Sustainable fisheries and protection of deep water soft and hard coral; restoration of rural landscape and traditional farming; major visitor/interpretive centre; parallel fisheries co-management initiative and MPA initiative; strong local support, though some fishermen remain wary. Good history of evolving and improving relationships between fishermen, scientists and nature conservationists.

66

Wadden Sea National Park - Schleswig-Holstein Area, Germany Location and size The Wadden Sea extends along the coastline of Denmark, Schleswig-Holstein, Lower Saxony and the Netherlands. It is a unique marine coastal landscape where natural forces and human settlement have combined to form an unparalleled combination of sandbanks, dunes, salt-marshes and islands and one of the largest areas of tidal mud-flats in the world. The total area of the park is 4,415 km2. It consists of a zero use zone - reference area; conservation areas not open to the public or utilisation, an intermediate zone with limited public access as well a utilisation of natural resources and a whale protection zone. Five perecent of the park is designated as a UNESCO MAB reserve. Scope Mainly a marine national park with strong preservation and conservation objectives. Close link to development of sustainable tourism which is the largest sector in the area. Objectives The park has three main development objectives: Protection of the Wadden Sea for future

generations; Undisturbed development - leave nature to

its own devices; Recreation and nature experience.

Status National park was established in 1985 using a top down approach. The national park law was amended in 1999 based on a 7-year scientific study and a subsequent 2-year participatory process. Issues and initiatives Successful establishment of a National Park Partner brand resulting in a high level of support from the tourist sector; communication and information has high level of priority with success; high level of external national funding ensures efficient park administration and management as well as positive spin-off effects to local tourist industry; large scale monitoring programme is used in adjusting management practices.

67

National Park Wadden Sea, Denmark Location and size The Wadden Sea is one of the most important transit and wintering areas in Europe for a range of waterfowl. It stretches some 500 km from Blaavandshuk (Denmark) to Den Helder (Holland) and covers approximately 9,000 km2 of marsh, tidal flats, marine trenches, sandy beaches and sand dunes. A string of islands separates the Wadden Sea from the North Sea. Using a 3 nautical mile distance from land the Wadden Sea represents 13,500 km2, of which the Danish sector represents approximately 10%. Disagreement within the steering committee resulted in proposal of two models: Model 1) Wadden Sea area and its islands as well as Skallingen (a northern peninsula). The land bound border follows the crowns of the sea dikes and where no dikes have been made the mean high tide line is used. The sea bound border follows the 3 nm line resulting in a total area of 1,339 km2; Model 2) Consists of the same areas as Model 1 as well as other areas included in the Trilateral Wadden Sea agreement. Model 2 consists of an area of 1,544 km2. Scope Integrated coastal zone planning and development which also has to be aligned to the Trilateral Wadden Sea Agreement between the Dutch and German sectors of the Wadden Sea. Objectives The park has five main development objectives:

Contribute to the sustainable development of the Wadden Sea region;

Develop in line with objectives set forth for the Natura 2000 areas and the Trilateral Wadden See Plan;

Give nature ‘free reign’ to develop; Conserve and promote cultural heritage; The park must be secured by local

ownership and participation in the decision-processes of its management.

Status One of six national park pilots currently waiting for the Minister of Environment to select three to become the first Danish national parks in 2008. Issues and initiatives It was possible to reach broad agreement on the scope of the national park but it is clear that local administration is an essential element in park management. Zoning of the park divided the local community. Socio-economic and welfare economic models proved to be strong tools to evaluate the benefits of a national park. ‘Time Factor’ has been stated as a major constraint in mobilising the local community and developing trust between various stakeholders. Pilot process disclosed a number of alternative livelihood opportunities and growth potential of existing ones i.e. specialty products, eco-farming tourism. Potential use of fishermen and farmers to manage invasive species.

68

Marine National Park Laesoe, Denmark Location and size In the middle of Kattegat and adjacent to Natura 2000 areas off the east coast of Northern Jutland. Area not finalised: i) majority of steering committee (mainly locals) propose a 10 meter depth boundary resulting in a total sea area of 1,330 km2 plus the entire island of 144 km2 ; ii) minority (external ‘green interest organisations’) propose using the existing Natura 2000 areas for demarcating the park boundary resulting in a sea area of 2,274 km2 plus the island. Scope The environmental impact from adjacent areas is limited due to the location of Laesoe in the middle of the Kattegat which is seen as an important parameter in maintaining the quality of the environment. In addition a marine park around Laesoe Island would represent a variety of sea depths and geological structures including: stone and coral reefs. These form the basis several habitat types with a diverse flora and fauna. The area around Laesoe consists of a number of Natura 20008 defined areas with a variety of habitats which are important for blue lobster, small sharks, porpoise, and very large colonies of seabirds. Main focus is a marine park with the island representing both natural and cultural heritage landscapes. Objectives Sustainable park management is realised through three types of objectives:

Conservation; Utilisation & community development; Communication & research and

development. Laesoe wants to introduce ‘dynamic conservation management’ which allows sustainable utilisation of stocks once these have recovered. Status Mistrust between local and external stakeholders has resulted in a local referendum where the community voted ‘no - to continue the national park development process’. This does not mean that there won’t be a national park, but it is unlikely that Laesoe will be selected in 2008. Issues and initiatives External and local stakeholders all agreed on the benefits of a national park but could not reach agreement concerning the scale of the park. Sustainable Norwegian lobster fisheries; restoration and management of both natural and cultural heritage landscapes; changing tourism from seasonal to year-round to increase sector whilst staying within the parks carrying capacity; manufacturing of local high quality products.

8 Natura 2000 - conservation of selected habitats, bird protection areas or Ramsar areas in Denmark

in line with EC Directives on conservation.

69

Archipelago National Park (ANP), Finland Location Southern part of the wide archipelago between the continent and the Åland Islands, south-west Finland. Nearest city, Turku. Forms the core area of the Archipelago Sea Biosphere Reserve (BR). Natura 2000 site, Saaristomeri, covers almost the whole of ANP. Size 48,000 ha (45,000 ha marine). Comprises approx. 2,000 islands and rocky islets. Surrounded by co-operation area. BR is 420,000 ha. Area includes private nature reserves and parts with no conservation restrictions e.g. areas owned by defence forces. Population National Park 0; Co-operation Area 180; biosphere reserve permanent population approx. 1,200; Stakeholders cover four municipalities - total population approx. 7,000. Objectives Main management task of nature conservation with recognition of sustainable development projects for both cultural heritage and local communities:

To protect the nature and the culture of the Archipelago Sea; To safeguard the traditional ways of utilising nature; To preserve a living community in the archipelago; To promote environmental research and general interest in nature.

Status Designated 1983. Biosphere reserve established 1994. Issues and initiatives

Extensive administrative change over 20 years. Move from original close ground level contact with local communities to limited contact under current arrangements.

Community contact strongly supported by biosphere reserve sustainable development priorities.

Tourism future promising. Challenge to extend 6 week season and increase international visitor numbers. Network of tourist info. points, two visitor centres.

Regional economic impact of national park and tourism measured - 04/05 study. Key partner in Interreg ‘nature tourism’ project ‘Coastal Sustainability as a Challenge’

in Baltic region; partner in recently launched ‘Scandinavian Islands’ regional marketing initiative.

Co-operation with local entrepreneurs strong. Restoration and management of traditional landscapes - management of meadows,

reviving animal husbandry - major success. Preservation of ‘old archipelago culture’ somewhat neglected to date. Local hunting rights cause ongoing conflict. Management of highly fragmented area ongoing challenge.

70

Pacific Rim National Park Reserve, Canada Location and size Located along the west coast of Vancouver Island, near Ucluelet, SE British Columbia, Canada; it covers an area of about 511 km². Scope The park includes Long Beach, several islands, the historic Life Saving Trail, and a variety of marine life. It is divided into three geographically distinct park units: Long Beach, Broken Group Islands (about 100 islands in Barkley Sound), and the West Coast Trail. Objectives Maintaining the ecological integrity of areas. Ecological integrity is defined by as “a condition that is determined to be characteristic of its natural region and is likely to persist, including abiotic components and the composition and abundance of native species and biological communities, rates of change and supporting processes.” More specifically, the park was created to:

Protect ecosystems and landscape features representative of the natural region; Consider the existence of significant cultural heritage features or landscapes; Maintain drainage basin integrity; Offer opportunities for public understanding and enjoyment.

Status Park established 1971. Issues and initiatives The case addresses in particular: the importance of public support; “optimal” levels of public consultation; the role of NGOs; iconic species; advisory committees; increased opportunities for water based leisure and education activities.

71

Biscayne National Park, Florida, USA Location and size Biscayne National Park is a U.S. national park located in southern Florida, due east of Homestead, Florida. Ninety-five percent of the park is water. The shore of the bay is covered in extensive mangrove forest. The park covers 700 km². Status The park was created in 1968 as the Biscayne National Monument. Scope Includes 72,000 acres (29,138 ha) of coral reefs; 42 islands or keys and 32 km of protected mangrove shoreline. Objectives “to preserve and protect for the education, inspiration, recreation, and enjoyment of present and future generations a rare combination of terrestrial, marine, and amphibious life in a tropical setting of great natural beauty.” Natural and cultural features One of the top scuba diving areas in the United States. Includes a diverse assemblage of flora and fauna. Coral reefs, reef fish and birds significantly contribute to the park’s biological diversity and ecological value. The park’s mangrove forests and seagrass beds protect the shorelines from intense wave action during storms, significantly contribute to coastal detritus-based food webs, and provide nursery habitats for many commercial and recreationally important marine species. Issues and initiatives BNP, known as Biscayne National Monument until 1980, was originally established in order to protect Florida’s northern most keys from residential, commercial and industrial development. The area’s proximity to Miami resulted in considerable pressure to build roads, bridges and a major industrial seaport within the boundaries of the yet-to-be-established park during the 1950s.

72

Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park, Québec, Canada Location and size The Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park is a National Marine Conservation Area (NMCA), located where the fjord of the Saguenay River meets the estuary of the Saint Lawrence River. It is the first national park in Québec to protect a purely marine environment. Whales are drawn to the rich food supply stirred up by the mixing of waters here, including a colony of belugas. Scope Officially established in 1998, the Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park (SSLMP) covers 1,138 km2 and is divided into three zones; the St. Lawrence River estuary, the Saguenay River fjord, and their confluence-zone. The seafloor and the water above it are managed as well as select intertidal features up to the high water mark. Objectives This programme specifically aims to protect cultural heritage sites, to encourage opportunities for recreation, and to establish an infrastructure for natural and cultural heritage learning. Status Established in 1998. Issues and initiatives The park was established primarily because of its distinguishing marine and biological features. Unique and productive marine environments abound in the park’s area. One of the most significant features of the park is the confluence zone, where the deep waters from the Saguenay Fjord meet the shallow waters of the St. Lawrence Estuary.

73

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, Queensland, Australia Location and size The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (GBRMP) occupies an area of 350,000 km2 stretching 2,000 km along the north-eastern coast of Queensland from the Torres Strait to north of Bundaberg. The GBRMP consists of some 2,900 individual reefs, 750 fringing reefs attached to the mainland or the high continental islands. Some of the reefs are more than 100 km2 while the smallest are less than one hectare. Scope Marine, but a number of national parks are found on offshore islands. Integrated planning occurs through a catchment management approach as many issues affecting the GBR originate from adjacent agricultural land. Objectives (short) Conservation in line with sustainable use; protection of natural, cultural (European and Indigenous) and marine resources; promote understanding and knowledge of marine biodiversity and world heritage values in accordance with the World Heritage Convention; promote research and development related to sustainable use of marine ecosystems and the identification and assessment of representative habitats. Status Declared in the 1970s the GBR is jointly managed by the Queensland and Commonwealth governments. Issues and initiatives First major marine area to be managed on sustainable principles through zoning and plans of management. Zoning plans, however, are not able to effectively provide a management framework for more intensively used areas. In recent times protection of ‘representative’ habitats has resulted in the protection of 30% of the area from all extractive pressures. Little knowledge base of non coral reef habitats particularly inshore benthic sedimentary habitats and mangrove communities. The area receives over 1.3 million visitors per year which has economically benefited many communities but displaced a number of traditional users. A policy of not reducing fishing licences through “buy out programs” has meant many fishers have been displaced by increased protection zones and increasing competition for limited sites adjacent to main fishing ports causing tension with management agencies. Community involvement has been variable over the years. Promoting voluntary compliance is a necessary and effective way to achieve voluntary conformity with the law.

74

Cape Byron Marine Park, New South Wales, Australia Location and size The Cape Byron Marine Park is a small reserve that covers an area of 22,000 hectares on the far north coast of New South Wales based around the town of Byron Bay. Scope Marine, with council and government management of adjacent coastal land. Objectives (short) To protect a variety of representative habitats in a multiple use marine protected area. To incorporate indigenous values into the management of the reserve though the extension of Indigenous Land-Use Agreements that have been developed for adjacent coastal reserves. Status Declared in 2002 and managed by the New South Wales government through the NSW Marine Park Authority. Issues and initiatives The main issues relate to the aspirations of indigenous communities, commercial fishers and, in particular, the tourism industry including: whale watching; increased competition for access to moorings; anchor damage; displacement of traditional users; crowding on popular surf breaks. While some issues have related to the restriction of recreational fishing activities this appear to have been resolved in recent times. A major initiative is the reduction of displaced fishing effort through voluntary ‘buy-out’ of fishing licences.