Balancing sustainability in two pioneering marine national parks in Scandinavia

Ocean & Coastal Management 139 (2017) 51e63

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ocean & Coastal Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ocecoaman

Balancing sustainability in two pioneering marine national parks in Scandinavia € m d, Sverker C. Jagers d, e Andrea Morf a, b, c, *, Annica Sandstro a

Swedish Institute for the Marine Environment, University of Gothenburg, Sweden School of Global Studies, University of Gothenburg, Sweden c Nordregio, Nordic Centre for Spatial Development, Sweden d Political Science Unit, Luleå University of Technology, Sweden e Department of Political Science, University of Gothenburg, Sweden b

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 24 June 2016 Received in revised form 30 December 2016 Accepted 5 January 2017

Even though marine protected areas (MPAs) have become central instruments in the endeavour towards sustainable development, our knowledge on how different institutional designs influence outcomes is limited. Using a comparative case study design, this paper explores the interplay between institutional arrangements and management outcomes in two adjacent yet institutionally slightly differing MPAs, encompassing a shared marine trench and a partially inhabited archipelago landscape e namely the Koster Sea National Park in Sweden and the Outer Hvaler National Park in Norway. How can differences in the institutional designs governing the two parks, be linked to differences in sustainability outcomes? What lessons can be learnt for the design of MPAs? The study shows that institutional design influences management outcomes in some respects but not in others. Differences in overall management systems had no noticeable effects on sustainability outcomes and how they were perceived, while the differing objectives of the parks and how they are made operational seem to have affected the outcomes. But they have also influenced actors' expectations and their assessment of outcomes. According to this study, conservation arrangements can be broadened beyond mere nature protection. However, the study also underlines the challenges of locally adapted and participatory institutional designs and emphasises the importance of taking users’ varying expectations related to social and economic values into account throughout the whole process. The establishment of national parks is no guarantee for broader sustainable development per se; this also requires resources and proper embedding and integration with relevant sectors and tiers in the overall management system. © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Institutional analysis Marine-terrestrial protected area National park Participation Sustainable development

1. Introduction In coastal and marine management, marine protected areas (MPAs) are increasingly used to promote sustainable development beyond mere conservation. This trend is driven by both national and international initiatives. International agreements and bodies such as the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD; UNEP, 2004), the Helsinki (HELCOM) and the OSPAR (Oslo-Paris) commission, as well as the EU's habitat directive and the related NATURA 2000 framework (European Council and Parliament 1992, 2009), stipulate enhanced protection of valuable coastal and marine resources and

* Corresponding author. Swedish Institute for the Marine Environment, Head € teborg, Sweden. Office, University of Gothenburg, Box 260, SE- 405 30, Go E-mail address: [email protected] (A. Morf). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2017.01.002 0964-5691/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

habitats through new MPAs. Such efforts often imply an ecosystembased approach (Apitz et al., 2006; Christensen et al., 1996; Shepherd, 2004) combined with integrative ambitions to achieve governance with multiple units at diverse scales, including both decision-makers at different administrative levels and enhancing €m stakeholder participation (Ostrom, 2005; Berkes, 2010; Sandstro et al., 2014). Most areas in need of protection are inhabited and subject to human use, which implies that ecological conservation aims must be balanced with a societal and economic context. The MPA concept itself encompasses a broad array of institutional designs (cf. Ostrom et al., 1994) and little is known about how different designs affect the interplay of ecological, economic and social sustainability. This paper deals with this puzzle; it explores the interplay between institutional arrangements and management outcomes, as perceived by key stakeholder groups, in two

52

A. Morf et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 139 (2017) 51e63

recently established and adjacent marine-terrestrial national parks in Scandinavia (see Fig. 1). Koster Sea National Park (KSNP) in Sweden and Outer Hvaler National Park (OHNP) in Norway were inaugurated concurrently in 2009 and share the same marine ecosystem. They can be seen as parallel conservation experiments according to contemporary conservation policy: the implementation of sustainable development and the ecosystem approach. This implies combining conservation objectives with a user perspective and the inclusion of stakeholders in planning and management.1 The two national parks (NPs) are situated in north-eastern Skagerrak and encompass both inhabited archipelago and a marine trench with high biodiversity values (Nilsson, 1997). The archipelago areas included in, and adjacent to, the parks have typical rural characteristics with a declining population, a high dependency on a short tourism season in the summer and threatened public and private services during the rest of the year. The user groups in the two areas include permanent and seasonal residents as well as short-term visitors, implying both non-consumptive use and harvest of resources. Besides conservation and research, important user groups are licensed fishing, leisure fishing (household/recreational), hunting, small-scale farming, recreation onshore and in the water, permanent and seasonal residency, and commercial enterprises (Supplementary, Table 1). After meeting initial local resistance, both NPs were eventually developed through participatory processes (Supplementary, Table 2). The processes continued for decades and involved both users and political decision-makers on various geographic and institutional scales (Supplementary, Table 3). Leaders were the regional branches of national authorities, the County Administra€ taland in Sweden and the County tive Board (CAB) V€ astra Go Governor (CG) Østfold in Norway. Although the two processes were linked, and coordinated in the final phase of implementation, the establishment of the NPs differ. The Koster process was rather complicated, with a long and highly conflictive history and various projects and initiatives eventually feeding into the national park planning process. It implied more active stakeholder involvement, partially even under local responsibility (Morf et al., 2011). A useroriented and broader sustainability perspective was fundamental in order to make the idea of a national park locally acceptable (ibid. and Morf, 2006). The planning process in Outer Hvaler was also participatory but structured according to general procedures and routines with a clear leadership by the CG (CGØ, 2007). Presently, Koster has a Management and Maintenance Plan (MP), which has undergone partial evaluation and revision (SEPA, 2009a). As of spring 2016, due to lack of resources, Hvaler NP was still awaiting formal decisions for the adoption of its MP and compensation payments. All the same, the overall management systems for both NPs are in place and the MPs are public, allowing a comparative

1 The latest version of the 17 United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-developmentgoals/) with not the least the SDG 14 Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources and SDG 15 Sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, halt and reverse land degradation, halt biodiversity loss include the idea of nature protection in combination with sustainable use. The Ecosystem Approach, which is a central strategy to implement the global Convention on Biodiversity (CDB), has in 1998 been specified in the 12 Malawi Principles (https://www.cbd.int/ecosystem/). The Ecosystem Approach emphasises the use of appropriate scientifically based methods and management strategies (e.g. adaptive management) and recognises that humans with their cultural diversity are an integral component of ecosystems. This implies a perspective on ”sustainable use in an equitable way” e including those living in protected areas. Such a broader way of thinking about conservation has also been implemented in national conservation legislation (to a varying degree - see analysis in this paper, not the least the national parks' objectives at constitutional level in Table 1).

analysis of both parks’ institutional frameworks. The aim of this study is to qualitatively explore possible linkages between institutional design and perceived outcomes so far, from the perspective of key stakeholder groups in the two areas. Within the frame of this study, we will not attempt to evaluate the two national parks and their actual impacts. We do believe, however, that the findings of this study can provide valuable input to coming evaluations, implying various complementary methods and sources. The two NPs can be considered institutional experiments in contemporary marine conservation in a Scandinavian context. They are adjacent, have a partially shared history and ecosystem and feature similar user communities. Yet, there is an interesting difference between the two parks in institutional designs (objectives, responsibilities, degree of regulation), making management outcomes interesting to explore and compare. This study addresses the interplay between the institutional designs governing KSNP and OHNP and sustainability outcomes as perceived by key user groups by asking: How can differences in institutional design in the two parks be linked to differences in sustainability outcomes? What can be learnt for the design of MPAs? 2. Theoretical framework and research questions To fulfil the aim of this study, the study adopts an institutional approach (cf. Peters, 1999), based on the assumption that specific arrangements of rules governing a setting influence both social interactions and collective action outcomes. In order to analyse the interplay between institutions, social interactions and outcomes in the NP settings, the study draws specifically on the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework (Ostrom et al., 1994; Ostrom, 2005). According to the IAD framework, the actors affected by the national parks and the social processes within them constitute action arenas with specific characteristics assumed to drive and explain management outcomes. These action arenas are, in turn, influenced by three sets of external factors: (i) physical and material conditions, (ii) community characteristics and (iii) institutions (McGinnis, 2011; Ostrom, 2005; Ostrom et al., 1994). Thus, in order to understand and explain outcomes, e.g. perceived sustainability, there is a need to delve deeper into these factors. The present study focuses primarily on institutions, generally defined as “rules of the game” (North, 1990) or “prescriptions that humans use to organise all forms of repetitive and structured interactions” (Ostrom, 2005). The IAD framework stipulates that the behaviour of actors in any social situation is influenced and constrained by a complex set of both formal and informal rules (Crawford and Ostrom, 1995; Ostrom, 2005; Peters, 1999). The focus here is to sort out the formal rules governing the two NPs. The IAD framework further distinguishes seven different types of rules, which together define the characteristics of action arenas (see Ostrom, 2005 for an elaboration). These rules are generic and applicable to any action arena, regardless of policy sector and administrative tier (Kiser and Ostrom, 1982):
Boundary rules delimit the action arena's ecological and social boundaries, i.e. regulate resource access and define entry/exit rules.
Position rules define the positions of different users and might imply licensing regulations defining the number and type of resource users in a park, e.g. commercial and leisure fishing.
Authority rules set the conditions for what actions are permitted and prohibited within a park and regulate both timing and technologies (e.g. open/closed seasons, allowed fishing gear, catch size limits etc.).

A. Morf et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 139 (2017) 51e63

Fig. 1. The case study areas: Koster Sea National Park and Outer Hvaler National Park in North East Skagerrak including boundaries and special regulation areas. € gren ([email protected]). Courtesy of Hans Sjo

53

54

A. Morf et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 139 (2017) 51e63


Scope rules define the scope of potential outcomes of the action arena and set geographical restrictions (e.g. new protected breeding grounds).
Pay-off rules regulate costs and benefits of certain actions (e.g. insurance conditions and financial sanctions).
Information rules affect the availability and diffusion of information among users (e.g. how information on a plan draft is made public during consultation, how information on the resource is shared).
Aggregation rules define power over action and decision-making procedures (procedures for decision making, e.g. majority rule or consensus). The activities within NPs are in fact subject to multiple institutional levels, and can be analysed with the IAD as “a multi-tier conceptual map” (Ostrom, 2005). Thus, the framework does not only distinguish different types but also different layers of rules. The above examples illustrate rules at the operational level, i.e. the action arena of day-to-day activities with direct impact on resource use. These operational rules are the result of action arenas at a higher level, i.e. the policy level. Changes in operational rules, e.g. via new licensing rules or additional protected sub arenas, and the monitoring of these, take place at this second level. The third and highest level is the constitutional one, defining the conditions for the policy level and the fundamental purpose of the management system, i.e. in this study the role of national parks. As the institutional complexity, types and layers of rules of any given action arena are immense, empirical analysis needs to narrow the scope and focus on parts of the framework. This study encompasses only a limited selection of rules in the institutional analysis of NPs. Thus, a simplified, IAD-inspired analytical framework guides the empirical analysis of NPs, as illustrated in Fig. 2. The institutional analysis is based on the following research questions. 1. How are the three aspects of sustainability treated in the objectives of KSNP and OHNP? This question is formulated to tap the objectives as defined in the scope rules at the constitutional, policy and operational level, defining the fundamental aim of the NPs. 2. How are the management systems of KSNP and OHNP designed? Answering this question requires a mapping of the action arena at the constitutional and policy level. The NPs will thus be analysed regarding at which vertical tier (national, regional, local) the operational rules are designed upon and also who the policy actors defining the operational rules (authorities, politicians, organisations, private actors) are. 3. What management rules are imposed through KSNP and OHNP? This question is formulated to map the operational-level user rules governing the national parks with emphasis on the kind of activities regulated and the degree of strictness and detail of regulation.

OBJECTIVES

MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

OUTCOMES AS PERCIEVED BY USERS 1) ECOLOGICAL 2) ECONOMIC 3) SOCIAL

USE RULES

Fig. 2. IAD-based framework for empirical analysis.

4 How do affected user groups perceive management outcomes in terms of ecological, economic and social sustainability? This question will inform the outcomes so far, as perceived by stakeholders. The study draws on a broad definition of sustainability and distinguishes between: ecological outcomes in relation to ecosystem services and ecological processes; economic outcomes, for example effects on income, economic turnover, development of enterprises and commercial activities; and social outcomes such as support for the national park, interpersonal trust, increased social coherence and capacity to manage conflicts. In this enquiry, the social aspects constitute a residue category, comprising important aspects of the communities' sustainability that are neither clearly ecological nor economic in character.

3. Methods and material Comparative case study methodology (Yin, 1994) typically uses documents and semi-structured interviews with key informants as main methods and sources. In this study, complementary methods for further triangulation and validation of the selected cases included recurrent contacts with park managers and on-site observation before and after conducting document analysis and user interviews. More specifically, research questions 1e3 were answered by document analysis comparing basic national legislation and steering documents for the parks, complemented with information provided by national park managers. For question 4 on sustainability outcomes, semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted in spring 2015 with 26 selected key informants from six important user groups: fishers, leisure fishers and hunters, farmers, outdoor recreation, residents and entrepreneurs, with two informants per group (Supplementary, Table 4). The informants were selected based on a detailed actor analysis including both management and users (for overviews, see Supplementary, Tables 1, 3 and 4) to ensure covering all relevant interest groups and get a representative view of the perceptions within these groups. Either the chairs, or vice chairs of relevant user organisations were interviewed (avoiding those directly involved in the management of NPs via steering committees), alternatively board members or persons recommended by the chair. Thus, all respondents are deemed as knowledgeable about the perspective of their respective user group and have long experience of the activities within different geographic areas. Earlier studies (Morf et al., 2011) and recurrent field visits (2009-15) have indicated that local conditions differ and tend to affect actors' views on management outcomes. Therefore, the informants were chosen to cover all relevant geographical areas: the municipalities of Hvaler and Fredriksstad €mstad (North in Norway and in Sweden the municipalities of Stro €rno €/Salto € , Rosso € islands), and Tanum (Reso €and South Koster, Tja €). We also tried to aim for a gender balance, which was not Galto entirely possible, as activities and related organisations are rather gendered, with more men in primary production and outdoor activities’ organisations (fishing, hunting, sailing, farming organisations) and women in organisations related to other issues (e.g. local resident organisations, tourism, enterprise). The interview questions covered personal background and relation to user groups and park, attitudes to the park now and in the past, perceived changes of ecological, economic and societal character, participation in decision-making and management, satisfaction with the respective process and outcomes (trust, legitimacy), knowledge about rules, compliance, and lastly satisfaction with regulation (Supplementary, Table 5). For this paper, mainly the data on personal background, attitudes, and

A. Morf et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 139 (2017) 51e63

perceived changes were analysed in detail. The answers to the other questions provided further background and triangulation. The interviews were recorded, transcribed and synthesised in comparative tables. In this exploratory study, qualitative scientific rigour and reliability was provided both by basing our questions on the above well-established analytical framework e which has been developed and tested over decades by other authors in natural resource management and conservation contexts (Ostrom and Cox, 2010) e and by a careful selection of informants. The most likely bias is due to the limited number of informants. This potential weakness was compensated for by 1) primarily turning to organized interest groups and choosing highly knowledgeable actors (e.g. experienced users, having relevant training and a long history in the area), 2) selecting two informants per country and interest group to reduce influence of actors with extreme positions, 3) cross-checking across groups when synthesising information (some informants have multiple interest group affiliations) and 4) conducting extra interviews where necessary (e.g. both with hunters and leisure fishers in Sweden as they have no common organisation). Finally, using changes perceived by users as a proxy for perceived sustainability outcomes might not reflect actual changes to a full degree. Still, we consider the data collected as sufficient enough for the purpose of a qualitative mapping of how key user groups perceive relative changes. 4. Results First, the institutional designs of the parks are described and compared regarding (1) how the three aspects of sustainability are built into the parks’ objectives at different levels, (2) the management system, including adaptations to the objectives, the distribution of responsibilities and the role of different types of users, and (3) the regulation of specific uses in the operational rules. Thereafter, we account for (4) the ecological, economic and social outcomes as perceived by key user groups. 4.1. National park-objectives Table 1 compares the objectives of the NPs related to sustainable development and how and at what level they are codified. The fundamental goals codified in overarching national legislation have rather similar, broad formulations regarding sustainable development (constitutional-level; row 1). Following the chain of regulation down to the specific NP ordinances for the two parks and the governmental proposition for KSNP, a difference appears in relation to the weight of protection vs. sustainable use. The overarching objectives of the OHNP emphasise conservation and low-tech outdoor recreation, whereas in KSNP the additional objectives of sustainable use, research and education stand equal with conservation and recreation. Thus, the objectives of OHNP lean more towards conservation, while sustainable development beyond ecological aims is more prominent in those of KSNP (policy-level; row 2). In terms of objectives as shown in the management and maintenance plans (MPs, operational level; row 4), the parks are more equal. Thus, the basic objectives of the two parks diverge in how the balance between sustainability aims is made. Their implementation in a) park management systems and b) the concrete use rules is discussed in the following Sections 4.2 and 4.3, respectively. 4.2. Management systems The management systems, governing the two NPs, are analysed below by comparing responsible bodies in terms of

55

responsibilities and primary management instruments (Table 2). In accordance with the focus of this study on MPAs, this section primarily analyses nature conservation related bodies and instruments.2 The institutional bodies managing the two parks are located at both national and lower tiers. In terms of their basic principles and objectives, both national parks are governed at the national level by the respective government, environmental ministry and environmental protection agency. The County Administrative Board in Sweden (CAB) and the County Governor in Norway (CG), national cross-sector authorities at the regional geographic scale, constitute important links across tiers and sectors. Locally, for both strategic and to some extent operational management, both parks have a steering committee with delegated responsibility. These are assisted by experts from the CAB/ CG in the form of the NP management in Koster and an NP secretariat in Hvaler and complemented by consultation forums for local users. Thus, both parks have integrative features that can support a management with aims beyond mere nature conservation: the cross-sector regional authorities, the steering committees and the management plans can make important integrative links between parks and different governmental levels and sectors and their instruments, which would be needed for implementing broader sustainable development ambitions.3 The NPs are governed by instruments at all three levels: a) basic national legislation including ordinances, b) NP-specific sector authority bylaw (only Sweden) and c) the national park-specific MPs (SEPA 2009a; CGØ, 2011). 4 KSNP implies a combination of several conservation instruments. Besides the actual NP, there are adjacent protected areas, managed in a similar way and coordinated by the MP as an overall-integrative instrument. These are mostly nature reserves, which are partially inhabited and could not be included in a NP, where land hast to be owned by the Swedish state. In Norway, no such restrictions exist. Thus, for OHNP such a construction was not necessary. Comparing the two systems further, the following basic differences can be noted: The regulations defining the fundamental aims and design of the management systems differ between the two countries both in degree of detail and who is involved. The Swedish national

2 Besides these, there are both cross-sector procedures such as spatial planning and different types of sector procedures at various levels, which to some extent feed into and are fed by the management of the two national parks (e.g. for fisheries, maritime transport). This is outside system boundaries chosen for this analysis and will mainly be discussed as external factor and in relation to integrative links and management outcomes so far. 3 Further cross-sector and cross-level integrative management instruments include also (as mentioned above) spatial planning at various levels e municipal (SE, NO comprehensive and detailed development plans), regional (NO comprehensive plans), and national level (NO national planning, SE national sector interest areas). To some extent, these instruments have been used in connection with park €mstad municipality establishment (e.g. local comprehensive plan for Koster by Stro 2009). But since then, according to the informants (see results) spatial planning has not played much of a driving role for implementation. This type of linking is important to implement broader sustainability ambitions e see Conclusions. 4 For KSNP, the most important regulatory instruments include the Environmental Code (EC, SFS, 1998:808), the KSNP-related SEPA Regulations (SEPA, 2009b) and the National Park Ordinance (SFS, 1987:938). In Sweden, concrete regulatory aspects are specified through national expert authority bylaw; for national parks these are issued by SEPA and for KSNP regulating only the activities without connected objectives. Regulation of inspection and surveillance in Sweden occurs according to Environmental Code & Environmental Inspection Ordinance (SFS, 2011: 13). For OHNP, regulation includes the Nature Diversity Act (NDA, 2009) and the National Park Ordinance, the Protection Plan and the NP-Directions (Norwegian Ministry of Climate and Environment, 2009a,b; 2010 and after adoption also the MP CGØ 2011). In addition, there is relevant sector regulation, for marine uses not the least the Swedish Fisheries Act (SFS, 1993:787) and ordinance (SFS, 1994: 1716) and the Norwegian Marine Resources Act (MRA, 2008).

56

A. Morf et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 139 (2017) 51e63

Table 1 Comparing objectives and instruments of regulation for Koster Sea National Park and Outer Hvaler National Park.

Constitutional level Environmental legislation Policy level National park-specific overall regulation

Operational level Use rules Management & Maintenance Plans (MP)

Koster Sea National Park

Outer Hvaler National Park

Sustainable use and cultural landscape protection: sustainable harvest/use allowed in NP/MPA if it does not counteract protection objectives of the specific area (EC/FA). “The objective with KSNP is to preserve a distinctive and diverse marine and archipelago area with adjacent land areas in an essentially unchanged state” (NPO amendment No. 29 including KSNP, 2009). Objectives (Gov. Prop. 2008/09:98):
Preserve marine and adjacent terrestrial natural and cultural values.
Biological resources can be extracted in a sustainable manner.
Visitors should be able to experience natural and cultural values.
Research and education on conservation and sustainable use should be promoted.
SEPA authority bylaw: concrete use rules Comparison see Section 4.3. MP (SEPA, 2009a) overall goals:
Preserve marine and adjacent terrestrial natural and cultural values.
Biological resources can be extracted in a sustainable manner.
Visitors should be able to experience natural and cultural values.
Research and education on conservation and sustainable use should be promoted.

Sustainable use and cultural landscape protection: sustainable harvest/use allowed in NP/MPA if it does not counteract protection objectives of the specific area (MRA & NDA). Govt. prop (Norwegian Ministry of Climate and Environment 2009a,b): values to protect through NP: great natural values onshore and in the water, valuable maritime cultural heritage (“East-Norwegian coastal culture”), possibilities for outdoor recreation. Objectives are the conservation of (Outer Hvaler NPO x2):
Large and relatively undisturbed area
Underwater landscape with varying topography
Ecosystems onshore and in water (species, communities, landscapes)
General public should be able to experience nature through traditional and low-tech outdoor activities.
Outer Hvaler NPO: concrete use rules Comparison see Section 4.3. MP draft includes (CGØ, 2011):
Conservation
Sustainable tourism in relation to specific activities regulated
Research and education in relation to specific activities regulated.

Sources: EC: Swedish Environmental Code (SFS, 1998:808), FA: Swedish Fisheries Act (SFS, 1993:787), NDA: Norwegian Nature Diversity Act (2009), MRA: Norwegian Marine Resources Act (2008), NPO: National Park Ordinances (SE: SFS, 1987:938 and amendment SFS, 2009:729; NO: Norw. Min. of Clim. & Env., 2009a), SEPA Regulations (authority bylaw, SEPA, 2009b), MP: Management & Maintenance Plan (SEPA, 2009; CGØ, 2011) and Gov. Prop.: Swedish Government, 2009a (proposition to establish KSNP).

park regulation merely stipulates overall guidelines e to be complemented by detailed prescriptions from the responsible sector authority (the Swedish environmental protection agency, SEPA). In contrast, the Norwegian regulation is relatively detailed, even regarding choice rules defining what actions are allowed and prohibited. Legislation also includes a general model for national park management (defining the policy level). This indicates an institutional difference between the two countries. In Sweden, the government defines the constitutional objectives while the policy level is dominated by a mandated expert-led public agency adopting the operational rules. In Norway, in contrast, both of these functions are performed by the central political government system (Table 2, rows 1e2). The central tier is also responsible for appeals, with the corresponding difference that in Sweden the expert authority is ultimately responsible, while in Norway this responsibility lies with the ministry (row 8). The MPs are central, integrative management tools used to coordinate operational-level management efforts directed towards activities e for Koster in areas both adjacent to and within the NP. The plans are guiding for overall coordination across sectors and levels, with a process involving authorities and sectors with legislation beyond conservation (air traffic, cultural heritage, fisheries, roads, maritime transport etc.). In Sweden, the development of MPs is expert-led via the CABs, while simultaneously involving the local steering committee. In Norway, the steering committee is actually responsible for the development of the MP, supported by expertise from the NP secretariat (row 3). Both MPs have to be adopted by the SEPA/NEPA, respectively (row 4). The steering committees (Koster Sea Delegation and Outer Hvaler Steering Committee) also differ in their tasks and composition and in how far the regional political tier and local users are included as decision-makers. The Koster Sea Delegation (KSD) is composed of local politicians and representatives from local organisations, together managing the park strategically,

including making non-authoritative decisions (e.g. budget) together with the CAB-employed NP management and assisted by topical advisory groups. However, for legal reasons, all authoritative decision-making (e.g. exemption permits) remains with the responsible expert authority (CAB). The Outer Hvaler Steering Committee is composed of only regional and municipal political representatives. Strategic management and even authority decisions are delegated to this committee, assisted by the NP manager serving as secretary and coordinator. Comparing them, the major differences in composition and mandate are that the Norwegian committee merely involves elected politicians from regional and local tiers with full right for authority decisions5 whereas the Swedish committee is local-tier and broader interest-based but lacks a mandate for certain authority decisions (rows 3e7). In addition, in the Koster case, users are more actively involved in decision-making through both the KSD and the topical advisory groups, whereas in Hvaler, this occurs through one single crosssector consultation group with representatives from all local interest organisations in the area (row 5). Moreover, users are more included in practical maintenance on the Koster side, whereas Hvaler uses a general and more authority-based model with the Norwegian Nature Inspectorate (NNI) and the Archipelago Service, complemented by contracts with a few farmers for grazing and mowing (row 6). Lastly, surveillance and prosecution in the parks are regulated by NP regulation and in general administrative legislation. In Sweden, this is based on a general societal model with the police being responsible onshore and in harbour areas, while the Coast Guard is in charge of marine areas. For KSNP, this is complemented with park rangers and appointed local inspectors with special training who are authorised to inspect, register and hinder or

5

This is a general model tried in Norway (Norwegian Government, 2009a,b).

A. Morf et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 139 (2017) 51e63

57

Table 2 The Management systems of Koster Sea National Park and Outer Hvaler National Park. Tasks

1. Provide fundamental aims & overall guidance for NP-management

2. Provide operational rules

3. Develop and revise the MP 4. Adopt the MP 5. Strategic NP-management: annual plan & budget 6. Practical NP-management: information, guiding, installations, restoration & cleaning

Responsible bodies Koster Sea National Park

Outer Hvaler National Park

Government (prepared by the Ministry for the Environment): NP ordinance gives overall guidelines, regulates responsibilities and procedures with a list of all NPs (amended for each new NP) including their overall purpose in one sentence, and an attached map with boundaries (no further details). Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): provides detailed regulations through NVFF (authority bylaw). Other national authorities: Fisheries (leisure & professional) and maritime traffic are not regulated through the NP but codified using harmonised boundaries and regulation by way of sectorspecific bylaws (e.g. fisheries through SwAM's HAVMFS). NP coordinates different sectors through the MP (see below). CAB, in close collaboration with the Koster Sea Delegation (KSD) and consulting advisory groups. Swedish EPA NP management located at CAB, together with KSD as local steering committee. Topical advisory groups (different topics). NP management: day to day management Topical advisory groups: input €n: topical advisory Co-management initiative North Bohusla group for fisheries & aquaculture makes proposals to SwAM for codification in HAVMFS (authority bylaw). Landowners, local orgs. & entrepreneurs: contract-based practical maintenance (trails, beach cleaning, landscape management). Visitor centre: info, events

Government: by way of NP ordinances provides boundaries and detailed regulation on what is allowed/prohibited. Ministry for Climate and Environment provides general and specific guidance for NP implementation.

7. Authority decisions 8. Instance of appeal

County Administrative Board (CAB) e.g. exemption permits Government: highest instance of appeal SEPA: instance of appeal for CAB decisions.

9.Surveillance, inspection & initiating of prosecution

Park rangers and locally appointed inspectors: inspection and policing close to land and Coast Guard offshore. Sea police and police are called in when necessary. Researchers/consultants/authorities: by different actors, depending on issue (responsible sector authority/research inst.), according to MP, coordinated by NP mgmt. So far geographically and topically limited due to limited resources.

10. Monitoring of outcomes

Government: provides detailed regulations by NP-specific ordinance. Other ministries & authorities: NP establishment led to changes in regulation of other sectors (fisheries: national, traffic: municipalities). Further changes require adapting NP ordinance. NP coordinates different sectors through the MP (see below). Outer Hvaler Steering Committee (OHSC) assisted by NP secretariat, consulting advisory group. Norwegian EPA OHSC as local steering committee, assisted by NP secretariat. Cross sector advisory group. NP secretariat: day to day management Norwegian Nature Inspectorate (NNI): practical maintenance (signs, landscape maintenance) Archipelago Service (of regional/municipal outdoor infrastructure organisation): practical maintenance (signs, cleaning). Landowners: landscape maintenance (contract-based grazing & mowing). Visitor centre: info, events. OHSC: e.g. exemption permits Government: highest instance of appeal Ministry of Climate & Environment: instance of appeal for OHSC decisions. Park rangers by Norwegian Nature Inspectorate (NNI), police called in when necessary. Researchers/consultants/authorities: by different actors, depending on issue (responsible sector authority/research inst.), according to MP proposal, coordinated by the NP secretariat. So far no monitoring due to lack of resources.

Sources: Swedish Environmental Code (SFS, 1998:808), Swedish Fisheries Act (SFS, 1993:787), Norwegian Nature Diversity Act (LOV-2009-06-19-100), Norwegian Marine Resources Act (2008), National Park Ordinances (SE: SFS, 1987:938 amendment SFS, 2009:729; NO: Norw. Min. of Clim. & Env., 2009a), SEPA Regulations (authority-by-law, SEPA, 2009a), Management & Maintenance Plans (SEPA, 2009; CGØ, 2004, 2011), and Swedish Government, 2009a, 2009(Proposition and decision to establish KSNP), (CAB 2009a,b) and complementary interviews with NP managers. Own analysis using steering documents.

arrest trespassers and, if necessary, turn them over to other authorities. Norway has a general model and service for surveillance of all NPs. The NNI is responsible for not only ranger services but also policing. The park management has the overall responsibility to register trespassers and initiate prosecution (cf. NPO). Enforcement in both parks was according to the interviews more “soft” in the initial years, by mainly informing trespassers, but has lately become tougher in terms of inspection and prosecution. The Swedish inspection system includes a local component, while the Norwegian system is national and more formalised (row 9). Summing up, the main differences between the management systems are: 1. KSNP is part of a larger construction with further adjacent protected areas while OHNP uses one main form of protection. This can be a sign of accommodating social sustainability in NP design, as Swedish landowners do not need to sell to the state but can use their land according to the MP. 2. The NPs differ in their vertical division of power (central vs. local steering). The Swedish system is centralised to the Swedish EPA, which adopts authority bylaw and MPs and the CABs in charge of practical NP management. The decentralised

complement is the Koster Sea Delegation, with a broad local representation and strategic and operational decision competence, but lacking the right to make authority decisions (permits). The Norwegian system is centralised to the government, which provides relatively detailed regulations. But with the broader responsibilities and mandate of the Outer Hvaler Steering Committee more power is decentralised to regional and local politicians. 3. The NPs diverge with regard to expert vs. political steering. Sweden generally tends towards expert ruling e with the SEPA being responsible for the overall NP planning and adoption of regulation and with the strong role of CABs at the regional level. Norway tends towards political ruling involving all three tiers. Politicians higher up in the system provide detailed regulations and regional and local politicians in the steering committee receive a great deal of delegated authority. 4. The two countries diverge in that Norway uses a general model for NP management, while Sweden does not. KSNP employs local actors for both maintenance and inspection to a larger degree than OHNP, which can affect local economic and social sustainability in terms of jobs.

58

A. Morf et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 139 (2017) 51e63

4.3. The use rules for the national parks

activities are strictly regulated, whereas in Koster there is a wider range of uses are allowed (e.g. aquaculture), which is in line with its stronger sustainable use focus.

A comparison of the rules6 governing important uses in the two parks shows that they are similar overall but differ in the details. Regulation is similarly structured in the SEPA bylaw and the Hvaler NP ordinance. Each section begins with aims and ends with sanctions for trespassing. All types of rules (following the IAD framework) can be found at all three levels e with an increasing emphasis on choice rules regulating various activities and an increasing degree of detail in all other rule types, the more operational they become. Both parks are managed through regulations emphasising nature protection, the minimisation of permanent alterations and damage to ecosystems and landscape e i.e. authority bylaw (KSNP) and national park ordinance (OHNP). Both parks allow sustainable resource use (hunting, fishing, agriculture, forestry) but limited by the protection objectives (see Table 1). Both parks allow keeping and maintaining existing structures. New activities are in principle prohibited or subject to exemption permits. NP regulation takes precedence over other use regulation, with the exception of urgent infrastructure maintenance, police and rescue operations, and military exercises. Such activities are admissible, in accordance with the MP, also in no-go zones, but may require prior consultation and subsequent reporting. Even if neither maritime transport nor fisheries are regulated within the NP systems, the MPs serve as non-binding instruments for coordination. For example, the Koster MP (SEPA, 2009a) coordinates objectives, measures, surveillance and monitoring but does not specify fisheries regulation, referring instead to sector legislation and the responsible Swedish authority for Marine and Water Management (SwAM). A recent monitoring of the seabed, initiated by the NP management, showing trawling damage (Jonsson, 2014) has led to a more restrictive, yet more user-specific, regulation of trawling (SwAM, 2015) e in agreement with the fishers. Before requesting SwAM to adapt fisheries regulation, the Koster NP management used the fisheries consultation group7 and the Steering Committee as forums to discuss monitoring results and sharpening of tracking and regulations. Here, the MP has coordinated fisheries management with other aspects. Also for Hvaler, maritime traffic and fisheries are regulated outside but are topically included in the MP draft. With its structure and degree of detail, also the Hvaler MP can become an important coordinating and steering instrument once adopted (CGØ, 2011). An important difference between parks is that regulation in Swedish SEPA bylaw and MP are less strict and outspoken e with the exception of a more restrictive regulation of hunting. The Norwegian NPO is formulated in more detail than the Swedish NP bylaw regarding prohibited activities, as it lists many specific activities (e.g. x3 NPO). Norway also regulates more activities in closer detail, is more specific in prohibiting certain activities in the park (e.g. aquaculture, motorised traffic, private gardening) and addresses more issues and interests (e.g. cultural heritage, harvesting of seaweed and seashells). Similar types of management rules govern the two NPs. However, in Outer Hvaler a broader range of

4.4.1. Ecological sustainability So far, few ecological changes related to the NPs have been observed, with only marginal differences between the parks. The most frequent and consistently perceived changes across user groups are related to landscape management measures such as grazing, burning and removing of hard vegetation and their effects (e.g. open landscape and more meadows and flowers), but also to the establishment of user infrastructure such as trails, information signs, visitor centres, fencing and recycling infrastructure. Those actively participating in and concerned with landscape management (residents, farmers, guides and entrepreneurs) perceive the changes as positive. In the water, however, the users with regular sea contact (fishers, hunters, divers) perceive few positive ecological changes that can be easily related to the parks. They mainly see continued negative trends, such as eutrophication, marine and coastal litter, oil spills and the absence of large fish, and in springtime also decaying organic material caught in fishing gear. However, many of these trends are seen as effects of larger systemic changes and as difficult to relate to the parks. Another possible ecological effect perceived by Swedish professional and household fishers and Swedish and Norwegian hunters is that there seems to be an increase in cormorants in both parks and in seals in KSNP. This might be related to effects of regulation, as KSNP, it has become illegal to hunt both species, whereas OHNP did not imply new hunting restrictions. Even if desirable from a conservation perspective, the users see their increase as negative because they compete with fishing. At least as much commented as ecological changes through the parks, was a lack of expected positive outcomes. For example, both the leisure and professional fishers perceive little or no increase of large predatory fish and crayfish. Recreational anglers have switched to sites outside the NP due to a decline of large predatory fish since the late 1900s. Swedish hunters observe a continued existence of the ecologically problematic mink, requiring further hunting. Recreational actors and residents comment negatively on litter still washed ashore. As potential causes of non-change and continued negative trends, the respondents mentioned not just the parks but also external factors such as larger scale ecological and societal processes affecting the parks. To conclude, the NPs have had perceptible positive effects on ecological sustainability onshore, and possibly with regard to marine top predators, but are, especially in the water, likely to be affected by larger scale, external processes too (e.g. currents, eutrophication, fisheries management, consumption patterns).

6 Use rules according to National Park Ordinances (SFS, 1987:938, Amendment, 2009:729 and Norwegian Ministry of Climate and Environment, 2009a), SEPA Regulations for Koster NP (SEPA, 2009b), and Management & Maintenance Plans (SEPA 2009 ; CGØ, 2011). 7 The Co-Management Initiative North Bohusl€ an (http://www. samforvaltningnorrabohuslan.se/) had already provided suggestions to reduce trespassing, e.g. by special training in marine ecology as requirement and licenses for fishing in the NP that can be taken away in case of trespassing. The authorities in their turn wanted to expand some trawling ban areas and introduce a few new ones.

4.4.2. Economic sustainability The perceived changes in livelihoods and economic development that informants relate to the parks are small and show sector and place-related patterns. The economic activities that have developed so far are few and related to either tourism and recreation or activities to promote biodiversity and reduce negative human impact on terrestrial biotopes, such as animal husbandry, landscape management and cleaning of litter performed by local farmers and residents, based on contracts with the NP management. Archipelago residents combine different activities over the

4.4. Perceived sustainability outcomes Below, park users’ perceptions of NP outcomes so far are analysed in terms of ecological, economic and social sustainability. Table 3 gives an overview of perceived changes.

Table 3 Outcomes of the Koster Sea and Outer Hvaler National Parks e perceived changes. MPA

Koster Sea National Park

User group

Sustainability aspects Ecological

Outer Hvaler National Park

Economic

Social

- Seal < - Cormorant < - Slush in spring þ Open landscape <

Hunters & leisure fishers

- -Seal < - - Cormorant < þ Open landscape <

Farmers: small scale, mostly animal husbandry

þþ Open landscape <

Recreation marine

- Diver: long term under water habitat quality >

NP OK - Sailors: local club lost cottage on Ursholmen which was their focal point in NP

Recreation terrestrial

þþ Open landscape <

Residents

þ Open landscape <

NP very OK þþ Infrastr. ¼> new focal points for activity: Naturum, €, trails, signs Rosso þ Knowledge þþ More visitors especially Norwegian - competition for space in harbours NP OK þþ With infrastr./year-round access ¼ key for sustainability Koster general: NP needed to channel tourism, but rules diffuse, some disappointed, high expectations, “sceptics were right” þ S Koster: Naturum e N Koster: Naturum moved away, decline € : new entrance, but þ Rosso little winter activity € : still waiting for NP e Reso entrance!

þþ For some individuals income & infrastructure for animal husbandry: sheep, horses

(þ) Koster: a few new jobs, but mainly external, catch 22: Koster Foundation doesn't dare hiring € mstad: some new tours, þ Stro more traffic € : some (þ) Rosso €: no developmt. e Tanum/Reso

NP OK þ Separate regulation of fishing þ Maritime cultural heritage important þ Important role of fishers' comgmt forum! NP OK - Hunters too little communication, disagree with some rules þ Internal social coherence: get organized, hunting as social activity NP very OK for animal farmers. Not much other farming. þþ Good contact w/NP mgmt. NP made people collaborate. þ Important dialogue forums €)) (e.g. Salto þ More visitors

Ecological

Economic

Social NP OK þ Separate regulation of fishing þ Better infrastructure for environmentally good behaviour NP OK þ Knowledge, education & courses, but so far little effect on enterprise

- Little cod - Cormorant <

þþ Open landscape <

þþ For some individuals: income & infrastructure for animal husbandry (sheep, pigs, cows, horses.). - Little or no compensation for lost resource use in forest

þ Open landscape < (grazing, clearing)

- Expected financial support for outdoor NGO with objectives suiting NP

Permanent residents: þ Open landscape < (grazing, clearing)

(þ) Employment for NP mgmt (a few local jobs)

NP OK for animal farmers, less for those with forest. Other farmers mixed. þ NP helps and defends animal farmers' interests e no compensation for forest owners NP OK þ Better knowledge - NP could facilitate addressing water use conflict -Bureaucracy (group permits)

A. Morf et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 139 (2017) 51e63

Fishers licensed

NP OK þ Advisory committee þ Better knowledge on nature þ NP marks area as valuable & worth protecting e Land owners: no/little compensation for reduced possibilities of use and development,

(continued on next page) 59

Social

NP very OK þ NP-label attractor þ More focus on environment, people behave better - Entrepreneurs: don't know what do with NP (þ) Some more visitors & activities, difficult to tell if NP has effect. Activities/ jobs concentrate to visitor centre.

Legend: þ changes valued as positive/þþ ditto highly positive. - changes valued as negative/–: ditto highly negative. (parentheses) to some extent/some < increase/> decrease. Interviews with user group representatives.

NP very OK for tourism, others OK but less enthusiastic þ NP-label as attractor, more visitors to Koster & Naturum, more activities, new knowl. þ Koster: a few new jobs € mstad: transport, þ Stro restaurant, guides þ Open landscape <

Social Economic Ecological

Sustainability aspects User group

Entrepreneurs

Koster Sea National Park MPA

Table 3 (continued )

year to create a livelihood; small jobs in the offseason can mean a lot. On the Swedish side, the NP appears to have created a number of complementary part-time jobs, even if the overall increase did not meet the expectations of all user groups. Mainly animal farmers, tourism and marine transport-related enterprises experience positive economic development. The other users do not consider themselves affected much. Informants in both parks emphasise the significance of infrastructure as focal points for activities, not the least visitor centres and park entrances (see social outcomes). Geographically, the signs of economic development that can be related to the parks, such as new NP-financed jobs, enterprises and tourism/recreation activities, are concentrated to certain areas, i.e. € mstad in Sweden and mainly South Koster and the town of Stro Skjærhalden in Norway. Expectations for economic development were particularly high on the Swedish side. Disappointment is €-Galto €; it stronger here too, especially on North Koster and Reso relates mostly to jobs that have not been generated and contracts that have gone to enterprises with lower prices based outside the area. Informants also remark on too little economic development, that their expectations were not fulfilled and that the parks have not yet realised their economic development potential. This lack of development is explained by broken promises by authorities, lack of infrastructure for visitors, lack of collaboration between public and private actors, lack of resources and lack of initiative by municipalities. However, also external factors are brought up, e.g. EU public procurement regulation affecting local jobs in Sweden, a general customer boycott of shrimp due to a Swedish NGO's warnings and global economic recession. Summing up, the NPs seem to have had some (expected) positive effects on economic sustainability, especially in KSNP. Yet, in areas with little economic increase, there is also stronger disappointment about the lack of expected development, especially in KSNP.

Ecological

Economic

A. Morf et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 139 (2017) 51e63

Outer Hvaler National Park

60

4.4.3. Social sustainability The social outcomes linked to the NPs include both softer aspects such as human attitudes and interaction and the hardware of social sustainability, i.e. infrastructure and services. With few exceptions, the outcomes are perceived as positive and many informants ask for more. Even though the strongest changes in attitudes to the NPs occurred before the parks were fully established, some changes have been noticed since the inauguration. The initial enthusiasm has decreased, especially among residents in North Koster and Tanum and Norwegian landowners who have not been sufficiently compensated for losses. Overall, support for the parks can be found in all groups. In fact, even a sense of pride can be discerned, especially among farmers, guides and tourism entrepreneurs. The parks are seen as necessary to protect the beauty of the landscape, to channel development and tourism to appropriate places and intensity, and as a quality brand and visitor magnet. Still, some fishers and hunters question the extent to which the sea or their target species should be included. Fishers on both sides are comfortable with their part in the implementation process, as long as fishing is managed through fisheries rather than national park regulation, with the Koster fishers emphasising the importance of their special comanagement forum (the first and working topical consultation forum for KSNP). Animal farmers on both sides are highly positive about the support by and the dialogue with the park management. Also tourism actors and guides refer to a good dialogue. Contacts have been less intensive with other entrepreneurs and user groups. These appear to have less clear ideas of what to make of the NPs. Some users express disappointment or even distrust (Koster Sea

A. Morf et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 139 (2017) 51e63

hunters who do not feel included enough in the park management). In both parks, new knowledge and enhanced consciousness about the values of the areas (all users) and mutual education through courses on specific issues (marine ecology, fishing, tourism) for users and managers were mentioned positively. The understanding of and compliance with rules generally seem to have increased, especially lately with increased inspection. Visitor centres and other NP-related infrastructure are perceived as highly important also socially, as they make important focal points for local activities, attract visitors and promote knowledge and environmentally conscious behaviour. The overall perception is generally positive where infrastructure is in place and less so where access to it was lost or no infrastructure has yet been established (e.g. sailors loosing cottage on Ursholmen and N-Koster loosing € residents still waiting for park entrance). visitor centre and Reso Also from a social perspective, informants mention a lack of expected change and disappointment about it, with a geographic distribution in parallel to economic outcomes. In Sweden, disen€ reschantment is most strongly formulated by N-Koster and Reso idents (lack of infrastructure and development) and hunters (lack of participation, tougher rules). Also some Norwegian users observe that activities concentrated to Skjærhalden (visitor centre) and Sweden. Some Norwegian landowners regret the lack of compensation for lost uses. Overall, except for the abovementioned inequalities and lack of infrastructure and some remaining unresolved issues in both parks, quite a few positive social changes appear to have occurred. Still, the higher expectations seem to have resulted in stronger contrasting views in KSNP. 5. Discussion How can differences in the institutional designs governing KSNP and OHNP be linked to differences in sustainability outcomes, and what lessons can be learnt for designing MPAs? The institutional analysis describes two national parks that are similar in many aspects and differ in the following: All of OHNP forms one NP while in KSNP some geographical gaps are covered by other types of protection and managed in parallel with NP areas. Sweden has no general model for national park management. KSNP is governed by an expert-based system, with an emphasis on the roles of SEPA and CAB at national and regional level. Local politicians and users are represented in the steering committee involved in the park management, but their decision power is slightly reduced (no authority decisions). Topical working groups provide regular input. Norway applies a general model for national park management that combines relatively central regulations with decentralised decisions made by local and regional political representatives in the parks’ steering committees. Local resource users within OHNP have one consultative forum for all meeting annually. The most important differences in institutional design concern the degree, to which broader sustainability aims (economic and social sustainability) are formulated in NP objectives and how these have been implemented in use-regulation and management practice. Comparatively speaking, KSNP is more sustainable-use oriented, with both a greater emphasis on economic and social development and a more openly formulated MP and management praxis (decentralisation of infrastructure and use of local capacity in maintenance and inspection). The analysis of perceived management outcomes primarily indicates similarities between the two NPs with moderate positive effects on ecological sustainability and more substantial effects on social sustainability. Also for economic sustainability, the overall view is gently optimistic for the groups directly involved in NPrelated activities. Due to higher initial expectations, some other

61

user groups in KSNP are more disappointed with the outcomes so far (non-changes), and OHNP is lacking development beyond Skjærhalden. Addressing the link between institutional design and ecological outcomes, conservation objectives are similar in the two NPs, and this institutional similarity is also mirrored in the ecological outcomes observed by the users. The parks appear to have some effects onshore and on certain species, but seem to be less effective in the marine environment in general, with the exception of the evaluated and subsequently on the Koster side strengthened trawling limits. For the sea, ecological processes of larger scale than the parks are suggested as important drivers. Continuing on and discussing the link between institutional design and economic sustainability, yet few economic effects in the form of new activities and income can be related directly to the parks. The areas experiencing growth are mainly those where infrastructure has been established. There is a pattern of stronger economic development on the Koster side, which could be related to the broader definition of sustainable development characterising the Swedish case. Concurrently, disappointment about the lack of expected development is more of an issue here. The interviews indicate that expectations before park establishment were higher in Sweden, likely driven by the outspoken ambition to promote economic sustainability within the NP by both users and managers. Let us finally address the coupling to social sustainability outcomes: positive attitudes towards the NPs, a good dialogue, new infrastructure and forums and a better understanding of the area's values are expressed in both parks. In accordance with the overall objectives, the inclusion of local actors in strategic and practical NP management is more strongly institutionalised in KSNP than in OHNP, with positive effects for the user groups and areas favoured by the approach. However, in parallel to the above, the disappointment is stronger where expectations were not met in KSNP, i.e. infrastructure was not realised or has even vanished. Another finding is that stricter regulation combined with a perceived lack of compensation/inclusion has caused dissatisfaction in some groups in both parks (holiday cabin and forest owners in OHNP and hunters in KSNP). Important in all aspects discussed above has also been the observed lack of (expected) change. According to many informants, there is an unrealised potential for economic and social development in both parks. This is not merely related to the particular institutional design governing the NPs. For a more complete explanation of outcomes, contextual factors are important to consider. Processes in the surrounding larger ecosystem affect marine life in the parks. The larger scale economic development and market context affect customers’ behaviour and the entrepreneurial climate. External institutional actors and policies also affect the park areas, e.g. municipalities and regional authorities acting in relation to their responsibilities (e.g. comprehensive planning, economic development or cultural heritage conservation). These factors have, however, not been the main focus in the present paper. Some lessons can be learned based on the empirical analysis. Institutional design does influence management outcomes in some respects but not in others. Differences in management systems and the vertical and horizontal distribution of authority between political and expert actors have had little effect on sustainability outcomes in the cases studied. However, the differences in aims, formalised in the park objectives, have influenced both actors’ expectations and perceptions of management outcomes. Emphasising broader aspects of sustainable development in NP planning processes might gain actor support and increase legitimacy in the short run. There is, however, an evident risk that high expectations and unfulfilled promises will erode legitimacy in the long run. Thus,

62

A. Morf et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 139 (2017) 51e63

promoting broader aspects of sustainability through conservation instruments is possible but challenging. National park regulation is not necessarily designed for this purpose but needs to be embedded appropriately in a complex institutional framework, especially if important uses are regulated elsewhere. In our cases, the institutional design appears to have contributed to the desired overall outcomes. However, institutions should be designed to include all actors and levels relevant in relation to these outcomes. Moreover, the available resources in terms of both personnel and economic means and a set of contextual factors e here external institutional actors and larger scale ecological and societal processes e seem important when interpreting the overall outcomes. Finally, with the possible exception of the seabed-protection areas, the so far minor effects of both national parks on the marine ecosystem raise the question of appropriate boundaries for MPAs. 6. Conclusions Marine protected areas have become central instruments in the endeavour towards sustainable development in marine management. The linkages between institutional design and sustainability outcomes have been scrutinised in this paper. We have used a comparative case study design to explore the interplay between institutional arrangements and management outcomes in two adjacent yet institutionally slightly differing MPAs covering both marine and terrestrial biotopes. As long as the main purpose is just conservation, the results indicate that country-specific design differences with more or less expert/political steering or more or less direct local participation in decision-making may play only a minor role for ecological outcomes. However, both countries are testing new, more integrated and decentralised ways to manage MPAs and especially national parks, an ambition in the spirit of the 1992 Rio declaration and not least its social and economic sustainability dimensions. We find that an institutional design with ambitions that are broader than ecological sustainability can indeed affect park users and management outcomes in such a direction. Yet, the links may not be as direct as expected and contextual factors of an ecological, societal and economic type need to be considered too. Thus, according to this study, yes, conservation arrangements can be broadened beyond mere nature conservation. But there is more to this answer. In order to design successful conservation arrangements targeting sustainable development in such a broader sense, the initiators need to ensure that the components are closely linked, that sufficient resources are provided and that expectations are kept reasonable. Without proper embedding, MPAs with broader sustainability ambitions risk becoming dysfunctional. A participatory design requires management of relations and expectations, or else disenchantment and distrust may result. From a case-specific policy perspective, both studied arrangements are accepted and apparently working within their contexts, but successful implementation requires time and resources. To further realise the development potential of the parks in all dimensions, informants request more creative, boundary-crossing initiatives with collaboration across sectors and levels as well as the necessary resources. Four tracks look particularly interesting for further research: Firstly, additional cases should be systematically compared with the cases above. MPAs vary greatly in design, scope and objectives and in what contexts they are implemented. Such comparison would help improve the understanding of conditions under which MPAs can be a successful tool for sustainable marine management. Secondly, this study was conducted only five years after the inauguration of the MPAs. It is still a bit early to draw final conclusions on how far these national park arrangements contribute to broader

sustainability outcomes. This calls for follow-up studies once the institutional frameworks are fully settled. Thirdly, with regard to the broader scope of sustainability ambitions in MPAs, the integration across different systems and dimensions of marine and coastal management is rather important. It would be interesting to further analyse the interplay of conservation with other instruments, e.g. spatial planning and sector management procedures at different levels (now kept as external driving factors in the analytical framework). Fourth, as social sustainability is also related to maritime heritage (cultural heritage has been important for Koster residents since early discussions about conservation in the 1980s, see Morf, 2006) and as there is an interesting discrepancy between the two Management Plans in degree of detail in relation to cultural heritage (more detailed in Hvaler), a comparative study of the inclusion of culturally important aspects in MPA planning and management appears rather interesting. Last but not least, taking a policy maker's point of view: even if the aim of this study has not been to evaluate the two national parks and their impacts but to explore the inter-linkages between institutional design and outcomes in their quality. Nevertheless, we believe that our results have practical implications and hope that they will be used in both policy and practice. They indicate both specific topics to assess further in a more comprehensive evaluation and challenges to address when managing marine protected areas with broader sustainability aims. Acknowledgements Warm thanks to our interviewees, the managers of the two National Parks and project assistant Helena Strand for their contributions to this study. The same goes to two anonymous reviewers for valuable comments developing this manuscript further. We also gratefully acknowledge the ERA-Net BiodivERsA research programme Partially protected areas as buffer to increase the linked social-ecological resilience (BUFFER) and the Swedish Research Council FORMAS, as part of the 2012 BiodivERsA call for research proposals, for funding this work; and the project Understanding disputed policy change: coalitions, learning and negotiation in the formation of new marine protection areas financed by the Swedish Research Council FORMAS (2015-996). Appendix A. Supplementary data Supplementary data related to this article can be found at http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2017.01.002. Abbreviations CAB CG EC EU IAD KSD KSNP OK mgmt.

€nsstyrelse) e regional County Administrative Board (La branch of national authorities in Sweden County Governor (Fylkesmannen) e regional branch of national authorities in Norway Environmental Code e Swedish body of environmental legislation European Union Institutional Analysis and Development e analytical and theoretical framework Koster Sea Delegation e steering committee in Koster Sea NP Koster Sea National Park Okay e used in interview evaluation table implying the national park (NP) is well accepted €n Fisheries Co-mgmt. Management (e.g. in North Bohusla Initiative)

A. Morf et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 139 (2017) 51e63

MP MPA NEPA NGO NNI NO NP NPO OHNP OHSC SE SEPA SwAM

Maintenance and Management Plan (operational plan used in both national parks) Marine Protected Area (e.g. national park, nature reserve etc.) Norwegian Environmental Protection Agency Non-Governmental Organisation (e.g. environmental, user group, residents) Norwegian Nature Inspectorate (park service in Norwegian NPs) Norway National Park National Park Ordinance (legal document) Outer Hvaler National Park Outer Hvaler Steering Committee Sweden Swedish Environmental Protection Agency Swedish Authority for Marine and Water Management

References Apitz, S.E., Elliot, M., Fountain, M., Galloway, T.S., 2006. European environmental management: moving to an ecosystem approach. Integr. Environ. Assess. Manag. 2, 80e85. Berkes, F., 2010. Commons in a multi-level world. Int. J. Commons 2 (1), 1e6. € taland), 2014. Evaluation of the CAB (County Administrative Board V€ astra Go €rdering av Management Model for Koster Sea National Park (Utva € rvaltningsmodellen fo €r Kosterhavets nationalpark). Report no. 2014:58, fo (Gothenburg). € taland), 2009a. Decision to Establish CAB (County Administrative Board V€ astra Go Koster Sea Delegation from 2010-01-01 (2009-12-04), DNR 100-103265-2009 (Gothenburg). €stra Go €taland), 2009b. Decision on Local CAB (County Administrative Board Va Organisation Representatives for Koster Sea Delegation (2009-12-07), DNR 100103265-2009 (Gothenburg). CGØ (County Governor Østfold), 2004. Protection Plan for Outer Hvaler National Park (Verneplan for Ytre Hvaler nasjonalpark). CGØ (County Governor Østfold), 2007. Protection Proposal and Impact Assessment for Outer Hvaler National Park (Verneforslag og konsekvensutredning for Ytre Hvaler nasjonalpark). Report 2/2007. ISBN-nr. 978-82-7395-201-01, http:// www.ytrehvaler.no/Documents/Ytre%20Hvaler%20nasjonalpark/DokumenterYH/Verneforslag/Verneforslag%20og%20KU%20Ytre_Hvaler-h%C3%B8ring.pdf. CGØ (County Governor Østfold), 2011. Management and Maintenance Plan for Outer Hvaler National Park. (Forvaltningsplan for Ytre Hvaler nasjonalpark) (Draft for public hearing). Christensen, N.L., Bartuska, A.M., Brown, J.H., Carpenter, S., Antonio, C.D., Francis, R., Franklin, J.F., MacMahon, J.A., 1996. The report of the ecological society of the America committee on the scientific basis for ecosystem management. Ecol. Appl. 6, 665e690. Crawford, S.E.S., Ostrom, E., 1995. A grammar of institutions. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 89 (3), 582e600. European Council (EC), 1992. Species and Habitat Directive. Dir. 92/43/EEG of 21. May 1992 on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora. European Parliament and European Council, 2009. Directive 2009/147/EC of 30. November 2009 on the Conservation of Wild Birds. €dero € Trench Jonsson, L., 2014. Monitoring of Seabed Protection in the Koster-Va €ljning i Kosterthrough ROV-Mapping of Seabed Fauna (Trålskyddsuppfo €fjorden. ROV-underso € kning av bottenfaunan). CAB Report 2014:15. V€ adero €rno €. Gothenburg University, Dept f. Biology and Environmental Sciences, Tja ISSN 1403-168X. Kiser, L.L., Ostrom, E., 1982. The three worlds of action: a metatheoretical synthesis of institutional approaches. In: Ostrom, Elinor (Ed.), Strategies of Political Inquiry. Sage, Beverly Hills, CA. McGinnis, M.D., 2011. An introduction to IAD and the language of the Ostrom workshop: a simple guide to a complex framework. Policy Stud. J. 39 (1), 169e183. Morf, A., Dagård, U., Eriksson, J., Godhe, A., 2011. The Road towards Koster Sea National Park ePotentials and Challenges of Implementing Ecosystem Based and Participatory Maritime Management, Deliverable 6.8 Case Study Koster. HERMIONE report. Gothenburg University, School of Global Studies, Gothenburg. Morf, A., 2006. Participation and Planning in the Management of Coastal Resource Conflicts: Case Studies in West Swedish Municipalities. Ph.D. Dissertation. Gothenburg University, School of Global Studies, Human Ecology Section, Gothenburg. MRA, 2008. Norwegian Marine Resource Act (LOV-2008-06-06-37). Norwegian Ministry for Enterprise and Fisheries, Oslo.

63

NDA, 2009. Norwegian Nature Diversity Act (LOV-2009-06-19-100). Norwegian Ministry for Climate and Environment, Oslo. Nilsson, P., 1997. Biological Values in the Koster Trench: A Compilation and Analysis €rden i Kosterfjorden. En sammanst€ of Available Knowledge (Biologiska va allning och analys av nuvarande kunskap). Report 4749. SEPA, Stockholm. North, D.C., 1990. Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Norwegian Government, 2009a. Establishment of New Model to Manage Protected Areas. https://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dokumenter/etablering-av-ny-modellfor-forvaltning-/id588506/. Norwegian Government, 2009b. Invitation to Local Governments to Participate in NP Management. https://www.regjeringen.no/nb/aktuelt/kommuneneinviteres-til-a-delta-i-forval/id588504/. Norwegian Ministry of Climate and Environment, 2009a. National Park Ordinance for Outer Hvaler Nationalpark (NPO; Forskrift om vern av Ytre Hvaler nasjonalpark i Hvaler Og Fredrikstad kommuner i Østfold fylke FOR-2009-06-26883). Adopted by Royal Resolution 26. Juni 2009, based on Nature Conservation Act of 19. June 1970 Nr. 63. Proposed by the Ministry of the Environment. Amended through Ordinance 15. March 2013 Nr. 284 (in force 1. Juli 2013), (Oslo). Norwegian Ministry of Climate and Environment, 2009b. Royal Resolution on Protection Plan for Outer Hvaler (Verneplan for Ytre Hvaler. Opprettelse av Ytre Hvaler nasjonalpark Hvaler og Fredrikstad kommuner i Østfold fylke). Adopted 26. June 2009, (Oslo). Norwegian Ministry of Climate and Environment, 2010. Directions for the National Park Steering Committee for Outer Hvaler (Vedtekter for nasjonalparkstyret for Ytre Hvaler nasjonalpark i Øsfold fylke) of 4. June 2010 according to x62 in Nature Diversity Act (Oslo). Ostrom, E., Gardner, R., Walker, J., 1994. Rules, Games, & Common-pool Resources. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI. Ostrom, E., 2005. Understanding Institutional Diversity. Princeton University Press, Princeton. Ostrom, E., Cox, M., 2010. Moving beyond panaceas: a multi-tiered diagnostic approach for social-ecological analysis. Environ. Conserv. 37 (4), 1e13. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0376892910000834. Peters, G.B., 1999. Institutional Theory in Political Science: the ‘New Institutionalism’. Pinter, London. € 2014. Legitimacy in co-management: the impact € m, A., Crona, B., Bodin, O., Sandstro of preexisting structures, social networks and governance strategies. Environ. Policy Gov. 24 (1), 60e76. SEPA (Swedish Environmental Protection Agency) and CAB (County Administrative €stra Go €taland, 2005. Projektplan fo €r Kosterhavets nationalpark Board) Va (Project Plan for Koster Sea National Park). Adopted 2005-10-31 (Stockholm and Gothenburg). € tselplan fo €r KosSEPA (Swedish Environmental Protection Agency), 2009a. Sko terhavets Nationalpark (Management and Maintenance Plan (Adopted 200908-27) for Koster Sea National Park) (Stockholm and Gothenburg). SEPA (Swedish Environmental Protection Agency), 2009b. The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency's Regulations for Koster Sea National Park (Natur€reskrifter fo € r Kosterhavets Nationalpark), NVFS 2009:7 (decision vårdsverkets fo 2009-08-05 valid from 2009-09-01) (Stockholm). €rfattningssamling)1987:938, Swedish National Park Ordinance. SFS (Svensk fo €r att Bevara ett Amendment 2009:729: “x1 29. Kosterhavets nationalpark fo €nsande lands€ arpr€ aglat och artrikt havs- och sk€ argårdsområde samt angra € r€ områden i v€ asentligen ofo andrat skick. (Complement 2011:841)”, (Stockholm). €rfattningssamling) 1993:787, Swedish Fisheries Act. SFS (Svensk fo €rfattningssamling) 1994:1716, Swedish Fisheries Ordinance. SFS (Svensk fo €rfattningssamling) 1998:808, Swedish Environmental Code (EC). SFS (Svensk fo €rfattningssamling) 2011:13, Swedish Environmental Inspection SFS (Svensk fo Ordinance. Shepherd, Gill, 2004. The Ecosystem Approach: Five Steps to Implementation. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK vi + 30 pp. https://imedea.uib-csic.es/ master/cambioglobal/Modulo_V_cod101624/Documentos%20Sesi%C3%B3n% 201/ecosystem%20approach%20iucn%20(five%20steps).pdf. SwAM (Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management), 2015. Decision HVMFS 2015:31 on Amendment of FIFS 2004:36 Regarding Fisheries in Skagerrak, Kattegat and the Baltic Sea (on Trawling for Shrimp inside the Trawling Boundary) (Gothenburg). Swedish Government, 2009. Decision to Amend National Park Ordinance (SFS 1987: 938) by Point 29 to Include Koster Sea NP in the List of Swedish National Parks (17. June 2009, SFS 2009:729) (Stockholm). Swedish Government, 2009a. Proposition 2008/09:98 (Point 1 to Establish Koster Sea National Park Including Objectives) (Stockholm). UNEP (United Nations Environmental Programme), 2004, CBD (Convention on Biodiversity), UNEP/COP DEC VII/11 (13. April 2004). Decision Adopted by the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity at Its Seventh Meeting (in Kuala Lumpur). Ecosystem Approach and Annex I Refinement and Further Elaboration of the Ecosystem Approach, based on Assessment of Experience of Parties in Implementation. https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/ cop-07/cop-07-dec-11-en.pdf. Yin, R.K., 1994. Case Study Research: Design and Method. Sage, Newbury Park, CA.