Against the background of proposals to establish a new marine national park in the territorial waters of the German Baltic Sea in Schleswig-Holstein, the Centre for Ocean and Society at Kiel University and the EnJust Network, organised an interdisciplinary panel discussion which took place in Kiel on the evening of January 17th. The panel discussion sought to combine perspectives from marine ecology (Jan Dierking, GEOMAR Kiel), philosophy (Konrad Ott), marine spatial planning (Kira Gee, Hereon), international law (Nele Matz-Lück, Kiel University) and geography / marine governance (my own contribution). Unfortunately, on the day both Kira and Nele were unable to attend. The panel discussion, focussed on the question of the suitability of various marine protection concepts for the conservation of the Baltic Sea, rather than debating arguments in favour or against a national park per se, was moderated by Annegret Kuhn and Christian Elster (both Kiel University). We spoke (in German) to an engaged audience from both Kiel University and associated research institutes and the wider public in a packed room.
The discussion focussed among other issues, on what a national park could achieve, the added value of a national park in comparison with other types of protected areas (i.e. Natura 2000, biosphere reserves, nature parks , no-take zones) and 0bstacles to acceptance of a marine protected area (MPA) by various stakeholder groups and the general public. A key, and difficult to resolve issue is that of nitrate runoff from agriculture on the coast. The western Baltic Sea, currently has a very poor environmental status with eutrophication (alongside commercial fishing) a major contributor to the degradation of the marine ecosystem. It is unclear, how, under these circumstances, a national park could contribute to ecological restoration and whether a national park designation could be justified in the absence of measures to tackle nitrate runoff from agriculture.
I, for my part, was asked how a new national park might learn from experience elsewhere both within Germany and internationally. In particular, I was able to comment on the relevance of the Schleswig-Holstein Wadden Sea National Park (established 1986) and the adjacent Danish Wadden Sea National Park (established 2010), on the basis of my previous research on protected area management at the Wadden Sea. The Schleswig-Holstein National Park was established in 198os, without any meaningful public participation whatsoever and despite the explicit opposition of both coastal and island municipalities. The current discussions concerning a Baltic Sea national park are facilitated and supported through an open public consultation process led by the Ministry for the Environment. Whether a national park will be established or not is still an open question.
I argued that when viewed from an international perspective, national parks can take different forms and have different governance arrangements. In particular, more recently established national parks show how it is possible to engage stakeholder groups and the general public in a wider ongoing dialogue that crosses the boundary of the national park to address wider issues of sustainable transformation at the regional scale. National park governance (i.e. the relationships between administration, sectoral stakeholders, local elected representatives, the general public and visitors) must be given careful consideration to ensure that legal and institutional arrangements allow space for open, pluralist dialogue. National parks, in contrast to other forms of protected area management, have a far higher degree of visibility and can thus become catalysts for transformative practices. This requires, however, recognition of both scientific and non-scientific forms of knowledge and an openness for alternative ways of viewing and interacting with the sea and the coast.
Much of the discussion in Kiel centred on the question of the relationship between regulation and voluntary measures. From an NGO or conservation biology perspective, voluntary measures are often considered ineffective, and regulation is perceived as the only viable means of achieving conservation targets. The term voluntary measures, however, encompasses a broad spectrum, however, from initiatives to engage fishermen in efforts to reduce bycatch or farmers in schemes to reduce nitrate pollution to volunteer-based conservation projects. In addition to its regulatory role, a national park can play an important role as a facilitator or incubator of voluntary project-based activity involving diverse stakeholder groups.
The debate on a national park for the German Baltic Sea is significant for bringing critical issues of marine protection into the public domain. Through this debate, it has become clear that marine protection can only be effective if it is integrated with the management and regulation of activities and land and conducted in dialogue with the full spectrum of maritime and coastal stakeholders. The panel discussion, contributed a scientific input to these debates, which has absent (or in the background) on other occasions. Significantly, the composition of the panel ensured a broad understanding of what types of scientific knowledge can inform such debates. Specialist knowledge of the ecology of the Baltic Sea is fundamental but other perspective are also critical to understand society-environment relations and the ‘why’ and the ‘how’ of MPA management.
Both within Germany and internationally, it is imperative that debates on MPAs shift from an emphasis on numbers (e.g. 30% protected, 10% strictly protected by 2030) to a critical focus on what specific MPA formats can deliver and how, and how MPA management can be better integrated into wider maritime and coastal governance systems.
Thank you to the Centre for Ocean and Society, EnJust and all those who contributed to making this a very successful event.