guidelines for the development of participatory management...
TRANSCRIPT
Co-financed by the European Union
M.Sc. Programme
“Management of Protected Areas”
Guidelines for the Development of Participatory Management of Protected
Areas in the CER in Relation with the CBD-PoWPA Requirements
Author: Alina Ionita
Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Michael Getzner Center of Public Finance and Infrastructure Policy Vienna University of Technology
Resselgasse 5, 1040 Vienna
Tel.: +43 (0)1 58801 280320
e-mail: [email protected]
Carried out at: Department of Economics
University of Klagenfurt
Universitaetsstrasse 65-67 9020 Klagenfurt
Ph +43 (0) 463/ 27 00 4192
e-mail: [email protected]
Klagenfurt, July 2011
Citation: A. IONITA. (2011): GUIDELINES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF PARTICIPATORY
MANAGEMENT OF PROTECTED AREAS IN THE CER IN RELATION WITH THE POWPA
REQUIREMENTS. UNPUBLISHED THESIS FOR M.SC. MANAGEMENT OF PROTECTED AREAS,
P. 110, KLAGENFURT
ALINA IONITA, 2011
PAGE 2
DECLARATION OF HONOUR
I herewith declare that I am the sole author of the current master thesis according to art. 51 par. 2 no. 8 and art. 51 par. 2 no. 13 Universitätsgesetz 2002 (Austrian University Law) and that I have conducted all works connected with the master thesis on my own. Furthermore, I declare that I only used those resources that are referenced in the work. All formulations and concepts taken from printed, verbal or online sources – be they word-for-word quotations or corresponding in their meaning – are quoted according to the rules of good scientific conduct and are indicated by footnotes, in the text or other forms of detailed references.
Support during the work including significant supervision is indicated accordingly.
The master thesis has not been presented to any other examination authority. The work has been submitted in printed and electronic form. I herewith confirm that the electronic form is completely congruent with the printed version.
I am aware of legal consequences of a false declaration of honor.
Klagenfurt, 1 June 2009 Signature: Alina Ionita
ALINA IONITA, 2011
PAGE 3
To my parents and family
ALINA IONITA, 2011
PAGE 4
AKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First of all, this thesis wouldn’t have existed if I didn’t have the great opportunity to study in the international MSc Management of Protected Areas, offered by the University of Klagenfurt and E.C.O., and this wouldn’t have been possible for me without the generous scholarship offered by WWF Danube-Carpathian Programme and the MAVA Foundation, which was offered to practitioners in the Carpathian Ecoregion with the purpose of capacity building for the implementation of the CBD PoWPA, in the framework of the 2012 PA4LP Project. I am grateful for having the chance to be selected as one of the beneficiaries, which gave me the opportunity to benefit of this comprehensive and innovative post-graduate programme.
Second of all, this thesis wouldn’t have existed if I didn’t have the great opportunity to be involved directly in the 2012 Protected Areas for a Living Planet Project, by working together with the WWF-DCP project management team for the development of guidelines for stakeholder involvement in the management of protected areas. The thesis is widely based on the results and work from this project, therefore, this chance being given, I would like to thank once more to the project team for their input and great support, to all the people who got involved in undertaking the case studies and who contributed with information to the national level assessments and to the MAVA Foundation for their support to the project. Special thanks go to Erika Stanciu, for her input to this work, for her patience, trust and support.
Third of all, but not the least, I would like to thank Michael Getzner, my supervisor, for his support, encouragement and patience in elaborating the thesis and throughout the whole Master programme.
Being an MPA student was, once more an opportunity in this sense, allowing me to exchange information with my colleagues in the Carpathian countries and all over the world. I am sincerely grateful for the support of my colleagues: Radoslav Povazan, Anastasia Drapaliuk, Goran Sekulic, Ovidiu Pirv, Jan
Cernecky, Peter Puchala and Olena Slobodian, who offered me information regarding their national context, revised some of my text and were always opened to debates on the sometimes annoying topic of stakeholder involvement. The two years of study offered me a great input of information and practical exercises on this topic, together with access to best and most recent information.
I would also like to thank to my family, especially to my mother and friends for their infinite understanding, encouragements and their permanent support.
I am also very happy and I consider myself lucky for having met wonderful people during this programme: Michael Jungmeier, Manuela Turk, Caro Stuchetz, all the lecturers, members of the Alumni club, people from the PAs we have visited and most of all my fellow colleagues. We had a great time together, all of you proved to be great people, good friends and professionals. I wish all of you good luck with everything that you want to achieve.
Table of Contents
Declaration of Honour ............................................................................. 2
Aknowledgements ................................................................................... 4
1 Summary ........................................................................................... 7
2 Introduction ....................................................................................... 9 2.1 Preface ..................................................................................................... 9 2.2 Objectives and Purpose ............................................................................ 10
3 literature review .............................................................................. 13 3.1 Types of participation and governance ....................................................... 13
3.1.1 Defining participation ......................................................................... 13 3.1.2 Typologies of participation .................................................................. 14 3.1.3 Protected area governance types ......................................................... 18
3.2 Rationale for stakeholder participation in the protected area management ...... 20 3.3 The benefits of stakeholder involvement ..................................................... 23 3.4 Challenges, risks and critics of stakeholder involvement ............................... 26 3.5 Stakeholder involvement within the protected area life cycle ......................... 28
4 Project Description .......................................................................... 33
4.1 Background ............................................................................................ 33 4.1.1 The CBD-PoWPA requirements concerning the participatory management of protected areas ............................................................................................. 33
4.2 Design ................................................................................................... 36 4.3 Methods ................................................................................................. 37
4.3.1 Methodology of assessment at the CER level ......................................... 37 4.3.2 Methodology for the development of guidelines ..................................... 42
4.4 Reflexion ................................................................................................ 43
5 Results ............................................................................................. 45 5.1 The PA governance context and status of stakeholder involvement ................ 45
5.1.1 The social and political context for stakeholder involvement in the Carpathian Ecoregion ..................................................................................... 45 5.1.2 Results of the national level assessment ............................................... 48 5.1.3 Findings from the site level assessment ............................................... 60 5.1.4 Results of the scorecard analysis on PA governance ............................... 65 5.1.5 Main issues resulting from the assessment to be addressed by policy measures and developments ........................................................................... 68
5.2 Recommendations for further developments ............................................... 70 5.2.1 Possible steps for a new approach – recommendations for the national level decision-makers ............................................................................................ 70 5.2.2 Recommendations for the site level ..................................................... 74
5.3 Guidelines for planning a participatory management .................................... 77 5.3.1 Guidelines for assessing the context and planning for stakeholder involvement .................................................................................................. 77 5.3.2 Guidelines for measuring and monitoring the effectiveness of stakeholder involvement .................................................................................................. 81
6 Discussions ...................................................................................... 84
7 Conclusion ....................................................................................... 88
7.1 An approach for the CER ? ........................................................................ 88
References ............................................................................................ 91 7.2 Literature ............................................................................................... 91
ALINA IONITA, 2011
PAGE 6
7.3 Internet Resources .................................................................................. 93
List of Figures ........................................................................................ 94
List of Tables ......................................................................................... 95
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ...................................................... 96
Appendix ............................................................................................... 97
ALINA IONITA, 2011
PAGE 7
1 SUMMARY
Stakeholder participation in the establishment and management of nature protected areas represents a very familiar concept in the international and national policies around the world, an increasing attention is being given nowadays to its importance, its forms, benefits, challenges, risks and practical approaches. The Strategic Plan of the CBD, together with the PoWPA, which was adopted in 2004 by 188 Parties to the Convention, acknowledge the importance of involving the local, regional, national and international stakeholder in achieving the objectives of effective establishment, planning, management and integration of protected areas in their wider territories. Therefore, one of the four elements of the PoWPA: programme element 2 being focused on „governance, participation and benefit sharing“(CBDS, 2004).
Although the concepts of participatory governance and stakeholder involvement has and increasing recognition as basic principles and is being widely incorporated in the national and international policies, the developments and concrete progress in practice, especially at the local level is slow, a considerable work being necessary in this direction.
This paper aims to contribute to the development of guidelines for the development of participatory management of PAs in the Carpathian Ecoregion, which would enable the achievement of the PoWPA objectives concerning stakeholder participation by taking into account the specific context in which their implementation is required. Based on the results of an assessment in which I was personally involved, undertaken by WWF-DCP in 2009-20101 in the 7 Carpathian countries, concerning the enabling environment, the status of PA governance and stakeholder involvement, on some preliminary results of the WWF scorecard analysis (2008) and on other relevant publications, the study explores the options for a specific approach. While looking for a suitable approach for the Carpathian countries, the study offers a critical reflection on the most common models of stakeholder involvement and protected area governance, on its role, benefits and risks, as presented and promoted in theory and best practices. The experience with assessing stakeholder involvement in the Carpathian context also proved both the need for a different analytical approach and the need to adapt the existing tools and methodological instruments for practitioners. Results, conclusion and lessons learnt, together with some methodological outputs are also presented in this study, while their testing continues in the framework of the same project.
1 Assessment and guidelines for the development of participatory management of protected areas in the Carpathian Ecoregion, undertaken in the framework of the Protected Areas for a Living Planet Programme, with the financial support of the MAVA Foundation (submitted to publication; will be further referred to as WWF-DCP, 2011).
ALINA IONITA, 2011
PAGE 8
The content of this thesis represents some result of the last almost three years of work aimed on one hand to offer an overview on the participatory protected area management in the Carpathian Ecoregion that could support policies and actions and, on the other hand to develop a comprehensive, integrative methodology that is in the same time accessible and useful for the PAAs willing to develop a participatory management. The goal of this work to contribute to the successful implementation of the PoWPA objectives is also underpinned by my own conviction, built up and strengthen during the two years of MPA Programme, that stakeholder involvement in the natural resources management, regional development and in decision-making in general, is not just a new fashion but a necessity, a step toward a more sustainable future.
This study is willing to contribute both to the development of participation in practice, at site level, as required by the PoWPA and to perfecting the existing methodologies used for the analysis and planning of participatory management of protected areas, either in practice or in the field of research. This paper is undoubtedly an argument pro for the development of participatory protected area governance, but in the same time it offers some critical reflections, willing to emphasize the need for a context-oriented, targeted and systematic approach to its development in the context of the Carpathian territory.
ALINA IONITA, 2011
PAGE 9
2 INTRODUCTION
2.1 Preface
The concept of public participation started to be widely promoted since 1992 when the „World Summit“ in Rio de Janeiro and the IVth World Park Congress in Caracas were held. Since then, public participation started to be regarded and promoted as one of the fundamental principles of democracy and as an approach to sectoral policies, including environmental protection, biodiversity conservation and protected area governance „used by governments, organizations and communities around the world to improve their decisions“ (Hesselink et al., 2007). “The many claimed benefits of stakeholder participation have to an extent driven its widespread incorporation into national and international policy” (Reed M.S., 2008), the concept benefiting of great political support, attention and recognition at international level. Public participation was therefore promoted through normative arguments, as the Convention on Biological Diversity (1993) and its Programme of Work on Protected Areas (2004), and, in the case of European Union through the Aarhus Convention2 (1998), the Habitat Directive (1992), the legislation and strategies referring to Natura 2000 network, the SEA Directive (2001)3, the Carpathian Convention4 (2003), etc, which were further integrated in the national legislation, strategies and programmes.
In addition, „many pragmatic benefits have been claimed for participation“ (Reed M.S., 2008), being underpinned by a great number of case studies around the world. Although the claims of public/stakeholder participation are still debated, „in the context of a brief history of participatory approach to environmental decision-making“ (Reed M.S., 2008), leaving room for disillusionments, doubts and criticism among practitioners, its importance is strongly promoted by the international organizations concerned with the management of protected areas, as the IUCN, the CBD Secretariat, UNESCO, WWF, which had a substantial contribution to the development and promotion of guidelines, tools and best practices for practitioners and decision-makers, in order to support the adoption of public participation concept and its development as a practical approach.
The concept of ‚participation‘has many dimensions and meanings, from informing and consulting with people to actually sharing power in decision-making process (Getzner el al., 2010; Hesselink et al., 2007). The idea of participation, pretty wide in sense, is in the same time expressed through different formulations, as:
2 The Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and
access to justice in environmental matters; 3 The Directive 2001/42/EC on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and
programmes on the environment 4 The Convention on the protection and sustainable development of the Carpathians
ALINA IONITA, 2011
PAGE 10
„public participation“, „the involvement of local communities“, „stakeholder participation", „stakeholder involvement or engagement“, simply „participation“ or „involvement“, etc. Irrespective of the form of expressing it, participation is commonly associated with: transparency, access to relevant information, dialogue, consultation, formal or informal partnership, which addresses either a focused group of interested or affected parties (the so-called „stakeholders“), the local communities (differently defined) or, in a wider sense, the general public. Considering the need to have a more focused approach to participation, which is also a matter of costs, time and overall effectiveness, the „stakeholder approach“ has become more and more common in the practice of participation.
Participation, in its more active forms of involvement (e.g. consultation, information giving, interactive participation5) is frequently promoted as an approach to preliminary assessments underpinning decision-making, problem formulation, impact assessments (e.g. SEA), feasibility checks, planning, project development and implementation, overall management process, etc, in the environmental field, including protected area management. Hence, “it is now standard good practice to include people with an interest or a ‘stake’ in a protected area in the management planning process” (Thomas L. and Middleton J.,2003). In a wider sense, participation is seen and promoted, especially by the IUCN and the CBD as an approach to governance, different forms of protected area governance being described (e.g. Dudley N., Eds., 2008, CENESTA, 2008, Borrini-Feyerabned, 2007 and 2004, Lockwood, 2007, etc).
2.2 Objectives and Purpose
First of all, this study is largely based on my personal experience of work in the elaboration of an assessment and guidelines for stakeholder involvement in the Carpathian countries, undertaken together with the WWF-DCP team, in the framework of the PA4LP Programme. Therefore, the choice for this topic is directly related to one of the main aims of this programme, which is to contribute to the achievement of the PoWPA requirements concerning stakeholder involvement in the management of protected areas. In the same time, this choice reflects my personal interest for this topic, which represents the core subject for other studies.
A number of reasons underpin the choice for this study and its rationale:
� the increasing focus on stakeholder involvement and participation worldwide, their claimed importance and benefits for the effective management of protected areas doubled by the great efforts that are made for their adoption as a best practice within the PA life and management cycle around the world;
ALINA IONITA, 2011
PAGE 11
� the existence of normative requirements and their adoption in the national legislations, as the PoWPA objectives;
� the social-economic and political context of the Carpathian countries, doubled by the lack of experience with public participation which are challenging the progress with developing participatory management;
� the lack of a clear overview of the status, enabling conditions and barriers for stakeholder involvement, the existing forms of governance, the problems, the difficulties and opportunities associated with participatory management in the Carpathian countries and the achievement of the PoWPA objectives;
� the great complexity of this issue and the general, sometimes even superficial approach of most of the existing guidelines, which are either focusing solely on different stages of the PA life cycle (e.g. management planning), on different dimensions of participation (e.g. governance, communication), on typologies or possible outcomes, failing to deliver a step by step, context-oriented, clear and easy to use approach for PA level practitioners, following the entire PA life cycle and allowing for the integration of the relevant social and economic aspects in the management of PAs.
Given the context, on the basis of the work carried out in the framework of the PA4LP Programme, this paper comes to present a summary of its findings, emphasizing the main issues and further developing a critical reflection and a methodological approach, willing to bring some contributions to addressing the shortcomings pointed in the previous lines.
Therefore, this paper aims to answer the following questions:
- Q1: What exactly is the PoWPA willing to achieve with regards to
participation? Are the terms used and the requirements clear enough to be
effectively implemented, monitored and assessed?
- Q2: Which are the main contextual determinatives for and problems
associated with the development of participatory management of PAs in
the Carpathian countries? Which is the status of stakeholder involvement?
- Q3: Which should be the appropriate approach for the development of
participatory management of protected areas in the CER?
- Q4: Which would be the main steps in developing participatory
management in the CER?
5 These terms are used with sense described Hesselink et al., 2007, Pimbert and Pretty,
1995, that will be described in a further section of this paper.
ALINA IONITA, 2011
PAGE 12
In order to achieve these aims, the thesis is willing to:
� Reflect on the rationale, benefits, risks, models and approaches presented in the existing literature
� Revise the PoWPA requirements concerning stakeholder involvement and participation
� Reflect on the sense and plainness of some concepts stipulated in the PoWPA, as: “full and effective participation”, “highly participatory process”, “active stakeholder involvement” in relation with
� Identify the main determinatives by revising the relevant conditions in the Carpathian countries
� Revise the status of implementing the PoWPA objectives concerning stakeholder participation in the establishment and management of PAs
� Provide recommendations for decision-makers and practitioners in the CER
� Develop a context-oriented methodology of assessment and planning together with guidelines for the site level practitioners to enhance the participatory PA management in the CER by revising the existing methodologies and considering the specific context of the Carpathian countries.
ALINA IONITA, 2011
PAGE 13
3 LITERATURE REVIEW
Since the goals of the PoWPA refer to stakeholder involvement, participation and PA governance, given the purpose of this paper to develop guidelines which consider the status and achievements from this perspective in the Carpathians, a literature review was necessary, first of all to the purpose of clarifying the theoretical and conceptual background for the analysis.
Naturally, the first questions for PAA staff and other PA practitioners, especially in a context of a predominant professional background in natural sciences and lacking culture for participation in public policies and natural resource management (as is the case within the CER) is: Why bother with stakeholder involvement? Does it help me in any way?
The lack of convincing and logical arguments can result in their reluctant attitude towards this already complex and abstract issue, which might be perceived as imposed, considered idealistic, unrealistic for their however challenging context and therefore rejected form the very beginning. Participation is undoubtedly a sensitive subject in itself for the post-socialist countries, and even more sensitive when it comes of nature conservation.
Given these considerations which are based mostly on my own experience (either direct or as participatory observation and on the preliminary result of a questionnaire addressed to NP staff in Romania on participatory management6), since the thesis is willing to become useful in practice, I tried to find the reasons why and to answer to these questions, while reflecting to the Carpathian context. To this purpose and the purpose of developing a the methodology for analysis and the guidelines, the different types of participation and governance, together with the rationale, benefits and challenges were documented.
3.1 Types of participation and governance
3.1.1 Defining participation
Generally speaking, participation means “the act of taking part or sharing something7”. During its history, the concept became “loaded with social,
6 The questionnaire was prepared to the purpose of my PhD thesis “Participatory management of
national parks in Romania”, therefore it is only available in Romanian and although it is not directly related to this study, some of its results offer relevant arguments. It is available at: https://spreadsheets.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?formkey=dEhDWkZKM3VsTnFsWW5uSVdKUjB6dEE6MQ&theme=0AX42CRMsmRFbUy05NGQ3OWNlMi0wMTM3LTQ0ODQtYTliNi05ZWM4MzA5YmVmNGY&ifq
7 http://www.thefreedictionary.com/participation
ALINA IONITA, 2011
PAGE 14
ideological, political and methodological meaning (Lawrence, 2006). In the practice of nature conservation and protected area management, the concept is often associated with “collaborative management”, “community conservation” (Borrini-Feyerabend, 1996), stakeholder involvement or community involvement.
Lawrence (2008) defines participation as “the involvement of non-conventional stakeholders, along with the conventional stakeholders, in planning,
implementing and evaluating actions that affect their lives and environment”.
However, as emphasized by many authors (e.g. Lawrence, 2008, Hesselink et al., 2007, Getzner et al., 2010), participation can cover a diverse range of activities, motivated by diverse objectives.
3.1.2 Typologies of participation
Public/stakeholder participation has already become a wide spread concept, while its meanings differ considerably: for some participation starts with the official representation (“manipulative participation”, according to Hesselink et al., 2007) or information (“passive participation”), while for others participation starts with involvement in a decision-making (i.e. consultation).
Different typologies of participation have been developed in time, “to understand the differences between these interpretations and their associated approaches and methods and understand the different contexts in which they are most appropriate” (Reed, 2008). Concerning the motivation for participation, Lawrence (2006) pointed the pretty common dichotomy between ‘instrumental’ and ‘transformative’ approaches. In instrumental approaches people participate in tasks defined by others while in transformative approaches participation is focused on empowering, changing participants and meanings. Thus, participation can be understood either as a “means to a goal”, in which the focus is the result and people involved have an instrumental role, or as “an end in itself”. The approach to participation has a strong impact on its design and analysis.
The most commonly used typology in the discourse of PA management is based on the idea of different forms on a continuum, also known as “the ladder of participation” (Arnstein, 1969). This typology is based on the different degree on involvement, varying from a passive reception of information to an active engagement and control over the process (e.g. of decision-making or management) which correspond to a higher degree of influence that stakeholders can have over the process (e.g. by bringing an input of information, by being involved actively in shaping a management objective, by having a vote in decision-making, etc). Normally, while we advance on this ladder with one step to a higher level of involvement it is supposed that the previous ones have been already taken (e.g. consultation involves prior information; collaboration involves information and consultation and so on). Each of this level has been given
ALINA IONITA, 2011
PAGE 15
different advantages and benefits either for the process, for its outcomes or for the ones involved.
Usually the decisions to establish PAs belongs to a governmental body but the initiative can also come from others stakeholders (e.g. NGOs, local administrations, researchers, etc). Irrespective of who is the initiator in charge with the developing the idea and undertaking the feasibility check, as argued by Borrini-Feyerabend (1996), it may:
- ignore the interests and capacities of other stakeholders and minimize their relationship with the PA; or
- inform the stakeholders about the relevant issues and decisions; or
- actively consult stakeholders about such issues and decisions; or
- seek their consensus on those; or
- negotiate with them on an open basis (thus effectively involving them in the decision-making process) and develop a specific agreement; or
- share with them authority and responsibilities in a formal way (e.g. by asking them to join a Management Board); or
- transfer some or all authority and responsibility to one or more stakeholders (possibly sharing jurisdiction with them, e.g. as a consequence of a legal land claim).
These options represent the main forms of participation, the last two deriving in forms of participatory governance, where formal agreements and organizational arrangements are needed.
The typologies of participation differ by the meaning and motivation of participation, different criteria being taken into account. The most common criteria to differentiate between types are: the power of participants to influence the outcome (Arnstein, 1969), the relation between the central authority and the local (Lawrence, 2006), the direction of the communication flow between parties (according to Reed, 2008), etc. The typology presented above (Tab.1) is a mixture of more typologies, based on the ladder of participation but also taking into account the direction of the communication flow. Its levels range from information to transformative participation.
Type of participation8
Characteristics
Informative
� a form of one way communication, from the PAA to stakeholders, as means to ensure transparency, to raise awareness and level of information or to provide
8 The typology is built on the existing literature: Arnstein, 1969, Pimbert and Pretty,
1995, Borrini-Feyerabned, 1996, Thomas L. and Middleton J., 2003, Lawrence, 2006, Hesselink et al., 2007
ALINA IONITA, 2011
PAGE 16
Synonyms:
“passive participation”
(Pretty et al., 1995)
knowledge
� conducted by the PA management authority (PA Administration/Directorate, custodian), which informs the stakeholders and the general public on their activities, decisions that were already taken, on their intentions or other issues related to the PA.
� no possibility for stakeholders to offer a feed-back � stakeholders are passive (the receivers). � it represents a “top-down” approach to decision-making
Participation
by consultation
Synonyms:
“placation” (Arnstein, 1969)
“consultative participation” (Lawrence, 2006)
Stakeholders are asked about their opinions on a specific issue of concern for the PA in which their feed-back is considered relevant for gathering information, or reaching to a consensus. The dialogue is initiated and leaded by the PA authority � two ways communication; stakeholders have the
possibility to offer a feed-back and get involved more actively, without having the power to influence decisions
� although the aim of consultation is to reach to a consensus, it is not always compulsory that the opinions expressed by the stakeholders are (fully) taken into account.
� top-down, weak (in terms of participant empowerment), passive (for participants involved) and extractive (Lawrence, )
Functional Note:
it includes “participation for material incentives” (Pimbert and Pretty, 1995)
The management authority undertakes the planning, decides over the actions needed to achieve the management goals and involves stakeholders in implementing the actions. � the initiative belongs most of the times to the PAA. � decision-making is not involved in this case � stakeholders have an instrumental role; They can be
engaged through partnerships, time defined contracts, or other formal means, and can have as motivation the material incentives.
Collaborative
(co-management) Note: it also includes “delegation” (Arnstein, 1969), by which part of the authority and
The management authority and responsibility for decision-making is shared, on the basis of formal agreements (e.g. contracts, legislative appointments) with other stakeholder(s). � collaboration can be materialized through formal or
non-formal, permanent or temporary partnerships,
ALINA IONITA, 2011
PAGE 17
responsibility for an activity or decision-making is formally delegated to other stakeholders.
Other synonyms: “acting together” (Thomas, Middleton, 2003), “partnership”, “consensus building” (Lawrence, 2006)
including involvement in planning and decision-making, either for specific activities during the life cycle or for the whole management process, all the stakeholders involved sharing the responsibility for the for the issue.
� the PA authority can be represented by two distinctive bodies sitting at the same table of decision-making (e.g. state authority and NGO, regional governmental body and association of land-owners, etc) either with equal rights and responsibilities in making decisions (joint-management) or with one of them having only a consultative, advisory, coordinating or supervising role for the other (e.g. Scientific / Technical/ Research / Advisory /Consultative Councils or Boards)
� information and consultation is ensured permanently between the parties involved but it is not compulsory that other stakeholders are equally engaged. This depends on the management approach.
� Two ways communication � The initiative can come for any of the stakeholders
involved. This depends on the design of the internal rules clarifying these aspects.
Transformative
Synonyms: “interactive participation” and “self-mobilization” (Pimbert and Pretty, 1995)
� stakeholders (or local people, generally speaking, directly or through legitimate representative individuals or structures) are empowered by having the official authority and responsibility to make and implement decisions, while being assisted by specialists when necessary.
� The PAA becomes a primary stakeholder, having the role of an assistant
� The initiative and decision-making power belongs to other stakeholders
Tab. 1: Types of participation and their characteristics
Information giving is sometimes considered as a distinctive form of involvement, some other times being assimilated to consultation. Stakeholders are asked to provide information on issues of interest for the PA (e.g. through questionnaires, focus-groups, etc), communication flow goes from the stakeholders to the PAA. In this case stakeholders have an active role by bringing an input in the management process.
ALINA IONITA, 2011
PAGE 18
3.1.3 Protected area governance types
Abrams et al. (2003) defines governance as: “the interactions among institutions, processes and traditions that determine how power is exercised, how
decisions are taken on issues of public and often private concern, and how
citizens or other stakeholders have their say.”
The different types of PA institutional structures and links are established by the law, a series of formal arrangements being needed in order to develop a certain type of governance and to shift form one for to another. Under the influence of normative arguments as the CBD, there is in increasing interest nowadays in exploring and designing innovative forms of PA governance regimes that are better reflecting the local context (Naughton-Treves L. et al., 2005).
Abrams et al. (2003) points that “increasingly, protected area managers have found that problems at the operational level are closely linked with broader governance issues. Resolving technical issues related to conservation and resource use frequently requires a critical examination of existing laws, policies, programmes, regulations, organizational cultures and professional attitudes.”
The main forms of PA governance, as described by Dudley N. (2008) and the CBD PoW briefing note (2008) are:
A. Government managed PAs (state governance)
A government body (a ministry, a national agency, at national, regional or local level), reporting directly to the government holds the authority, responsibility and accountability for managing the PA (or the PA system), determines its conservation objectives, develops and enforces its management plan and sometimes owns the PA’s land and resources. The management tasks can be delegated by these governmental bodies to: NGOs, private operators or communities. This type of governance might or might not include a legal obligation to inform or consult stakeholders about management decisions.
B. Co-managed PAs (shared governance)
Many actors, which are formally or informally entitled, share the PA management authority and responsibility. Complex institutional mechanisms and processes are employed. There are many forms:
� Weak forms: the authority and responsibility for decision-making is held by one agency, which has the obligation (according to the national legislation or policy) to inform or consult other stakeholders.
� Other forms: multi-stakeholder bodies have the responsibility (are in charge) to develop proposals for regulation and management that are submitted to a decision-making authority for approval.
ALINA IONITA, 2011
PAGE 19
� Fully “joint” management: various actors are included in a management body holding the authority and responsibility for the PA management.
The strength of the co-management depends on whether decision-making requires consensus among participants or not (PA-BAT, 2008).
C. Private PAs (private governance)
This type of governance is mainly determined by its specific ownership regime. The PA land and resources are owned by individuals, associative structures, NGOs, corporations, either for-profit or not-for-profit. The landowner holds the authority and the responsibility for the PA management: determines the conservation objectives, develop and enforce management plans and is in charge of decisions, being controlled only by the applicable legislation. Their accountability to society is usually limited.
D. Community conserved areas (community governance)
Authority and responsibility for PA management rests with communities and are expressed through a variety of forms of local governance. Land and resources can be collectively owned, and frequently there is no legal recognition or sanctioning by the government, although community can be officially recognized as a legitimate local authority.
The choice for different types of governance should be regarded in correlation with the IUCN categories of PAs in charge and in relation with the national and local context.
Fig.1: Forms of PA governance and the options of PA authorities concerning the
involvement of stakeholders
ALINA IONITA, 2011
PAGE 20
The types of PA governance indicate who owns the legal responsibility for management and decision-making and the different degree of control and influence the stakeholders have in the management process (Fig. 1). The forms of participation are strongly linked to specific types of PA governance, being steadily developed while advancing from a total government control and power to decision-making towards a total control of the local communities (Fig. 1). However, in any form of governance one or more of the types of participation can be developed but while the forms at the bottom of the ladder can be developed in all the types of governance, beginning with the level of collaborative management formal arrangements are required. Therefore, for example, if information, consultation, building consensus and negotiation could represent forms of involvement in any type of governance (from state governance to community governance), the transfer of authority could not represent an option in a state-governance, since it already involves shifts in the organizational structures and legal responsibilities.
Concerning the quality, “good governance”, according to Abrams et al., (2003) and Dudley (2008) should be based on the following principles:
1. Legitimacy and voice (all men and woman should have a voice in decision-making; there should be no discrimination);
2. Subsidiarity (management authority and responsibility should be attributed to the institutions closest to the resources at stake);
3. Accountability (decision-makers are accountable to the public);
4. Transparency (ensuring that all the relevant information is available to all stakeholders);
5. Do no harm (ensuring that the establishment of PAs do not create or aggravate poverty and vulnerability);
6. Performance (including responsiveness, effectiveness and efficiency);
7. Fairness (including equity and the rule of law);
8. Direction (governance should be based on a strategic vision).
3.2 Rationale for stakeholder participation in the protected area management
„During the history of its development and in the different contexts where it has been applied, participation has become loaded with ideological, social, political and methodological meaning, giving rise to a wide range of interpretations“ (Lawrence, 2006). Stakeholder participation is regarded as a means to deal with the social complexity of an issue most often is being associated to democratic rights and pragmatic benefit (Reed, 2008, Hesselink et al. 2007).
The most common arguments invoked in the scientific literature and political agendas to promote (stakeholder) participation are:
ALINA IONITA, 2011
PAGE 21
� The rights of those who are affected by a decision
”Participation in environmental decision-making is increasingly becoming regarded as a democratic right” (Reed, 2008). In general sense, some decisions taken by the state can influence directly people’s living environment, access to resources and way of life. The establishment of nature protected areas in top-down manner, by governmental decisions represents a common source of conflicts due to its negative effects on local people’s livelihoods and access to natural resources due to the land-use restrictions which are sometimes regarded as a violation of their ownership rights. This often results in negative attitudes of the land owners and tacit, active conflicts with the PA management authorities and illegal activities, especially in a context in which financial compensations are not provided, as it is the case for most of the Carpathian countries.
In such cases, even if conservation objectives are considered a state priority, it is people right to know (to be informed, to have access to the relevant information) and to have the opportunity to express their opinions, needs, concerns, etc, which should be considered and negotiated in the decision-making process in order to achieve consensus. The land owners and all those who are or will be affected by the PA management are key stakeholders and their information/consultation should undoubtedly represent a priority in the earliest phases of PA establishment or latest in the management planning.
• The great number and diversity of actors sharing responsibility within the PAs and their neighboring territories
The PAs and the area around them, where the local communities live should be regarded as a “zone of competing and cooperating social and political actors making demand on the available natural resources” (Cline-Cole, 2001 cited by Secretariat of the CBD, 2009). In order to achieve an effective management, it is necessary to harmonize and balance competing and conflicting interests; therefore the cooperation and the coordination of stakeholders’ actions with the PA management are strongly needed.
The diversity of conservative values, land use, land ownership and the sometimes cross-sectoral objectives of PAs (e.g. biosphere reserves) is associated with a corresponding diversity of various institutions and administrations, often belonging to different ministries or national authorities (e.g. forestry authorities, tour-operators, fresh water administrations, local administrations/ governments, administrations of PAs etc.).
Therefore the relevant institutional actors have to be identified and engaged in the process according to their capabilities and responsibilities. Taking into account the complexity of PA management objectives and the need for their integration with their wider territorial context, the PA management authorities
ALINA IONITA, 2011
PAGE 22
are often assigned the role of “initiator and coordinator of efforts to make planning more organized and participatory” (Stoll-Kleemann and Welp, 2008), which increases the complexity of their mission and their responsibility. In this context, the inter-institutional cooperation proves to be absolutely necessary.
• The diversity of knowledge, values and capacities needed for the
integrative PA management and the role of stakeholders as source
of input in this process
”Environmental problems are typically complex, uncertain, multi-scale and affect multiple actors and agencies. This demands transparent decision-making that is flexible to changing circumstances, and embraces a diversity of knowledge and values. To achieve this, stakeholder participation is increasingly being sought and embedded into environmental decision-making process, from local to international scales.” (Stringer et al., 2007, cited by Reed, 2008). The increasing complexity of today’s problems “call for knowledge from many different domains” (Stoll-Kleemann and Welp, 2008), which enhances the quality of decisions by improving its informational base. The management of PAs represents a complex task not only due to the complexity characterizing the management of any territory but also to the complexity of objectives which are assigned to the PAs in the modern approach. Therefore, it is first of all necessary for the PA management authorities to know the specific context of a PA, so that management measures are designed accordingly. This can be done only by integrating relevant and complete (ecological, biological, social, economic, etc) information which is owned or managed by different actors.
It is believed that the management of protected areas has to be context-oriented and therefore it has to integrate the full diversity of local values. Also, different stakeholders have different information and skills that might be relevant and useful for the PA management, therefore their participation in the management process can contribute as an input improving the quality and the knowledge base of the management.
At the same time, together with information stakeholders can provide a valuable input of ideas, points of view, visions which can support the integration of multiple aspects of the very complex reality the PA management deals with. Such inputs are particularly needed at the beginning of a new process (e.g. management planning, preliminary assessments, project design and planning). Some of the local stakeholders usually benefit of the “traditional knowledge” which is moreover associated with local cultural values and with land management, therefore their input is strongly needed, especially in the cases when the PAs aims to maintain traditional landscapes or the conservation of certain species depend on the traditional use.
ALINA IONITA, 2011
PAGE 23
• The role of partnerships in supplementing the insufficient
resources of the PAAs
An analysis undertaken by the Green Development Mechanism9 shows that one of the reasons for PAs not being effective worldwide is financing, which is, in most of the cases insufficient. Biodiversity preservation/conservation is traditionally and predominantly financed from official development assistance (state/governmental funding), grants (i.e. Global Environmental Fund), or in the case of the EU, from structural funds, which are not able to cover all the financing needs for this sector. In the same time, the staff is very often sub-dimensioned and overloaded with bureaucratic work or the technical means for the PA management are insufficient.
By their human capabilities (experience, expertise, abilities), financial and/or technical capacity stakeholders could represent a resource for the PA management processes. Therefore, their involvement as donors or co-financers, their collaboration as formal or non-formal partners or the delegation of temporary or permanent responsibility for different management activities (functional participation), going to the delegation of the full management authority and responsibility (through forms of private governance) is more and more often sought to complement and enhance the capacity of PA Administrations.
In conclusion the main aims that are being associated to the participatory management of PAs would be:
���� to have a democratic process of decision-making with respect to the rights of people (e.g. the ownership right, the right to have access to information);
���� to have a transparent management process by informing the public correctly and making the knowledge accessible;
���� to integrate, when relevant, the knowledge and the resources the stakeholders (e.g. institutional or non-institutional actors) have from their own field of activity in the establishment and management (planning and implementation) process, in order to make it more effective;
���� to develop a supportive social environment for the PA by balancing the conflicting interests and avoiding or reducing conflicts.
3.3 The benefits of stakeholder involvement
An increasing number of publications from different fields of activity including the management of natural resources and the PA management/conservation provide arguments pro for the public/community/stakeholder involvement. In the same,
ALINA IONITA, 2011
PAGE 24
some others publications, based on the “lessons learnt” from practice, advise for precaution and present negative effects or failures of participation.
As emphasized by some publications, either based on results of many years field-based experience (e.g. Borrini-Feyerabend 1996, Thomas and Middleton, 2003, Hesselink et al., 2007, Borrini-Feyerabend 2007, Getzner et al. 2010), on comprehensive literature reviews (e.g. Reed, 2008) or on both, there are many potential benefits of participatory management. When effectively designed, participation can bring a series of mutual benefits for: the management and decision-making process, for the participants and for the output. The most commonly invoked benefits, as presented in the above mentioned literature are:
Benefits for the PA management
� A framework for communication, conflict resolution and consensus
Participation through e.g. consultation, collaboration, etc provides a mechanism for communication (Thomas and Middleton, 2003, p:55, Hesselink, 2007), facilitating the dialogue and the exchange of views, opinions, concerns between the PA Administration and stakeholders on one hand and between different stakeholders on the other hand. Simultaneously, communication can be a good framework for conflict detection, resolution or alleviation.
In a framework of open dialogue and trust divergent interests and opinions can be debated, balanced, negotiated so that consensus is built. “The involvement of various interests is essential if there is to be consensus around the aims of the Management Pan” (Thomas and Middleton, 2003). Consensual decisions, based on the accord of the stakeholders are more likely to be implemented successfully.
� A way to develop a context oriented, effective management, based on
good quality decisions
Integrating the information from stakeholders brings the necessary input of knowledge (data, specialized information, ideas, visions, etc) ensuring that the management is built on all the relevant information that is available and integrates the full variety of local values. Giving people the opportunity to express their needs and concerns offers the PAAs a better understanding of the social and economic impact the PA management has, of stakeholder’s interests, facilitating the early detection of conflicts, oppositions and threats. By considering stakeholder’s perspectives and realities, the PAAs will take decisions which are better informed, more realistic, hence more viable. By making the integration of stakeholders’ information and realities a permanent practice, PAAs’ management capacity to respond to the full complexity of issues involved is strengthened, a context-oriented, effective management is developed, which is much more viable by contributing to the “prevention of problems and disputes
9 http://gdi.earthmind.net/
ALINA IONITA, 2011
PAGE 25
and avoidance of waste of resources” (Borrini-Feyeranbend, 1996) and by increasing local acceptance and support.
� A way to reduce the negative influence of external factors
By developing a permanent supportive attitude at the local level and by mobilizing local support, participation can reduce or balance the negative influence of external political factors (political instability, political interests) and the economic shortages, contributing to the “reduction of enforcement expenditures” (Borrini-Feyeranbend G., 1996).
� A means to raise awareness
When relevant information is offered in an accessible manner, being tailored to the specific target groups and when collaboration is transparent and open, participation can raise the level of information and awareness for the stakeholders involved (Borrini-Feyeranbend, 1996, Hesselink, 2007).
Benefits for the stakeholders
� A framework to negotiate their interests
By allowing stakeholders to have a say in the decision-making, their personal and common interests are better represented and “negotiated specific benefits for all parties involved in the agreement” (Borrini-Feyeranbend, 1996) result.
� Power to influence decisions that affects them, ownership over the process
Participation increases the public involvement in decision-making and develops a sense of “ownership” over the process and outcomes (Thomas and Middleton, 2003, p:55, Reeds, 2008, p:2420). By making people aware of the fact that they can influence decisions which affect them, by giving them the opportunity to have a voice in shaping and taking decisions, a greater commitment to park management objectives and a sense of civic responsibility will be developed. “Only through involvement can come ownership; only through ownership can come understanding and support” (Thomas and Middleton, 2003, p:56). Public participation is sometimes being given a role in developing the local or national identity.
� Access to information and innovation, which is empowering
� Opportunity to interact with other people and learn either from each-
others, developing new relationships or “by doing”
Benefits for the society at large
� A more active and responsible public, a more democratic and participatory
society
� Social equity and inclusiveness; social capital and cohesion
ALINA IONITA, 2011
PAGE 26
Reed (2008) shows that stakeholder participation brings benefits for a “democratic society, citizenship and equity” and “reduces the likelihood that those on the periphery of decision-making context or society are marginalized”. By increasing the social cohesion and social learning (Blackstock et al., 2007, cited by Reed, 2008), participation increases the adoption and diffusion of innovation.
� A higher acceptance and trust over public decisions
When based on openness and transparency, participation can “increase the public trust in decisions” (Reed, 2008) and “the sense of security and stability” (Borrini-Feyeranbend, 1996) and it may “increase the likelihood that environmental decisions are perceived to be holistic and fair” (Reed, 2008).
3.4 Challenges, risks and critics of stakeholder involvement
Considering the complexity and the dynamics of the social systems, it is almost impossible to guarantee the successfulness and effectiveness of participatory processes. Although there are many examples, from different fields of activity where participatory management contributed to achieving the aims for which it was initiated, there are still critics, doubts and reluctant attitudes towards it. Although the arguments for participatory conservation are, in most of the cases backed up by examples of success, many of its pragmatic claims are disputable, since “such claims have rarely been tested” (Reed, 2008).
Analyzing a series of community-based and driven projects funded by the World Bank, relying on community participation, Mansuri and Rao (2004) conclude that “the naïve application of complex contextual concepts like participation, social capital and empowerment (..) contributes to poor design and implementation.” The same authors conclude that “although the premise of participatory approaches is that the potential benefits outweigh such costs, this is by no means certain.”
The main reasons for the criticism of stakeholder participation, as described in the literature refer to:
� Higher costs
Working (planning/assessing/implementing, etc) in a participatory manner can be time-consuming (Thomas and Middleton, 2003, p:55, Hesselink et al., 2007) and more costly, “substantial investments of time, financial resources and human resources” (high ‘transaction costs’) in both the preparatory phase and the process of developing the agreement” (Borrini-Feyerabend, 1996) being needed.
� Matters of process conditionings and obstacles
On the basis of a comprehensive literature review, Reed (2008) argues that the quality of decisions “is strongly dependent on the nature of the process leading
ALINA IONITA, 2011
PAGE 27
to them. Deficiencies in this process are most commonly blamed for the failures that have led to disillusionment in stakeholder participation”.
The “potential opposition by agencies or individuals unwilling to share authority with other stakeholders” (Borrini-Feyerabend, 1996) and the lack of commitment of the potential participants also represents a condition sine qua non which sometimes proves difficult to be fulfilled. In the same time, oppositions of some stakeholders can be related to their personal interests that are prevailing.
When not well run, consultation may lead to “consultation fatigue” and dissatisfaction among the stakeholders involved, “as they perceive that they involvement gains them little reward” and “participatory processes can become ‘talking shops’ that create ambiguity and delay decisive actions”(Reed, 2008).
The credibility of participatory processes and their effectiveness has been questioned on the basis that “many stakeholders might not have sufficiently expertise to meaningfully engage in what are often highly technical debates” (Fischer and Young, 2007, cited by Reed, 2008).
“Because of the contextual complexities involved, initial designs based on best practices are bound to be imperfect. Rapidly scaling this up, particularly in countries with little experience with community-based projects will likely result in failed projects” (Mansuri, Rao, 2004).
� The social risks
Participation of some marginal social groups could clash and participation could favor the already powerful groups, increasing the gap between them and favoring unequal benefit sharing and leading to “psychological and physical duress for the most socially and economically disadvantaged” (Mansuri and Rao, 2004) who need to negotiate or fight against the interests of the powerful ones.
The empowerment of other social actors “may have unexpected and potentially negative interactions with existing power structures” (Kothari, 2001, cited by Reed, 2008).
� Risks for conservation
Sharing or delegating the management responsibility and authority with other stakeholders could be beneficial but also risky without a clear common direction and common goals. When negotiation and consensus are sought there is chance that “the management agreement cannot be achieved without compromising the conservation goals” (Borrini-Feyerabend, 1996). Delegating the authority and power of decision-making to some actors which have other priorities than conservation, without assigning clear responsibilities and developing mechanisms of control can have adverse effects by leading to an increasing pressure on PAs and a more difficult enforcement of conservation objectives.
ALINA IONITA, 2011
PAGE 28
Even when consensus was developed and an agreement was signed, there are “chances that the agreement cannot be maintained because of underestimated problems or intervening factors” (Borrini-Feyerabend, 1996).
Although transparency, sharing authority and power with stakeholders might be challenging and risky, there are significantly higher risks of not doing it:
• “Not taking account of the needs of people in terms of economic and social development means a Management Plan has a poor chance of achieving its objectives” (Thomas and Middleton,2003, p:55). By not integrating all the relevant information and knowledge from the stakeholders and by not identifying and taking into account the needs of stakeholders and local communities, starting with the feasibility check and especially in the management planning phase, the management would fail in preventing and reducing threats, in balancing development with conservation and in ensuring a sustainable and effective management.
• Stakeholders will feel excluded, in consequence they will perceive the PA, the PAA and the management as hostile, undesired or irrelevant;
• The PA role, importance and management objectives could be misunderstood, leading either to actions having undesired effects or to a lack of support for achieving these objectives.
3.5 Stakeholder involvement within the protected area life cycle
The management of a PA represents a dynamic and complex long-term process, which, in analogy with the project management, is often regarded as a cycle: it involves a logical succession of interdependent steps/phases that often need to be iterated and adjusted. Although such phases are often overlapping and interfering with each other, management cycle proved to be useful as a framework for management planning, communication planning/design, assessing effectiveness, etc (Hockings et al., 2000, Ervin J, 2003, Hesselink el al., 2007).
From the first idea and initiative, to designation, establishment and the management implementation, there are some preparatory phases, which, together with the proper management are described by Getzner et al, 2010, by the broader concept of protected area life cycle. According to the same authors it is considered that during its “life cycle”, a PA follows four main successive phases of evolution (Fig. 2):
���� the preparatory phase (“pre-phase”) – when the initiative of establishing a new PA is taken and the idea is debated, the vision for its establishment and management is developed and the feasibility check is done;
���� the planning phase, including: the basic planning phase when the basic research and planning for its designation are made and the area is legally
ALINA IONITA, 2011
PAGE 29
nominated as a PA and the detailed planning phase when specific management plans are developed;
���� the implementation and management phase – which begins with the legal establishment of the PA and involves the full range of management activities.
Fig.2: Communication and participation within the life cycle of a protected area:
filds of activity, conditions and recommended interventions
ALINA IONITA, 2011
PAGE 30
Fig 3:The involvement of stakeholders in different fields of management activity
Source: Alina Ionita – adapted from Getzner, Jungmeir and Lange, 2010
ALINA IONITA, 2011
PAGE 31
Communication and stakeholder involvement represent both: a management aim in itself; different forms of communication (i.e. consultation, information) being recommended/needed at some specific points (i.e. PA designation, approving the management plan) and an approach to some fields of activity meant to achieving other management objectives.
Fig.3 (continuing):The involvement of stakeholders in different fields of management activity
Fig.4: Intensity of the public debate in the different periods of the “life-
cycle” of a protected area
Source: after M. Getzner, M. Jungmeier, S. Lange, 2010
Intensity of public debate
Pre-Phase Planning Management
ALINA IONITA, 2011
PAGE 32
Each phase/stage that a PA goes through within the life cycle has its characteristic aims concerning communication and participation that are willing to be achieved in different conditions (Fig. 2), therefore specific interventions are needed. For the life cycle Getzner et al, 2010 (p: 32) describe 25 fields of activity (Fig. 2), within each of them a different degree of involvement for different stakeholder groups being recommended (Fig. 3). Communication and stakeholder involvement are important along the entire life cycle of a PA but of particular importance in some phases and for some specific fields of activity. In the same time, Getzner et al. (2010), indicates a direct correlation between the intensity of public debate, conflicts related to a PA and stakeholders’ reactions and the different phases of the life cycle (Fig. 4).
In order to be effective and to lead to the development of an overall participatory management, the planning for stakeholder involvement should be done in relation with the life cycle. It is therefore important for PA managers to know in which phase of the life cycle they are at a specific point, which would be the role and purpose of communication and stakeholder involvement for each phase and which would be the most appropriate work steps and interventions recommended or needed. Given these aspects, the “life cycle” approach to PA management represents an innovative, pragmatic and valuable approach
Figure no. 2 offers an overview on the phases within a life cycle of a protected area, the corresponding fields of activity, the frequent background conditions for communication and stakeholder involvement and recommends some necessary interventions / work steps. The fields of activity might not be always organized according to this model, especially in the case when PAs have a longer history of unstructured planning, based on a traditional approach and the characteristics of the social environment (the “conditions”) can vary considerably from country to country and depending on the operational context of each protected area, therefore this matrix should be reshaped according to each specific context. Figure no. 3 offers a more detailed overview on the connection between the different fields of activity within the life cycle, some recommended actions and the optimal level of involvement for the main categories of stakeholders.
To the purpose of developing participatory management, both of these figures offer an extremely valuable instrument for practitioners and can be used as guidelines for analysis and action planning, allowing for a context-oriented and time defined planning of participatory management.
ALINA IONITA, 2011
PAGE 33
4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
4.1 Background
The Carpathian Ecoregion partially
overlaps on the territory of the
Carpathian Convention, including 7
countries: The Czech Republic,
Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Ukraine,
Romania and Serbia, 2 of which are
not members of the European Union
(Ukraine and Serbia). The
Carpathian network of protected
areas presently includes 36 national
parks, 51 nature parks and several
protected landscape areas, 19
biosphere reserves and around 200
protected areas of other categories,
extending over 36.000 km2 (CNPA,
201110). Almost all the IUCN
categories are represented in the
seven Carpathian countries, but most of the large PAs (about 87) represent the
IUCN II and V category. Concerning the management of PAs, three policy
frameworks are most relevant: the CBD, the Carpathian Convention and the
Natura 2000 Programme, based on the Habitats and Birds Directives (for the 5
EU countries).
4.1.1 The CBD-PoWPA requirements concerning the participatory management of protected areas
4.1.1.1 Specific PoWPA requirements on stakeholder involvement
The “limited public participation and stakeholder involvement”, the “lack of horizontal cooperation among stakeholders”, the “lack of effective partnerships” and the “lack of synergies at the national and international levels” are some of the obstacles to the implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), as identified in the Strategic Plan for the CBD.
The Programme of Work on Protected Areas (PoWPA) was developed in order to support the successful achievement of the Convention on Biological Diversity
10 http://www.carpathianparks.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=121&Itemid=204&lang=en [CNPA web
page]
Fig. 5: The Carpathian Ecoregion
Source: CERI, 2007
ALINA IONITA, 2011
PAGE 34
(CBD) objectives by focusing solely on the in situ conservation and it was adopted in 2004 by 188 Parties to the Convention.
The PoWPA comprises 4 main elements and 16 goals (CBDS, 2004), aiming to improve the establishment, planning, management, assessment, governance, benefit sharing and monitoring for PAs. One of the 4 Programme elements is focused on the issue of stakeholder involvement and participatory governance:
Programme Element 2 - “Governance, Participation and Benefit Sharing“consists of two goals, one of which is focused particularly and directly on stakeholder involvement:
� Goal 2.2.: To enhance and secure involvement of indigenous people
and local communities and relevant stakeholders
The target of Goal 2.2 is:
“Full and effective participation by 2008, of indigenous and local communities, in full respect of their rights and recognition of their
responsibilities, consistent with national law and applicable
international obligations, and the participation of relevant stakeholders,
in the management of existing, and the establishment and
management of new, protected areas”.
In this respect, the Parties and the Executive Secretary suggested the following activities:
� The elaboration of “national reviews of the status, needs and context-specific mechanisms for involving stakeholders (…) in protected areas policy and management (…) at the level of national policy, protected area systems and individual sites” (activity 2.2.1.);
� The implementation of “specific plans and initiatives to effectively involve local communities and stakeholders at all levels of protected areas
planning, establishment, governance and management” (activity 2.2.2.);
� “Identifying and removing barriers preventing adequate participation” (activity 2.2.2.);
� Promoting “an enabling environment (legislation, policies, capacities, and resources) for the involvement of (…) local communities and relevant stakeholders in decision making and the development of their capacities
and opportunities to establish and manage protected areas” (activity 2.2.4.);
� Making available to Parties “case-studies, advice on best practices and other sources of information on stakeholder participation in protected
areas” (activity 2.2.6.);
� Engaging “local communities and relevant stakeholders in participatory planning and governance” (activity 2.1.5.).
ALINA IONITA, 2011
PAGE 35
4.1.1.2 Connections with other objectives of the PoWPA
Although having a different focus, the other goals of the PoWPA are also promoting the participatory approach as means to: promote equity and benefit sharing (Goal 2.1.), support the development of PA systems (Goal 1.1), improve the PA planning and management effectiveness (Goal 1.4) and to integrate the PAs in their broader landscapes and sectors (Goal 1.3).
Thus, as defined by the Goal 2.1, participatory forms of governance are meant to contribute to an equitable sharing of benefits arising from the management of PAs. Hence, the PoWPA urges for a participatory assessment of such benefits and for the development of governance mechanisms that are facilitating their equal sharing among the local communities, consistent with their rights.
To the purpose of Goal 1.1, the Parties to the Convention propose to “conduct national-level reviews of existing and potential forms of conservation and their
suitability for achieving biodiversity conservation goals, including innovative
types of governance for protected areas” with “the full and effective participation of indigenous and local communities and relevant stakeholders” (activity 1.1.4.). Such forms should be “recognized and promoted through legal, policy, financial institutional and community mechanisms” (activity 1.1.4.).
To the purpose of effective site-based planning, Goal 1.4 proposes: a “science based” and “highly participatory process, involving (…) local communities and relevant stakeholders, (…) in accordance with the ecosystem approach”, with the integration of ”relevant ecological and socio-economic data required to develop effective planning processes” (activity 1.4.1).
In the same time, the Strategic Plan for the Convention on Biological Diversity acknowledges the “need to mainstream the conservation and sustainable use of biological resources across all sectors of the national economy, the society and
the policy-making framework” as “a complex challenge at the heart of the
Convention.” One of its strategic goals is that of creating “a better understanding of the importance of biodiversity and of the Convention” and a “broader engagement across society in implementation.” The main objectives proposed by the Strategic Plan of the CBD to achieve this goal would be:
� The implementation of communication, education, and public awareness strategies and the promotion of public participation in support of the Convention (activity 4.1.)
� The effective involvement of local communities in the implementation of CBD at national, regional and international levels (activity 4.3.)
� The engagement in partnerships of key actors and stakeholders, including the private sector to implement the Convention and to integrate biodiversity concerns into their relevant sectoral and cross-sectoral plans, programmes and policies (activity 4.4.).
ALINA IONITA, 2011
PAGE 36
The CBD considers the active involvement of stakeholders, their horizontal cooperation and the development of partnerships as a challenging but an essential means to achieve the objectives of effective establishment, planning, management and integration of protected areas in their wider territories. It is thus acknowledged that protected areas can no longer contribute to the effective conservation of biodiversity without having the social-economic and ecologic information integrated in their management plans and without taking into account the needs of local communities, which can be integrated in the site-based planning and management solely by the active involvement of the relevant stakeholders.
4.2 Design
As it was mentioned in the previous chapters, the work presented in this thesis represents the first step aiming to support a comprehensive development of participatory management, as required and recommended by the PoWPA, in a context-oriented approach. Given its objectives, previously described, the thesis is structured in two major parts, as it follows:
� The first part describes the context and the status of participatory management in the Carpathian Ecoregion, as result of an assessment undertaken between 2009 and 2010 (WWF-DCP, 2011). It consisted in:
� Literature review
� Elaborating a methodology to collect and analyze relevant information
� Applying the questionnaires and form at national and site level
� Analyzing the results and drafting the final document
� The second part presents the guidelines and recommendations for the future development of participatory management in the Carpathian countries. It consisted in:
� Elaborating the recommendations (based on the results of the assessment)
� Developing a methodology for analysis and planning for practitioners
� Elaborating and drafting the “handbook” including the guidelines, concepts, methods and some tools.
The guidelines are going to be tested in by the end of 2011, in minimum 3 in the CER protected areas, together with case studies.
ALINA IONITA, 2011
PAGE 37
4.3 Methods
The first part of the work (hereby presented in the literature review and chapter 4.1.1) consisted in revising the literature and to clarify the theoretical aspects needed to develop a methodology, for the analysis and for the elaboration of guidelines. The most relevant publications which were accessible (scientific papers together with practical guidelines and manuals) on participation, governance, stakeholder analysis, communication planning, the PoWPA (CBDS, 2004), etc were revised and their relevant provisions on these aspects were synthesized. Since the aim of this work was to assess the current situation and develop guidelines and methodologies, the first step was to look more carefully to what is required, to the aims that have to be achieved. This was done by revising the PoWPA its goals, objectives and proposed activities, trying to find and understand the terms of reference for the next steps.
4.3.1 Methodology of assessment at the CER level
The first step in undertaking the assessment was that of developing a methodology to collect the relevant information for further analysis. This was done by starting with a literature review on the forms of participation, on the criteria used to evaluate participation and on the background context of the CER.
Fig. 6 – Methodological steps for the analysis [Note: the dark grey boxes represent the expected results]
ALINA IONITA, 2011
PAGE 38
The methodology is presented in figure 6.
The regional level assessment was undertaken by:
� revising the available information from literature, web sites, strategies and other documents available in English for each country,
� a national level questionnaire (Appendix 1) and structured discussions with PA practitioners form different countries
� a site-level questionnaire for 2 PAs in each Carpathian country (Appendix 2).
� The national level assessment of the enabling environment for participatory management of PAs and the PA governance
In order to collect the information on the national level context of PA governance a short questionnaire was developed in the early phase of the research, containing both open and multiple choice questions (Appendix 1). This questionnaire was filled in by PA experts and practitioners from NGO, research and government sector, from most of the Carpathian countries (excepting Poland), mainly during 2009. For most of the countries and most of the issues analyzed, the first set of information collected proved to be insufficient or not clear enough. Additional information was required in order to allow for a clear understanding of the legislative and administrative context and for the validation of the already existing one. To this purpose, an additional questionnaire, containing more detailed guidelines and explanations on the expected output was designed and applied in 2009 and the first part of 2010 and was complemented, when possibilities existed, with interviews.
The choice of criteria for assessment was based on literature and included:
� the involvement of stakeholders in declaring and establishing PAs,
� the status of management planning and the involvement of stakeholders in the management planning
� the existence of multi-stakeholder bodies (e.g. Consultative Councils, Advisory bodies, Work groups, etc), as enabling organizational frameworks facilitating stakeholder involvement
� the existence of different types of PA governance and their identification
� the fragmentation of land ownership inside PAs and the existence of financial compensations as possible sources of conflicts, economic impacts and challenges for the management.
The respondents were asked to refer mainly to large PAs having their own administrations (e.g. national and nature parks).
ALINA IONITA, 2011
PAGE 39
Since the answers to the first questionnaire proved to be insufficiently clear, sometimes to the different understanding of the respondents on what is relevant, the second one came with additional explanations and required qualitative and descriptive information. The additional information (Appendix 2) referred to:
� The PA management system (the establishment of PA network and their administrations, the institutions involved, the existing obligations for responsible authorities to have formal agreements for the establishment of a new PA)
� The roles and responsibilities within the PA management system (the delegate authority for the management of PAs, the responsibility of assigning PA categories, establishing the internal zoning, the development of management plans, existing guidelines for management plans, the responsibility for financing the PAs, the management of natural resources inside the PAs)
� The governance of PAs (the share of responsibility and authority for the PA management)
� Administrative structures for stakeholder involvement (their existence, role, authority, members and functioning) and their usefulness (based on personal expert opinion and arguments)
� Consultation processes (obligations to organize consultation according to the law for management planning)
� Enabling conditions for a more participatory management at PA level
� The assessment of stakeholder involvement at site level
A questionnaire/form (Appendix 3) has been developed to gather information on the situation of governance at PA level and structured interviews have been conducted with the PA staff representatives (in most cases directors but also together with more team members) during 2009 and 2010. The questionnaire was developed in English and translated into the national languages. PAs have been selected mainly based on their willingness to get involved in the study and cooperate. Some of its sections refer to information that was already collected by the first questionnaire but this was both a way of verifying the validity of the information and a way of identifying eventual local particularities.
PAs were selected based on willingness of cooperation, with priority choices going to PAs that were selected also for other components of the PA4LP project, in an attempt to increase practical support for their management. Two case studies for each country (excepting Hungary and Serbia) were selected from PAs having their own management structure (PAA) most of them being IUCN category II and V and only one scientific reserve (Tab. 2).
ALINA IONITA, 2011
PAGE 40
Country PA IUCN
category Established
Natura
2000
since
Other
designations
Slovakia
Tatra National Park II 1949 2004
Low Tatras National Park
II 1978 2004
The Czech Republic
Bílé Karpaty PLA V 1980 2004 Biosphere
reserve since 1996
Beskydy PLA V 1973 2004 (SPA)
Poland
Babia Góra National Park
II 1955 2007 (SPA)
2008 (SCI) Biosphere reserve11
Tatra National Park
II 1955 2004
Ukraine
Carpathian National Nature Park
II 1980 -
Gorgany Nature Reserve Ia 1996 -
Romania
Calimani National Park II 2000
2007
(SCI, SPA) -
Muntii Rodnei National Park II 2000
2007
(SCI, SPA) Biosphere
reserve
Hungary Duna Ipoly National Park
II 1997 2007
Tab. 2: The protected areas selected for the site level assessment
This form was designed so that the information collected could describe and explain:
���� Existing requirements to engage stakeholders established in the national legislation
���� Specific context of a PA: local communities, stakeholders, their interests and restrictions related to the PA, natural resource management related conflicts,
���� Management issues where stakeholder involvement is either imposed (by administrative mandates and obligations, by the urgent need to solve problems) or desired (as a need to get support for the PAA in achieving some goals related to their management activity)
���� The need for stakeholder involvement (if the case, through partnerships, consultation processes, effective involvement in management planning, management activities, etc.).
11 http://www.unesco.org/mabdb/br/brdir/directory/biores.asp?mode=all&code=POL+01 [UNESCO – MAB
Programme site]
ALINA IONITA, 2011
PAGE 41
���� Initiatives undertaken by the PAA to inform and involve stakeholders (through consultation, remunerated/unpaid stakeholder involvement in management activities, involvement in evaluations, decision-making, etc.) and their effectiveness (examples of success and failure).
���� Opinion of the PAA with regard to the need and approach for stakeholder involvement in their specific case.
���� Capacity of the PAA to solve stakeholder-related conflicts and involve stakeholders in the management process i.e. authority, available financial/human resources, legislative support, etc.
In order to enable the appropriate understanding of the evaluation process and the output needed through this questionnaire additional information was offered for the interviewers to know what exactly to point out and look for. Although more of the questions were based on multiple choices, there was also the possibility to add comments and additional answers.
This form is structure in 7 parts as it follows:
A. General information
A.1. Information on the PA
A.2. Information on the PA Administration
B. The stakeholders
C. Perceived benefits and constraints
D. Decision-making process (governance) and stakeholder involvement in the PA management
E. Communication with stakeholders
F. Perception/vision of the PA Administration on participation
G. Results and challenges for stakeholder involvement in the PA management
In order to avoid the different interpretations or confusions, some basic concepts and categories were predefined, explained and included in the form:
� Criteria for stakeholder identification:
Stakeholders were defined as individuals or groups that:
• have land or resource use rights
• manage resources in the PA
• could have a significant impact on the PA
• could be affected by the restrictions in the PA
� Proposed categories of stakeholders to be considered
A. Land owners B. Land and/or resource managers, C. Natural resource users, D. Tourism businesses, E. Local communities, F. Local authorities, G. NGOs, H. Others
ALINA IONITA, 2011
PAGE 42
� Proposed characteristics to be considered for stakeholder analysis
• attitude toward the PA management and nature conservation related issues: Offensive / Defensive /Inexpressive/Indifferent
• types of relations with the stakeholder: No relation / Collaboration: formal partnerships or informal partnerships / Conflicting
• Proposed levels of stakeholder involvement
• Information = stakeholders are informed on decision already taken by the PA Administration
• Consultation = stakeholders are asked for information and about their opinion on management issues, but the final decisions are taken by the
PA Administration, sometimes without incorporating the input from the
stakeholders
• Analysis = stakeholders are/were involved in finding/identifying different management solutions
• Common decision = stakeholders discuss the issues with the PA Administration and the final decision is taken together
The respondents were encouraged to define other criteria, types and levels, based on their experiences. Additional definitions and guidelines were also provided.
4.3.2 Methodology for the development of guidelines
Participatory management equals stakeholder involvement. Participation can equally be:
� an isolated, temporary process, developed in a certain public meeting, with a specific purpose (e.g. for the SEA procedure, required by the law),
� a general approach to the overall management of a PA, developed and enhanced during the whole life cycle of a PA or
� it can be permanent, generalized as a form of shared governance, with formal mechanisms and specific administrative structures for stakeholder involvement (e.g. Consultative Councils).
The guidelines provide a methodology of assessment, planning and broad guidelines for assessing the effectiveness of participation. Their elaboration is based on a literature review (guidelines for communication planning and stakeholder analysis) but was underpinned by the form for data collection used in the assessment. Some other methodologies of assessment including the issue of participation were also revised (CCPAMETT, Hockings et al., 2003).
ALINA IONITA, 2011
PAGE 43
4.4 Reflexion
The revision of the rationale, approaches, motivations, benefits of participation gave rise to some critical reflexions which will be presented in chapter 6 (“Discussions”). The results and the conclusions will be extensively presented in the following chapters.
Concerning the analysis which was undertaken for the CER, although it compiles valuable and important information on the current context, and presents an overview of the current situation which could contribute to the development of recommendations, its accuracy and scientific relevance should not be overestimated. This is due to a series of limitations: the large area of research, the complexity of aspects involved, the availability of information due to the language barrier and the limited involvement of the national authorities, the time available, the novelty of this subject and the insufficient knowledge on the issue of the PA staff, sometimes their reluctance in sharing the problems they face with stakeholders and their limitations sincerely to someone coming from outside the system. In the same time, given these limitations, developing a methodology to collect the relevant information proved to be a demanding task.
Since the recommendations needed to take into account the full diversity of situations, they still remain general, but take into account the most important issues, being developed both for the national and site-level.
The development of guidelines proved to be challenging, while on one hand, these are willing to be both comprehensive and easy to use. The field work proved the limited knowledge the PAA staff has on participation; therefore, the guidelines have to be as simple and clear as possible while remaining relevant. This thesis will therefore present a more comprehensive methodology of analysis and planning which is recommended to be used by PA practitioners in developing a participatory management, while their published version (which is underway) will represent a more easy to use methodology. Considering also the fact that a great part of the information which is hereby suggested as an input for each step might not be available yet, the methodology presented here could be rather used and developed in a scientific purpose.
The work presented here represents just a beginning and its usefulness could be proved only by consultations with the practitioners and testing, which depends first and most of all on the interests of PAA staff to work on this issue and on their willingness to invest time and be open for evaluations and further developments. The possibility to analyze issues of stakeholder involvement is very limited for an external observer, since it regards internal issues and issues from the past, which are most of the time not recorded. However, the results
ALINA IONITA, 2011
PAGE 44
represent only one perspective which could be completed only by the involvement of other relevant stakeholders.
Another issue faced during this work was structuring the results. Although connected, the analysis and guidelines parts address different target groups, therefore in the end the two parts had to be split in two separate publications.
Finally, the results were structured in two parts, aiming to: - Emphasize the main socio-economic and politic background conditions of
the CER and the main findings on the context and status of stakeholder involvement and PA governance
- Provide guidelines for the planning and development of a participatory PA management
ALINA IONITA, 2011
PAGE 45
5 RESULTS
5.1 The PA governance context and status of stakeholder involvement
5.1.1 The social and political context for stakeholder involvement in the Carpathian Ecoregion
The Carpathian territory is part of the so-called “post-socialist” Europe or Central-Eastern Europe, due to its historical political background. Although there are few studies focused on participatory conservation in the post-socialist Europe (Brandon, 2008, Lawrence, 2008, Szabo et al., 2008, Švajda, 2008), some common characteristics of the political, administrative and social economic were emphasized by the existing ones as strong determinative factors, which are conditioning the need for a specific approach to conservation (Lawrence, 2008, Szabo, 2008). These factors, strongly linked to the historical past under the communist regime, have a considerable influence on the nowadays culture of governance and decision-making and on the resilience of the social economic systems to socio-political changes and innovations.
“The shared history of centralized planning in post-socialist Europe is underpinned by earlier feudal histories that left a legacy of elitist planning” (Lawrence, 2008). Although in most of the cases more than 20 years have passed since the change over the communist regimes, the design, the structuring and the functioning of all the social and administrative „cells“ within the society, starting with the individual level, still reflect their foretimes. The so called „transition“ status of most of the Carpathian Central and East-European countries is still dominated by inertia in the past and by the “emerging conflicts between traditions of centralized decision-making and new public values and concerns” (Lawrence, 2008). It is particularly the case for the social and political systems, which are still strongly suspended in their former centralized way of governing which excluded the public involvement but which, under the influence of the European and international context, are urged to adopt and adapt to the „western“, so called „democratic“, shared governance culture, based on a system of values which is not yet assimilated and sufficiently developed in the East.
As emphasized in the literature, resulting from the assessment and from a day-to-day life experience, the main characteristics which generate threats for nature conservation and hinder the development of participatory management of PAs are:
Regarding the society in general
ALINA IONITA, 2011
PAGE 46
� the lack of tradition for public participation (Lawrence, 2008, Szabo et al., 2008, Švajda, 2008) and a poor civic culture, due to the former strongly centralized political systems and the “historical tendency to exclude citizens from conservation-decision-making process”, amplified by the “experiences of forced working in cooperatives” (Lawrence, 2008) resulting in a low level of public awareness on the importance of getting actively or voluntarily involved in decision-making, in “suspicion of projects or simply apathy of participation” (Lawrence, 2008) and reluctance on the cooperative and participatory models;
� “a legacy of distrust of authority combined with a reliance on the state to take care of public concerns” (Lawrence, 2008)
� a relatively high level of political, economic and social instability, related to the “rapid social and institutional change” (Lawrence, 2008) and a high influence of politics in the development of the society at all levels. This often results in inconsistent / incoherent policies and resource allocation;
� a strong orientation of the society in the direction of immediate economic development and rapid improvement of the living standard as a priority, in a context of “economic hardship”, depopulation, young migration, especially in the rural areas (Lawrence, 2008, Strobel, 2007), resulting in contradictory policies an often irrational and chaotic exploitation of natural resources, even when these are under protection regime and to a rapid deterioration of resources that were relatively well managed (Strobel, 2007);
The civil society
� the “fragmented and inexperienced NGO sector or one at odds with rural people’s needs and values” (Lawrence, 2008) and the generally weak civil society activating in the sector of nature or biodiversity conservation, having a low accountability and legitimacy to the public and state institutions, which resides in the small number of partnerships between state and non-state actors in the field of conservation;
The natural resource management
� an increasing fragmentation and important structural changes in the land ownership in PAs, as an effect of the forest and agricultural land restitution, started in 1990 in Romania, Hungary, The Czech Republic, Slovakia, resulting in a bigger number of stakeholders and interests, bigger influence of private actors with stronger interest for direct use of natural resources in the PAs, and bigger costs for compensation measures. In a rural life context in which local population is strongly dependent on the outcomes of natural resource management, the restrictions associated to conservation have a stronger negative impact on the livelihoods and a greater opportunity cost, being often the source of conflict. The financial
ALINA IONITA, 2011
PAGE 47
compensation measures, although stipulated in the laws, were not offered to the landowners;
The PA administrations
� an insufficient political will to support the effective management of nature PAs, which in the context of a predominantly government-managed system of PAs results in: insufficient financial, human and technical capacity of their Administrations or custodians, legislative gaps, insufficient control and the lack of or insufficient collaboration between different ministries and national authorities which can play a role in strengthening the management effectiveness for PAs;
� the lack of specialized knowledge in communication and participatory management within the PAA staff, due to the novelty of this approach and their former professional background in natural sciences (e.g. forestry, biology);
The general public
� a low level of public awareness concerning the role and the importance of nature conservation and nature PAs, which was almost forgotten, being over-ruled for many decades and is perceived rather as “scientifically elitist and hierarchical” (Lawrence, 2008);
� changing public values, a shake-up in institutions and interests, decline in volunteer groups (Lawrence, 2008)
’Participatory management needs participatory roots!’ i.e., some measures of participatory democracy internal to the relevant social actors” (Grazia Borrini Feyerabend, 2007), therefore, the characteristics described above have an important influence of the development of participatory conservation.
“While global changes in conservation philosophy offer more participatory models that might help, post-socialist countries have neither the robust civil society nor traditions of community resource management on which such models are founded” (Lawrence, 2008).
The existing models of participatory management in Western Europe, Africa or Asia are based on different characteristics (like for e.g. a strong civil society in Western European states and strong cultural links and direct economic dependence of the traditional communities and often indigenous people on nature in Africa and Asia), which hardly make them replicable in the Carpathian context. Therefore, given the conditions and the importance of a context-oriented model, there is a clear need for a specific approach in involving stakeholders in the PA management for the Carpathian Ecoregion.
ALINA IONITA, 2011
PAGE 48
5.1.2 Results of the national level assessment
As result of the assessment (WWF-DCP, 2011) undertaken in 2010 in the 7 Carpathian Countries some problems and barriers for the involvement of stakeholders in the management of PAs were identified and some recommendations for national and site level were developed. The aspects considered for this assessment were: the enabling environment for participatory PA management, the existing forms of PA governance, the initiatives and the level of stakeholder involvement in the establishment and management of nature protected areas.
� a predominance of government managed PAs together with some primary forms of co-management and the existence of multiple stakeholder bodies (in Romania, Ukraine, Slovakia, Serbia, Poland), but which, most of the times does not ensure a full representativeness of relevant stakeholders and have a rather formal role into practice;
� a general low level of stakeholder involvement in the designation of PAs and their planning;
� a generally low progress in achieving the PoWPA requirements concerning stakeholder involvement.
� PA governance types
In all Carpathian countries, the authority and the responsibility for managing natural protected areas usually belong to the state, through the Ministry of Environment or it is delegated to a public or private company, a university, an NGO or public administration, reporting to the state authority, as in the case of Romania (state governance type). Some primary forms of co-management were also identified, but usually the main decision-maker is the PA management authority, which is a governmental authority or a delegated governmental authority. No cases of full joint management were identified. Private protected areas (managed by NGOs or public administrations, as in Slovakia, Serbia, Romania) and some community managed areas (as in Ukraine, Hungary) also exist, but only in isolated cases, usually for smaller PAs (Table 3).
Country Type of
PAs
IUCN
categ. No.
Out of which:
Biosphere
reserves
Legal
responsibility for nature
conservation and type of PA
management authority
Stakeholder
management body
Maine type
of governance
Czech
Republic
Protected Landscape Areas
V 3 2 Ministry of
Environment
Government
PAs
ALINA IONITA, 2011
PAGE 49
Administration of PAs
NO Private PAs – isolated cases (not officially
recognized by the state)
Slovakia
Protected Landscape Areas
V 11 -
Ministry of Environment
State Agency for Nature
Conservation
Consultative
Councils
Not approved by the law12
Only for regional level
authorities
Consultative role
Government PAs
Private PAs – isolated cases
Weak forms of joint management
National Park II 9 3
Hungary
Protected Landscape Area
V 11 - Ministry of
Environment
and Water
National Park Directorates
(regional authority)
NO
Government PAs
Community-conserved
areas
(for small PAs)
National Parks
II 3 1
Poland
Landscape parks
V 13 1 Ministry of
Environment
“State Forest” National
Holding, Park Administrations,
local forestry units
Advisory
Scientific Council
Consultative
role
Government PAs National
Parks II 6 2
Ukraine
Regional landscape park
II 8 Ministry of
Environment
and Natural
Resources
State Agency for Protected
Areas
Technical Research
Councils
Consultative and decision-making role
Government PAs
Stronger form of joint management
Nature reserve
I 2
National nature park
V 8 1
Biosphere reserve
- - 6
Romania
Nature Parks
V 8 -
Ministry of Environment
and Forest
National Forest Administration
– PA Administrations
Both Consultative
Councils (with only
consultative role) and Scientific Councils (sharing
responsibility for decision-
making with PA Administrations)
Government PAs,
Private PAs
Forms of joint
management (stronger, if consider the
case of Scientific Councils)
National Parks II 11 2
Geopark V
(VI) 1
12 Recently established through a delegation of the Ministry, but don’t have a legal
framework per se (nor established by a law)
ALINA IONITA, 2011
PAGE 50
for all the national and nature parks
Serbia National Parks V 1 -
Ministry of
Environment supported by
the Institute for Nature
Conservation
and Public enterprises,
NGOs (for small PAs)
Steering Committee
(governmental stakeholders from different sectors) and Supervisory
Board
Government PAs
Community conserved
areas (outside the Carpathians)
Tab. 3: Management responsibility -governance types and multi-stakeholder bodies in the
Carpathian PAs
Government managed PAs (state governance) was identified as the main form of governance, in all the Carpathian countries. In this case, the authority and the responsibility for planning the management and managing the PAs belongs to the Ministries of Environment which:
� either have the PAAs in its direct subordination (in the case of Hungary, Poland, Romania and Serbia) or
� delegates the responsibility to a national subordinated agency, reporting directly to it and financed by it (e.g. State Nature Conservancy in Slovakia, National Agency for Protected Areas in the Czech Republic, the State Agency for PAs in Ukraine ).
In most cases the PA authority has the obligation to inform, consult or even involve the stakeholders in different phases of the establishment and management process (from the establishment to the elaboration and approval of management plan and management activities). In some cases (Slovakia, Hungary, Czech Republic partially), the national governmental body steers the whole management system of PAs through their regional territorial units (e.g. National Park Directorates in Hungary, Regional Offices of the State Nature Conservancy in Slovakia). Each regional body is directly subordinated to the national authority and coordinates all the PA administrations in their jurisdiction.
The types of governance gradually evolve from state governance, where authority is completely held by the state to community governance, where the full authority and responsibility belongs to local stakeholders embracing many intermediary forms, which can be considered as a continuum scale (Fig. 1). If we consider this continuum of governance options (Fig. 1), and compare the real situation with these governance types, the overall situation in the Carpathian countries could be placed at an intermediate level, somewhere between state governance and a still incipient status of shared governance. Efforts are made mainly to avoid conflicts and sometimes to reach consensus, very seldom for
ALINA IONITA, 2011
PAGE 51
integrating stakeholder interests and reflecting conservation concerns in development plans and actions through open dialogue, active and effective stakeholder involvement. The defining characteristics for the governance forms identified in the Carpathian Ecoregion are colored in grey, in the scale below, (Fig. 1), while the ones in white were not identified. The characteristics enlightened in darker gray are more frequent in the governance forms of the Carpathian states, indicating the predominance of state governance and the transition to shared governance.
� Multi stakeholder bodies
Some forms of stakeholder bodies (e.g. Advisory/Consultative Boards/Councils - Table 3), whose establishment is stated by the law facilitate, at least theoretically, the representation and negotiation of stakeholder interests, allowing them to get involved in the management process directly or indirectly, through legal representatives, for e.g. through the mayors in the case of local communities. If these are functional and the PA administrations engage in a real dialogue, it will provide a good platform for finding solutions to potentially conflicting situations and to initiate active cooperation.
Where such stakeholder bodies exist, their establishment is required only for the big PAs (national and nature parks or biosphere reserves), their activity is not regular and has a limited power of decision making, their influence in the management process being limited by their exclusive consultative role for the PA administrations:
- Ukraine - Technical Research Council
- Romania - Consultative Administrative Councils as stakeholder platforms and Scientific Councils as advisory bodies, the last ones more actively involved
- Slovakia – Consultative Councils, multi stakeholders bodies at regional level (not established through a national law but functional in some cases – e.g. Ponitrie LPA)
- Serbia - Steering Committee and Supervisory Board – having a precise number of members, most of them specialist and PA staff, (less representative for the full range of stakeholders)
- Poland – Advisory Scientific Council – with a consultative role
Scientific Councils (in Romania) and Technical Research Councils (in Ukraine) have a stronger power to influence decision-making. In some cases (e.g. the Steering Committees in Serbia), although such stakeholder bodies are theoretically invested with authority by law and could have a strong influence on the management of the park (e.g. defining of the park policy, important decision
ALINA IONITA, 2011
PAGE 52
on park management), their role in practice is rather formal. Such structures do not exist in: Hungary and the Czech Republic.
� Levels of stakeholder involvement and forms of participation
The provisions related to the obligation to involve stakeholders in management planning are included in the law in most of the Carpathian countries but are slightly different for each country, asking either for simple notification, obtaining stakeholder consent, organizing public consultation, discussing and establishing together the management measures, etc. According to the national laws, stakeholders have different roles in:
- The establishment of PAs: their formal or informal agreement (especially for land owners and land users) is most of the cases needed for the establishment of a PAs;
- Management planning - their involvement is requested for the PA management plan as follows:
- No involvement at all – such obligation does not exist in Hungary, Slovakia
- Limited information and formal consultation: Serbia, Romania
- Effective involvement: the Czech Republic, Ukraine
In all the Carpathian countries there is the obligation to inform landowners when a PA is established, but involving a wider range of stakeholders (an inclusive approach) or asking for an agreement are rather optional or not clearly formulated.
Even though stakeholder involvement in the management planning would be imposed by the law, it effectiveness depends on the local context (e.g. values, interests, degree of awareness and public acceptance for the PA) and the capacity of PAAs to organize the process (to encourage stakeholders to express their opinions and interests even if there are no immediate financial benefits).
In this centralized state governance framework, the levels of stakeholder involvement are limited to information, consultation and mostly formal partnerships in planning and implementing activities. By the degree of stakeholder involvement, the types of PA management identified in the Carpathian countries are:
� Informative management: the PA administration/directorate, which takes the management decisions, informs the stakeholders and the general public on their activities and their intentions, but without having very clear specifications on specific stakeholder target groups that have to be informed and on the precise means of doing it. When public institutions
ALINA IONITA, 2011
PAGE 53
are involved, the provisions of the Aarhus Convention regarding transparency, consultation and public access to information are applicable.
Information is based on the obligations of Aarhus convention and awareness campaigns. Varies according to the capacities of each PAA and could be improved when there is an obligation for disseminating information within a project (leaflets, posters, brochures).
� Consultative management: the management authority arranges public meetings where stakeholders are invited to offer specific information needed for planning or decision-making, to express opinions and represent their interests or to debate specific issues and reach to consensus on management issues. Such debates can lead to formal or informal agreements between the stakeholders and the management authority. The information available for this study leads to the conclusion that consultation doesn’t represent a permanent management practice adopted and integrated in the whole management process as a means for developing partnerships, avoiding, alleviating or obviating conflicts, but it is mostly organized occasionally, when legal obligation or procedural normative (e.g. in projects financed by the EU) demand it. Consultation, as a management practice, is also related to the existence of consultative bodies, formed by stakeholders, whose establishment is required by the national laws in Ukraine, Romania, Poland and Serbia or by a Ministry direction in Slovakia.
The approach and the efficiency of consultation depend on:
o the knowledge and capacity of each PAA for organizing such processes efficiently,
o the structure of these consultative bodies and the representativeness of all the relevant interests (see chapter 3.3.2) and
o the PA context (given by e.g. number and types of stakeholders, their relation with the PAA, their interest and willingness to get involved, etc).
Sometimes the membership of such bodies is established by the PAAs (e.g. in Romania and Ukraine), by criteria which can be arguable in terms of equity and representation of relevant interests.
� Functional management: different stakeholders are actively involved in activities meant to achieving management goals, but without having the possibility to influence decisions (e.g. on the actions needed, on the means or resources engaged). In such cases, stakeholders have the role of a “tool” in achieving objectives; their human, financial, technical capacity is a resource for the management of the PA which is actively engaged in the
ALINA IONITA, 2011
PAGE 54
implementation phase. Their involvement can be done by having formal or informal agreements can be punctual or permanent, and it is usually requested/recommended by the PAA. In the case of functional management, the stakeholders are not given the possibility to influence the decision-making; they have an executive function of doing things. While achieving their mission to the benefit of the PA, dialogue and consultation with the PA management authority can naturally be developed, but without involving the empowerment of stakeholders.
Country
THE PHASES OF PROTECTED AREA MANAGEMENT
Establishment
of PAs
Management
planning
Decision-
making on management
Management
activities
Czech Republic
NO
Information Consultation
Deciding together
Consultation for reaching a compromise
YES, different categories of stakeholders
Slovakia NO
No, only informed in some cases,
excepting TANAP and Slovensky
Raj
NO Generally no,
with exceptions
Poland NO – some consultation
only
Consultation and common
decision-making
Deciding together
YES, different categories of stakeholders
Hungary NO NO, some
information and consultation
Yes YES, different categories of stakeholders
Ukraine NO Information Yes YES, different categories of stakeholders
Romania
NO or some consultation (a
few cases)
Information, formal
consultation
No – consultation in
some cases Involving scientific
community
YES, different categories of stakeholders
Serbia (no info
available) No NO Not very much
Tab. 4: Levels of stakeholder involvement in the management of PAs in the CER
Weak forms of collaborative management and joint management, where stakeholder bodies exist and assist the PAAs or share a part of the responsibility for the management and decision-making authority with the PAAs:
- Incipient forms of collaborative management – based on the legal obligations to have endorsements of consultative bodies (in Romania, Ukraine, Serbia, Poland)
ALINA IONITA, 2011
PAGE 55
- Primary forms of joint management - where multi-stakeholders bodies (like the e.g. Management Scientific Councils in Romania) share the legal responsibility for management decisions with the PAA and have to approve decisions of the PAA. In such cases, the stakeholders sitting at the decision-making table are mostly experts and scientists.
Collaborative management involves partnership. Although many PAAs developed partnerships with different stakeholders in undertaking different activities, there are only a few cases where such partnerships involve sharing the management authority and responsibility permanently (e.g. Buila-Vanturarita NP in Romania).
Participatory planning (in TANAP - Slovakia) and involving stakeholders (schools) in monitoring and educational activities (in Rodnei Mountains National Park - Romania) represent two examples of successful participatory approaches. Such approaches have been successful in a clearly defined time frame of 2-3 years and in the conditions of some consistently budgeted projects undertaken with the aid of external expert assistance.
The analysis of stakeholder involvement through the case-studies shows the differences but emphasize the similarities between the Carpathian countries (Table 4). For more accuracy, the analysis through the case-studies, which was limited to 2 sites per country, was also confronted and complemented with the information available from the national level questionnaires. Thus it was possible to outline a broad picture for the Carpathian Ecoregion of stakeholder involvement in different phases of the management process.
The level of involvement can differ from one stakeholder to another for the same PA, from one PA to another in the same country or from one country to another but the table above emphasizes some common characteristics.
� Participation in the different management phases
As resulting from Table 3, stakeholders are mostly involved in management activities, in what is called functional management. The establishment of the current network of PAs in the Carpathians has been done in all the countries mainly by governmental initiative, and only seldom the stakeholders were consulted on this matter. The involvement in management planning is most of the time done through information, which is a one-way relation, a passive form of involvement. Consultation appears to be another form of involving stakeholders in management planning while their involvement in decision-making can take the form of deciding together only in the case of Poland and mostly consultation.
� Public consultations before the establishment of protected areas
Informing and consulting the stakeholders prior to the establishment of a PA is essential and opening the dialogue, building public trust in the PA authority, identifying interests and needs which might further represent sources of conflict threatening the effectiveness of management. Given its importance, this was
ALINA IONITA, 2011
PAGE 56
explored as a possible causal factor for the current situation. The information available on this topic revealed the different situation from country to country. Some limited stakeholder consultation was reported in Ukraine (but not for all the PAs), the Czech Republic and Serbia, while in most of the cases (in Hungary, Slovakia, Ukraine and Romania), the public was informed only after the protected areas were established or limited consultation has been undertaken before. The situation differs from site to site in each country, but in most of the cases, PAs seem to have been established with only limited stakeholder consultation or in a completely centralized, top to bottom approach, with no consultation and prior public information and consent.
The categories of stakeholders involved were the national, regional and local level authorities (e.g. land managers and land owners, public administrations) and the specialists whose contribution was needed to fulfill the scientific criteria. For the establishment of Natura 2000 sites, the information campaigns were more consistent and more stakeholders were given access to information, but only seldom the local people were involved. In the information campaigns organized for the establishment of Natura 2000, mostly the local authorities were informed and invited to seminars and presentations. The local people (land owners, inhabitants, businesses, etc) usually got to know about the decision of establishing a Natura 2000 site after it was approved by the authorities. In the same time, such costly campaigns failed in communicating, in delivering the right message and making people understand clearly what a Natura 2000 site is and which are the implications of its establishment. Such situations resulted not only in a low level of understanding and awareness but also in a misconception about Natura 2000 which was perceived as restrictive and lead to a generally negative attitude of people towards it.
With respect to the consent of stakeholders prior to the establishment of a PA, the situation seem to improve in Romania by the integration of some provisions in the law on PA management, requiring the agreement of stakeholders for the establishment on new PAs. Even though this is a much desired change normally leading to proper dialog with key stakeholders, it can become a hindering factor for the establishment of new PAs if the capacity and resources available for the initiators to engage the stakeholders in dialog will not be ensured and the values and benefits of PA will not be assessed and made known to the local communities and stakeholders.
� Challenges related to the natural resource management in the PAs
The results of RAPPAM in Romania (2006), Slovakia (2004) and Czech Republic (2004) show that poaching, land use changes, waste management, illegal logging, tourism and (illegal) infrastructure development, grazing (in Romania) respectively forestry management, tourism, building and infrastructure
development, agriculture, hunting and poaching (in Slovakia) and forest
ALINA IONITA, 2011
PAGE 57
Fig. 7: Main land use categories in some Carpathian PAs (in the WWF-DCP case studies)
management, construction and land speculation, tourism, waste management, agriculture, including intensification and loss of agricultural lands (in the Czech Republic) were listed, among others, as the most important pressures and treats for the PAs.
In the same time, land use conflicts, the lack of capacity and support for preventing and combating the illegal activities, the lack of compensation
measures for the land owners, the poor community relations and inadequate
support from the local communities, community outreach and inadequate social research were identified among the major weaknesses.
The information obtained through the case studies allowed for a more into deep look over the situation of land use and land ownership in some PAs in the Carpathian Ecoregion.
Land use
The territory of PAs in the Carpathian Ecoregion is often covered by forests, including very often high altitude forest ecosystems, together with mountain and subalpine or alpine meadows. This is also the case for the PAs included in this study. As the result of the survey indicates, in the 9 PAs where data was available, the percentage of area covered by forest varies from 60 to 95 %, while the area covered by pastures varies between 1 and 40 % (Fig. 7).
Other categories of land-use (including hay meadows, arable land, constructions, wetlands, rocky lands) represent together not more than 20-24% of the PA
territory, with varying weights of different categories (e.g. 0 - 20% of arable land in the case of Börzsöny NP, 0,06 – 5 % of hay meadows in the case of Gorgany NR respectively TANAP Slovakia).
The land cover of PAs comprises natural structures that represent in the same time ecosystems/ habitats that have a conservative value and natural resources with an
economic value for people’s livelihoods. Very often their conservation depends on human interventions that have to be maintained at an optimal level. Simultaneously, in the mountain area the range of natural resources can be
ALINA IONITA, 2011
PAGE 58
scarce while people’s degree of dependence on the local resources for their livelihoods can be very high
Therefore, in order to design and implement effective conservation measures and to prevent socio-economic impact of PAs on the local communities, conservation practitioners need to take into account the important role land users have in the management of PAs and have to engage them actively in the management planning and implementation.
From the point of view of PA management, the structure of land use inside the PA should represent a point for reflections on:
- the stakeholders associated to the ownership and management of each land-use category,
- the benefits provided by each land-use to stakeholders, - their degree of dependence on these resources and the impact that the PA
regime has on their livelihoods, - stakeholders’ role in the proper management of these natural resources.
Starting from the analysis of land use in PAs and its associated structure of land ownership, PA managers can already identify the key stakeholders and roughly describe their interests and importance together with the main possible threats to the PA associated to their behavior.
The predominance of forest ecosystems in the Carpathian PAs urges to the development of sustainable forest management measures, to the development of a strong legislation, to institutional partnerships and arrangements that allow for the involvement and empowerment of all relevant stakeholders (state or private forest administration).
Land ownership
The land restitution process determined fragmentation and important structural changes in the land ownership of Carpathian countries, resulting in a bigger number and increased influence of non-state stakeholders/right-holders. The structure of land ownership differs broadly between and within the Carpathian counties. The information available from the case-studies offers a broad picture of the fragmented land-ownership structure (Fig. 8) and allows for the identification of the main categories of non-state land owners.
State has complete control over the land ownership in PAs in Serbia and Hungary, and over forests ownership in Ukraine. Although the state-owned land still represents an important share in the land property structure of PAs (e.g. more than 50 % in 8 of the 11 case-studies where data were available), there are many cases when the share of land of non-state actors is significant (e.g. more than 40% in 6 of the 11 case-studies and even to more than 90% in Muntii Rodnei National Park, Romania).
ALINA IONITA, 2011
PAGE 59
The main categories of non-state land owners (the so called private owners represented with green in Fig. 8) identified in the PAs are:
- individual private owners (CZ, SK, RO),
- local public administrations - e.g mayoralties of villages or towns (UA, SK, RO, CZ),
- associations of land owners in the local communities and other corporate property (SK, UA, RO),
- private companies (RO) and
- other land owners like for e.g. churches (RO, CZ), schools, etc.
For the non-state actors owning land in the PAs financial compensations for the non/limited use regime are theoretically guaranteed by the law in most of the countries. In practice rather limited financial compensations were provided in Hungary, Romania, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, while no such compensations exist in Ukraine. The situation from this point of view was improved by the Natura 2000 compensation payment programs including the agri-environmental schemes, which, under the condition of a certain land-use regime contributes to maintaining the biodiversity in non-forest lands (e.g. in Hungary, Slovakia, Romania).
Fig. 8: Land ownership in PAs in the Carpathian Ecoregion (PA4LP case studies)
ALINA IONITA, 2011
PAGE 60
5.1.3 Findings from the site level assessment
The site-level analysis reveals some aspects on the situation at PA level and some opinions of PAAs in the Carpathian Ecoregion. The form used for the interview offered the respondents some guidelines and some reference points through closed questions (multiple choices) but gave room to expressing opinions and arguments freely. This demarche was useful not only in collecting the information needed to picture the situation of stakeholder involvement in the Carpathian Ecoregion but also in improving the methodology and revising the form. However, this exercise proved the little or unstructured knowledge the PAA staff has on their stakeholders and participatory management issues.
The analysis undertaken on stakeholders’ attitudes, benefits, level of awareness and knowledge addressed only the PA managers and appealed to their knowledge and/or assumptions on stakeholders’ attitudes and interests. This is only one step on the analytical demarche which could be undertaken by the means of this study, in the limited time frame available. Although this induces obvious gaps and uncertainties in the final result, this proved to be a challenging but equally useful exercise for the PAAs taking part to the case studies.
The results are presented below following the structure of the form used in collecting information.
o Stakeholder initiatives and involvement in the establishment of
new PAs
The establishment of the PAs has been done mainly by governmental initiative, but in some cases (PAs in Slovakia, Czech Republic, Romania, Ukraine) some other stakeholders took this initiative and contributed to their designation: research bodies, universities, NGOs and other conservation enthusiasts.
o Categories of stakeholders
In the framework of this study, some possible categories of key and primary stakeholders were pre-defined for the respondents (Chapter 2). The main stakeholder groups identified during the interviews are presented in Table 5.
STAKEHOLDER
GROUPS CATEGORIES OF STAKEHOLDERS
Land owners, land
and/or resource managers
National State Forest Management Authorities (state owned, self-financing companies: e.g. Lesy CR in the Czech Republic, Forest of the Slovak Republic, National Forest Administration ROMSILVA in Romania, etc); their local and regional branches Private land owners (individuals, companies or others like e.g. Church) Associations of private and public forest owners
ALINA IONITA, 2011
PAGE 61
River and water management state owned companies Farmers Week-end house owners Authorities for public roads
Natural resource
users
Hunters, Hunting Associations Fishermen Business / Companies (e.g. wood industry, mining, etc)
Tourism sector Tourism operators and facility managers (guesthouse managers) Tourist associations Local/Regional Tourism Information Offices or Services
Local communities
Local population Mayoralties and Local Councils
Public authorities
Ministry of Environment (or equivalent) Local municipalities: Village / Town Council Regional government authorities: District / County Councils Mountain Gendarmerie Police Environmental Guard
NGOs National, regional and local level NGOs
Others
Investors (from the PA region) PA managers Mountain Rescue Service Schools Universities and research institutes Museums
Tab. 5: The main stakeholders groups identified in the CER
The identification of stakeholders proved to be useful for the respondents for giving them the possibility to frame the complex reality they are facing in a more structured way. In the same time it proved to be a difficult demarche, due to their lack of knowledge about stakeholder issues and/or the novelty of this perspective through which their PA context had to be analyzed. None of the PAs included in this study have undertaken (in 2010) a stakeholder analysis; not even in the case of those having management plans already approved.
o Knowledge and awareness concerning the PA
Most of the stakeholders are believed to be aware of the PA and the PAA existence but not fully aware of the role and the complex objectives of the PA or the role and the activities of the PAA. This fact proves the great need for increased transparency, for a more systematic approach on the information activities of the PAA and for developing opportunities for a real dialogue with all the stakeholder groups.
o Stakeholder involvement in the management planning
The situation with the management plans proved to be different for each country:
ALINA IONITA, 2011
PAGE 62
a. for most PAs are being implemented in Serbia, Ukraine, Czech Republic, while
b. for most PAs in Hungary, Romania and Slovakia it is still an ongoing planning process (management plans are either not elaborated or elaborated but not approved or implemented).
Stakeholders are usually not practically involved in the elaboration of the management plans, which is developed by the PAA or by a specialized institution. Consultation is restricted to some stakeholders, usually to those more influential and it is rather a formal process, developed as an obligation to fulfill legal requirements and not necessarily as an opportunity for dialog and conflict solving. Stakeholders are informed about the management planning but most of the times they don’t bring a valuable input by expressing ideas, views, opinions which would improve the management plan. Most interventions are related to expressing concerns for the restriction on natural resource use or development activities. Consultation of major stakeholders during the development of a management plan (planning together) was the case in some PAs in the Czech Republic and Romania.
o Communication with stakeholders
Communication is the greatest issue related to participatory management. Thus, one section of the form was dedicated to a basic analysis of the communication between the PAA and the stakeholders. The following aspects were questioned: the means used for communication, the periodicity, the situation in which the PAA communicates and the target groups it focuses on when communicating different things (Appendix 3). The results offer a broad view on the transparency in the PAs management process, revealing some deficiencies in communication that it is very likely to represent a cause for stakeholders’ lack of interest and involvement and/or for conflicts. In most of the cases informal means of communication are used and basic information is communicated as obligation under the national legislative requirements (transposing the Aarhus Convention). In the cases when Stakeholder Bodies exist, information is communicated directly prior to and during the periodic meetings, creating the opportunity for debates. In the same time, in some cases, the occasional events and public meetings are organized and used as a good opportunity to keep updated and communicate with stakeholders (e.g. the annual meeting of the PAA staff with the local mayors in the case of Bile Karpaty PLA, the annual meetings of Ponitrie Consultative Council, the meetings of Consultative Councils in the case of Calimani and Muntii Rodnei NPs). The information communicated (excepting basic information about the PA, which is most of the time available on the PA web page) refers to: events,
ALINA IONITA, 2011
PAGE 63
management activities, sometimes to management decisions and not that often to management problems or results of Board meetings.
o The perception of PA benefits
The benefits of the PAs, consisting mostly in economic and social benefits and environmental services seem to be known by the PAAs although an evaluation of ecosystem services or PAs values was not carried out in any of the cases analyzed. The PAAs assume that the stakeholders have a good level of knowledge on these issues and do not always understand the relation with their involvement or the means to use the argument of benefits for improving the dialogue.
o Relationship with the key stakeholders
The analysis proved that, even though the land-owners and the developers manifest, in general, mostly a negative attitude towards the conservation measures and the associated restrictions, there are often exceptions deriving from the specific context of the PA. In the same time, stakeholders within the same group or category (e.g. private land owners, private forest owners) can manifest completely different attitudes. There is a great diversity of reasons and factors determining a positive attitude towards a PA, even among the stakeholders impacted by the establishment of a PA. This fact emphasizes, first of all the need for a careful identification of stakeholders and their particular interests and the need to develop specific approach according to each specific situation. The results are also influenced by respondents’ perception and appreciation of the proposed attitudes.
o The opinion of PA managers on stakeholder involvement
For all the case studies PA managers consider stakeholder involvement in the management of PAs important and necessary, first of all as a means for avoiding and solving already existing conflicts caused by the PA restrictive land-
use regime and also as an instrument for gathering information and ideas for the management. Only seldom the involvement of stakeholders is considered as useful or needed for the management process or as a means to legitimate (approve/agree) the decisions of PAA.
o Obstacles for the development of participatory management
In the cases where good, strong relationships with stakeholders already exist, the favoring conditions for their development proved to be most often: the successful, visible results of PAAs, which determined the stakeholders to trust the PAA and to be opened to getting involved and the good personal
ALINA IONITA, 2011
PAGE 64
relationships between the PA manager/staff members and the stakeholders. Stakeholders’ interest in the different benefits provided by their involvement is another strong rationale behind good collaboration. Only in isolated cases the level of awareness of local communities and stakeholders is considered to be the reason for their involvement in the management and the development of partnerships. However, most of the PA managers consider stakeholder involvement as a burden mainly because of the following obstacles/barriers:
- Insufficient personal;
- Insufficient financial resources (for informational materials, travelling costs, etc.);
- Lack of information and awareness concerning the management problems at community (key stakeholder) level;
- Dissatisfactions (negative attitudes, conflicts) related to restrictions imposed for natural resource use inside the PA and lack of financial compensations;
- Lack of interest for public involvement on behalf of the stakeholders;
- Lack of understanding of real benefits from participation;
- Conflicting interests (between different stakeholders) in the PA;
- Long distance between the administration and the communities surrounding the PA that leads to occasional interactions, not sufficient for building a relationship and trust.
Building a good, permanent relationship with the stakeholders proved to be a challenge due to:
- The lack of interest or dissatisfaction of stakeholders for the restricting conservation regime,
- The lack of convincing arguments for the long term benefits that could be promoted by the PAAs that should initiate the communication, mainly due to lack of financial compensations or short term benefits for stakeholder that are economically depending on the natural resources in the PAs
- The low level of awareness of stakeholders on the importance of the PAs,
- The low capacity of the PAAs and lack of appropriate resources and skills to develop and implement a communication strategy, to initiate a dialog, to find solutions and solve conflicts, to negotiate and communicate with stakeholders efficiently in a conflicting situation, or in some cases,
- The lack of money for developing a communication strategy.
ALINA IONITA, 2011
PAGE 65
5.1.4 Results of the scorecard analysis on PA governance
While significant efforts are made at the international and national level in order to integrate the PoWPA objectives in the national legislations and the NBSAPs, and to achieve concrete improvements, the assessment of progress with the PoWPA goals shows that the targets of the Programme element 2, having the timeline set for 2008 were not met. Some progress was recorded, but „way behind meeting the targets at global level and also at regional level except pacific island region“, which makes it „the most uderimplemented part of the programme“(IUCN WCPA, 2010).
Concerning the Carpathian countries, the results of some assessments13, together with case studies developed by independent researchers or by different projects describe the same general situation: although the implementation of the PoWPA objectives concerning participatory governance and stakeholder involvement started, there is little progress and still important work is needed in order to ensure “full and effective participation”.
Regarding the progress that the Carpathian states have done in promoting
different governance types for protected areas, including participatory
governance (scorecard 21), the results of the Scorecards indicate that the majority (The Czech Republic, Serbia, Slovakia, Ukraine) have started to work on this objective and although the different types of governance exist and are being recognized by the governments through their national regulations, there is still some important work needed to make them functional within the protected area system (Appendix 1).
All these countries declare that the different forms of government were decided mainly by the government, with the consultation of some stakeholders.
Higher scores and more optimistic assumptions for 2009 - 2001 were reported in 2007 by:
� Poland – where different governance types are being promoted and developed mainly by the government after the consultation with some stakeholders, although this process is not completed and
� Romania – which declared that all suitable governance types are being utilized within the protected area system, also mainly by the government after the consultation with some stakeholders
Poland estimated that by 2011 all the adequate forms of governance will be used within the PA system and their establishment will be done with the consultation of all the relevant stakeholders.
ALINA IONITA, 2011
PAGE 66
Lower scores were reported by Hungary, where the process of promoting different governance types is estimated as “not started or recognized”, which, according to the Scorecard system means that: only one or a narrow range of governance types is utilized within the protected area system (state governance) and there is no recognition that other governance types may be important for developing an effective and representative protected area system.
CBD PoWPA GOALS (abbreviated) STATE OF THE GAME
1 = Little progress
2 = Some progress
3 = Good progress
Unknown situation
Goal 2.1 Equity and benefit sharing 2.1.1 Assess costs, benefits and impacts
SK, RO, SR, UA
CZ, HU, PL -
2.1.2. Broad set of governance types SR, UA
HU, SK, RO PL CZ
2.1.3. Policies and mechanisms for community conserved areas
CZ, SK, RO, SR, UA HU, PL - -
2.1.4. Poverty reduction HU, CZ, SK, RO, SR, PL
UA -
2.1.5.Participatory planning/
governance HU, SK, SR CZ, RO,
UA PL -
2.1.6. Equitable sharing of benefits of genetic resources
CZ, SK, SR, UA RO HU PL
Goal 2.2. Involvement of communities 2.2.1 Reviews of involving stakeholders, ensuring gender and social equity
CZ, SK, PL, RO, SR UA, HU -
2.2.2 Involve local communities CZ, SK, HU, PL
UA, RO, SR -
2.2.3 Participatory assessment exercises SK, HU,RO,
SR UA, CZ
-
PL
2.2.4 Enabling environment for involving communities SK, HU
CZ, PL,UA, RO, SR -
2.2.5 Prior informed consent SK, SR - UA CZ, PL, RO, HU,
Tab. 6: The progress of Carpathian countries with PoWPA – Programme element 2
Regarding the progress with the different PoWPA activities concerning
governance and stakeholder involvement, the national reports indicate that most of the states recorded a low progress (“little” or “some” - Tab. 6).
13 A WWF summary (2008) of the national results on the implementation of the PoWPA for some
Carpathian countries (The Czech Republic, Romania, Slovakia, Ukraine), based on the WWF scorecard assessment (Dudley N. et al., 2008) and the assessment on governance and stakeholder involvement undertaken in 2009-2010 by WWF (WWF-DCP, 2011)
ALINA IONITA, 2011
PAGE 67
A good progress in developing a broad set of governance types and participatory planning was reported by Poland (Tab. 6) while Ukraine reported a good progress in obtaining the consent of stakeholders prior to the establishment of PAs.
CBD PoWPA GOALS (abbreviated) STATE OF THE GAME
1= Low priority
2 = Medium priority
3 = High priority
Unknown situation
Goal 2.1 Equity and benefit sharing 2.1.1 Assess costs, benefits and impacts - SK, PL
CZ, HU, RO, SR,
UA,
2.1.2. Broad set of governance types SK, RO, SR,
UA, PL HU CZ
2.1.3. Policies and mechanisms for community conserved areas
RO HU, SK, UA, PL
SR, CZ
2.1.4. Poverty reduction CZ, SK HU, UA, PL RO, SR, PL
2.1.5. Participatory planning/governance
- CZ, SK, RO, SR, UA, PL HU
2.1.6. Equitable sharing of benefits of genetic resources
CZ, SK, RO, UA
HU, SR - PL
Goal 2.2. Involvement of communities
2.2.1 Reviews of involving stakeholders, ensuring gender and social equity
CZ HU, SK, RO, SR, UA
PL -
2.2.2 Involve local communities - SK, RO, SR CZ, HU, UA, PL
2.2.3 Participatory assessment exercises
SK, RO CZ, HU, UA SR -
2.2.4 Enabling environment for involving communities
SK HU, RO, UA,
PL CZ, SR
2.2.5 Prior informed consent SK, UA SR -
PL, CZ,UA, RO, HU
Tab. 7: The priorities concerning the PoWPA activities in the Carpathian countries
Regarding the priorities in undertaking the activities recommended by the
PoWPA for achieving the goals of Programme element 2 (governance, participation and benefit sharing), most of them are assigned a medium priority (Tab.7). A high priority is being given to:
� Activity 2.2.1 - Assessing costs, benefits and impacts (by all the countries, excepting Slovakia and Poland)
� Activity 2.1.4 - Poverty reduction (in Romania, Serbia and Poland)
� Activity 2.2.2 - Involving the local communities (in Hungary, Poland, Ukraine and Czech Republic)
� Activities 2.1.2 and 2.1.5 - Broad set of governance types and participatory planning/governance by Hungary
ALINA IONITA, 2011
PAGE 68
� Activities 2.1.3 and 2.2.4 - Policies and mechanisms for community conserved areas and enabling environment for involving communities (Serbia and Czech Republic)
� Activity 2.2.3 - Participatory assessment exercises (Serbia)
Although the results of the score-card analysis don’t bring many new findings, these can serve at least as term of comparison and a way to validate the results, since the scorecard forms were filled in by governmental representatives and, in some cases by NGOs.
5.1.5 Main issues resulting from the assessment to be addressed by policy measures and developments
The assessment reveals the following aspects concerning stakeholder involvement in the management of PAs in the Carpathian Ecoregion:
A. Land use and development conflicts
The main conflict generator factors should be considered as main rationale for implementing participatory management:
1. Limitations/restrictions in land-use and natural resource management, i.e. reduction of immediate economic gains for landowners and managers of the natural resources with no compensation payment systems in place is the main source of conflicts and problems in most of the PAs in the Carpathians.
2. Pressures and threats deriving from development are the second driver for conflicts in PAs, either by causing habitat fragmentation or loss of biodiversity through unsustainable use of natural resources. Stakeholders perceive PAs as limiting factors for economic development mainly because the PA might prevent revenue generation critical for some of the stakeholders, but also because of limited information and understanding for the need of conservation management and long term benefits
B. Protected area governance issues
In all Carpathian countries most of the PAs are managed by the government either directly or by delegating the management authority. The existence of consultative and advisory bodies in some countries allows for some forms of active participation of the stakeholders, but the enabling conditions for effective and efficient participation are still not sufficient.
C. Protected area capacity issues
In most countries there is a clear need for capacity-building (increasing knowledge and know-how for practitioners), for allocating resources (special programs and budget lines) and for ensuring the enabling legislative and procedural framework for participative management.
ALINA IONITA, 2011
PAGE 69
D. History of establishment with no consultation, resulting in a less favorable local context
For the proper acceptance and successful use of participative management techniques there is an obvious need across the region for a combination of:
� Good understanding of the role and need for participatory management, of the benefits of this approach and the means to develop it into practice, especially at the PAA level;
� Proper resources available at the PAA level for the information, permanent communication with stakeholders and capacity building.
� Clear legislative provisions for those who manage the resources in the PAs adopting and implementing the conservation measures;
� An effective system of controlling the compliance with the PA regime and management measures established by the PA management plans;
ALINA IONITA, 2011
PAGE 70
5.2 Recommendations for further developments
5.2.1 Possible steps for a new approach – recommendations for the national level decision-makers
1. The development of a common language and understanding among the PA
practitioners, including:
- Integrating the terms: “stakeholder” and “(local) communities” in the national laws and policies and defining them clearly.
- Integrating the PoWPA objectives (“to secure involvement of indigenous and local communities and relevant stakeholders”), and the proposed activities in the national strategies for nature conservation and the elaboration of national plans for the implementation of the PoWPA;
2. The testing and elaboration of feasibility studies for different forms of
participation
3. The elaboration of guidelines and best practices for the management
planning and implementation based on the participatory approach and the
PA life cycle
- The development and approval of guidelines for management planning including practical guidelines for the development of participatory management (e.g. context analysis, participatory management design, implementation of participatory practices, the obligations for monitoring and effectiveness evaluation) based on the concept of PA life cycle;
4. Initiating dialogue with the stakeholders in the pre-management phase – a
legal requirement
- The law should require the identification of target groups and key stakeholders prior to the establishment of a PA and should support the enhancement of communication.
5. Assessing the PA context when designing participatory management, in
order to facilitate the elaboration of efficient strategies and measures,
focusing on the social and economic aspects.
- Assessments of the economic impact that the PAs have on the local
communities with the identification of the groups of stakeholders being
negatively affected should be carried out. Such studies should focus on the existing relations between the local communities and the PA, based on the social-economic, cultural and spiritual values the PA has and should determine the importance of the resources existent in the PA for their livelihoods and the degree of dependence each category of stakeholder has on these resources. Such assessments should be compulsory prior to the establishment of new PAs, so that social and economic information are available for the management planning and
ALINA IONITA, 2011
PAGE 71
the further information and the consultation process can involve all the key stakeholders. In the same time, the monitoring and evaluation of the above mentioned aspects should be permanent, so that the social-economic impact of the PAs can be addressed with appropriate measures.
- The obligation to undertake and revise stakeholder analysis for PA
establishment and management planning should be established by the law. Stakeholder analysis should be correlated with the threat
assessment, which emphasizes the key, priority issues to be addressed and allows for the identification of corresponding key stakeholders. The strategies for minimizing or overcoming these threats should take into consideration first of all information, dialogue and collaboration as necessary actions which can be comprised in communication plans.
- Assessments and communication of PA benefits should be carried out and the development of small scale, nature friendly local businesses should be encouraged/supported as an alternative for the local communities.
- The IUCN matrix should be used to assess governance at national level, for the PA network and for monitoring the changes that occur in time;
6. The organizational structures for PA management should be improved and
appropriate organizational frameworks for participatory governance should
be established
- Multi-stakeholder committees should exist at national level, in order to enhance the inter-institutional collaboration and to improve the policy making. Such committees can have a consultative or decision-making role, including all the relevant institutions responsible for sectoral policies connected with PA management (e.g. natural resource management, tourism, regional development planning) and representatives of the civil society (NGOs and other associations) active in the field nature conservation and other relevant fields. Establish provisions and responsibilities for their involvement in the elaboration of national strategies and plans, changing the legislation, the institutional framework and other relevant decision-making;
- Structures which allow for the involvement of all relevant stakeholders
should be established (where not existent yet) in order to improve the PA governance, to enhance collaborative management and consultation (e.g. Boards/Committees/Councils) with consultative or advisory role. The existence of legislative provisions (or similar directions) in this respect represents a condition sine qua non for the PAAs to formally establish such bodies which can integrate the stakeholders in the decision-making process. Otherwise, the establishment and the functioning of such structures on a voluntary, informal base could be more difficult in the current context of nature conservation in the
ALINA IONITA, 2011
PAGE 72
Carpathian countries. Even when the level assigned for stakeholder involvement through such structures is limited to information or consultation, their functioning represents an opportunity for them to have a voice in the process and, if wisely used, for the PAAs to identify the possible sources of conflicts, the needs of stakeholders and to develop a permanent dialogue with them. The design of such structures should be based on the principle of inclusiveness, so that all the stakeholders to have a voice (either directly or through representatives) in the decision-making and management process. Their role in the management process should be stated clearly and should be based on a
pragmatic rationale, so that their functioning to improve the management effectiveness.
- The integration of all relevant types of PA governance that are enabling public participation and private-public partnerships (co-management, private management) should be finalized, when not done yet by:
- having clear provisions in the national legislation that are enabling the state authorities responsible with the PA management to establish partnerships and share the authority and responsibility with other non-governmental bodies;
- allowing other non-state actors to become the delegated authority, with responsibility, accountability and autonomy for the management of PAs and establish guidelines, best practices and control mechanisms for the efficiency of their management activities;
- a sound national assessment of the context and the risks should underpin such decisions.
7. Concrete measures addressing land-use conflicts should be developed
- Financial or other compensations should be offer to the land owners for the limitations in the use of their land/resources and the appropriate means to get them actively involved in the nature management activities should be developed (e.g. the possibility to be involved on contractual basis in ecosystem management activities, the possibility to negotiate the compensations) as measures complementing information and communication to provide knowledge and awareness;
8. Clear legislative provisions should exist, setting the obligation to inform
and consult the relevant stakeholders throughout the entire PA
management cycle including:
a. Clear obligations for the information and consultation of relevant stakeholders in all the management phases in order to increase the transparency of the management process. The compliance with the Aarhus Convention on public access to environmental information and justice is an obligation for all the Carpathian countries and should be
ALINA IONITA, 2011
PAGE 73
transposed and applied in the environmental field of biodiversity conservation and management of PAs;
b. Clear limits for stakeholder involvement according to the national context. Establish which would be the appropriate form of PA governance which ensures the management effectiveness with priority to nature conservation, ensuring in the same time the levels of transparency and involvement which allow taking into consideration and respecting the human rights and the ownership and customary rights.
c. The obligation to assess management effectiveness and integrate tools enabling the assessment and monitoring of stakeholders participation in the management process; establish the obligation to separately assess the cost involved for the implementation of participatory practices.
d. The obligation for PA administrations to report on information and awareness, consultation, partnership related activities, their costs and their effectiveness.
9. The protected area management bodies should be empowered with
capacity to develop and lead participatory management and with enhanced
local authority
The PAAs should benefit of more autonomy in decision-making and should be supported become local authorities with legitimacy, able to initiate and coordinate the effective integration of PAs in the regional context by:
- Establishing clear legal obligations for local authorities and other institutions responsible for sectoral planning to consult or directly involve the PA authorities in decisions for territorial development at local/regional/national level;
- Establishing clear legislative provisions for the roles, responsibilities, sanctions for all those in charge with the management of resources or undertaking activities in the PAs, establish efficient control systems, including by empowering the PAAs to control activities developed in the PA.
- Ensuring a supportive system that allows the PAA to enforce the law in the PAs and apply sanctions.
- Capacitating the PAAs with the knowledge needed to ensure an efficient PA management in general and with specialized knowledge on communication. Specialized trainings for the development of participatory management should be ensured to the PA practitioners. and the financial resources;
- Considering and integrating conservation objectives in the other laws and policies concerning the management of natural resources and the
territorial development inside PAs;
ALINA IONITA, 2011
PAGE 74
- Allocating the budget shares needed for the initiation and development
of permanent communication, for informational and communication activities irrespective of the PA governance types.
5.2.2 Recommendations for the site level
The following recommendations aim to guide developments and improvements concerning participatory management by stakeholder involvement at the site level, even though at this level it is not possible to change much of the enabling legislative or administrative-institutional environment for stakeholder involvement.
1. Improving human capacity by choosing the staff carefully, according to
their delicate mission and by improving its capacity and skills for
communication and facilitation
- First of all the staff has to understand the rationale, the motivation and the purpose of communication and participation.
- At least one of the staff members should have an adequate training on communication and public relations. All PAA staff should have some basic knowledge in communication with the stakeholders.
- The skills and qualities needed and which should be developed are: a positive attitude, ability for communication, negotiation, patience, honesty, respect, etc.
2. Stakeholder analysis should be carried out and revised for any plans and
project together with the stakeholders or at least by having their feed-
back (e.g. through surveys, interviews, etc)
3. Participatory forms of management should be subject of testing and their
feasibility should be checked. Simple forms of participation, starting from information and consultation should be enhanced and a greater focus should be put on their effectiveness. Different models should be promoted and should underpin the elaboration of guidelines.
4. Dialogue with stakeholders should be initiated in an early management
stage and enhanced permanently. When not possible, at least a minimum
possibility to access information should be provided and promoted
- If PAs are already in the management implementation phase or in the management planning phase, special attention has to be given to recovering the “handicap” of establishing the PA or planning for its management without public information and consultation (if the case).
- People should be helped to understand and accept PA’s and PAAs’ mission. Stakeholders are aware of their interests but not necessarily aware of the role and interests of the management authority, i.e of the importance of the PA and the specific role of the PAA as decision-
ALINA IONITA, 2011
PAGE 75
making body. They should know about PAA mission and activities and should be able to understand the extent to which their own interests are compatible with objectives of the PA management. The main role of information is that of improving knowledge, understanding and raising awareness among key stakeholders.
- Communication should be done permanently through periodical news-letters, regular information on what the PAA is doing (not only things that have been accomplished but also concerns, ideas, initiatives, organized and up-coming events, celebrations, etc.). PAA’s activities have to be as transparent as possible, as transparence is essential to build trust for a sustainable long term partnership with your stakeholders.
- Communication and stakeholder involvement should be done
systematically. Just as for any other management objective, stakeholder involvement has to be developed through a systematic approach, starting with the identification and prioritization of PA stakeholders, learning and understanding their needs and interests, designing effective means for their involvement, monitoring and evaluating results and adjusting your measures. Therefore it is recommended to: - Identify and analyze stakeholders
- Establish roles and responsibilities for stakeholders in the management process in a participatory way. Make it clear when results of some actions depend on their pro-active attitude and involvement in order to avoid their unrealistic expectations from the PAA.
- Have a clear strategy for what type of information should be communicated to the different stakeholders, on the means and periodicity Use the results of stakeholder analysis to design your strategy for communication and stakeholder involvement.
o Choose the most effective ways of communication, according to the purpose, to the target group, to the context. Public meetings give you the opportunity to have a feed-back but are more costly and time consuming and, if not organized and moderated properly might generate conflicts.
o Define your message very carefully; make it clear and
meaningful (for meetings, information materials, etc.) o Evaluate the costs and benefits of stakeholder involvement
and monitor their evolution over time.
- Allocate financial resources for stakeholder involvement activities
(e.g. for information). - Establish, together with stakeholders, the best available means for
communication, the situations when the information should be made publicly available.
ALINA IONITA, 2011
PAGE 76
- Get feed-back from stakeholders, especially during meetings, through proper facilitation process. Make communication a dialogue not just simple one-way information transfer.
- Evaluate the effectiveness of stakeholder involvement permanently
5. The specific values of PAs for which these were designated and the threats
to these values have to be identified in a participatory process and
communicated.
6. Possibility for feed-back should be provided to stakeholders and
questionnaires or survey should be applied for the evaluation of stakeholder attitudes and opinions
7. The better involvement and communication with the consultative/
scientific/technical boards/councils/committees should be enhanced
Consultative boards or similar structures where stakeholders are represented can be transformed, on the basis of non-formal agreements, in permanent working groups specialized on different fields of management (e.g. the management of ecosystems and natural resources, tourism, environmental education, etc). The initiative for establishing such groups doesn’t necessarily need a legislative framework, which could make them even more flexible, according to the specific needs and context of each PA. The establishment of such groups could be more effective and could give to the stakeholders involved a sense of responsibility and effective contribution. When choosing the members of such boards the principle of inclusiveness has to be considered so that each interest to be given a voice.
The costs and impact of participatory processes should be evaluated and
monitored by checking: the level of information and awareness, the persistence of some partnerships you have facilitated, etc.). This will help in deciding for more effective and efficient approaches, compatible with the PA specific context.
ALINA IONITA, 2011
PAGE 77
5.3 Guidelines for planning a participatory management
The following guidelines were developed on the basis of literature and the previous experience with developing a framework for the assessment of participation and its testing in the field.
5.3.1 Guidelines for assessing the context and planning for stakeholder involvement
The guidelines are structured in 2 major phases (the assessment phase and the design and planning phase) and 4 steps, including: the context analysis and the identification of stakeholders, the stakeholder analysis, the assessment of current status of stakeholder involvement and the planning (Fig. 9).
PHASE I: Current situation analysis and evaluation
Stage 1: Preliminary context analysis – Stakeholder identification
Fig. 9: The major steps in planning for participatory management
ALINA IONITA, 2011
PAGE 78
Fig. 10: The PA context analysis – the stakeholder identification phase
This phase is aimed to identify the stakeholders staring form a context review, in order to make the further analysis and planning context oriented.
It consists of 7 steps (Fig. 10), but, since a wide variety of data would be needed, a preparatory phase could be needed. In the case of PAs with a long history most of these issues might be already clear. Since the criteria to reflect on are multiple, the idetification could be based first of all on the PA values (for which it was declared) and threats.
Athough this might be one of the most complex steps, most of it involves reflection and revision, but its importance is crucial for the comprehesive identification of the PA stakeholders.
Stage 2: The stakeholder analysis
The objective of this step is to classify the stakeholders by their importance.
ALINA IONITA, 2011
PAGE 79
The stakeholder analysis is organized in there major steps (Fig. 11):
- Characterizing stakeholders (based on the impact the PA has on their interests, their power to influence the PA management and their importance);
- Classifying stakeholders by their importance; and
- The network analysis or the analysis of the relations between the different stakeholders and between the stakeholders and the PAA
Stage 3: The assessment of the current level of stakeholder involvement
in the current management
This step is aiming for the evaluation of the current status of stakeholder involvement, by following 5 steps (Fig. 12) consisting in: revising the main
Fig. 11: The stakeholder analysis phase
ALINA IONITA, 2011
PAGE 80
events in the history of the PA (the PA management cycle) and the main stakeholders involved, analyzing the forms of their involvement and the outcomes of their participation.
By evaluating the outcomes risks and challenges for an effective participation can be identified and the PAA can learn from the previous experiences.
PHASE II: Design and planning for stakeholder involvement
Once the context and the previous experiences with participation have been revised and stakeholders have been classified, all the necessary information is already structured and prepared for the planning. In the framework of these guidelines, 5 steps of planning are proposed (Fig. 13):
- Establishing clear internal rules on external information and communication and delegating responsibilities in the PAA team
- Establishing the stakeholders whose involvement is needed in each management phase
Fig. 12: Assessing the current level of stakeholder involvement
ALINA IONITA, 2011
PAGE 81
- Establishing the objectives for stakeholder involvement and the message that we want to convey
- Establishing the optimal degree of involvement for the main stakeholders. Partnership design
- Establishing the means of involvement
- Identifying and assessing the resources needed (e.g. time, money, personnel, logistics)
- Establishing the indicators for monitoring and evaluation.
It is strongly recommended to follow the steps previously presented by involving the stakeholders, especially when the planning is done. This would make the analysis useful and applicable, since the relevant information will be integrated and consensus over the planned objectives will be reached. Due to its complexity, if applied in participatory way, this methodology can be time consuming and challenging due to the background information that is proposed to be integrated and especially when the whole life cycle is considered.
5.3.2 Guidelines for measuring and monitoring the effectiveness of stakeholder involvement
General criteria for measuring the effectiveness of participation do not exist, since this is largely a context-related issue. In order to give a measure to the effectiveness of a participatory process, clear goals and milestones have to established prior to the process, together with the stakeholders involved.
Fig. 13: The planning phase for participatory management
ALINA IONITA, 2011
PAGE 82
However this would even more difficult when talking about the participatory management, which spans over the entire PA life/management cycle and the outcomes concerning the stakeholders involved (e.g. social cohesion, social learning, empowerment, capacity building, etc). In the same time, the principles of good governance, described in a previous chapter could be used as a measure for the participatory governance.
On the basis of literature review, considering the motivation and the pragmatic benefits of participation, both for the stakeholders and the PA management, some guiding criteria to measure effectiveness were developed. Depending on the approach and rationale all the criteria can be verified, while some could be given priority.
Checklist for the evaluation of stakeholder involvement effectiveness
� Stakeholders had access to all the relevant information, and were given enough time, to
� All the stakeholders invited in a meeting are given the possibility to express and bring an input;
� It contributes to achieving the management objectives (the purpose for which it was initiated);
� It approaches conflicts or tensions/pressures and it eventually contributes to alleviating or reducing them;
� Clear rules for working together are established, known and followed by all the actors involved;
� The inputs (e.g. ideas, observations, demands, critiques, recommendations, information) are considered and taken into account and, when the case, changes in the management practices or policy are made;
� Stakeholders’ feed-back is required after their involvement in an activity and there are mechanisms in place to encourage their permanent feed-back;
� Stakeholders can access the results/conclusions of/regarding their involvement (e.g. in case of consultations, debates);
� It enables the stakeholders to improve their level of knowledge/awareness (by providing them all the relevant information) and to interact with other actors;
� The cost of their involvement for the PAA and for the stakeholders does not exceed the benefits;
� The results and outcomes of a participatory process (e.g. information or consultation meetings, partnerships) are monitored and evaluated permanently and taken into account in other future initiatives;
ALINA IONITA, 2011
PAGE 83
� It contributes to the overall goal of developing mutual trust and understanding;
Consequently, the involvement of stakeholders could be less effective when:
• Stakeholder involvement (e.g. consultation, partnership) does not achieve its aim (whatever this would be, e.g. undertake a management activity as stipulated in the management plan, increase awareness and acceptance, etc) and/or does not bring any contribution in achieving management objectives;
• Stakeholders are only formally engaged, without having any effective contribution or benefit. Meetings are only “talk-shops”, without substance, a clear purpose, message and aim. Communication has only one way: from the PAA to stakeholders, without a feed-back, without stakeholders having an opportunity to express;
• Conflicts and tensions are avoided; their cause is not identified and addressed;
• There is still a high degree of uncertainty among stakeholders on their role and responsibility, on the PA objectives and aims and a lack of trust in the PAA staff;
• The costs for the PAA (in terms of money, time and staff people engaged) exceed the benefits;
• The costs for the stakeholders exceed the benefits (e.g. the money and time they spent to participate in consultations, debates, various meetings are not compensated by the e.g. opportunity to learn something, to have their concerns, views and needs taken into account, to have their questions clarified, etc);
• The results and outcomes are not measured and monitored in order to improve the approach for a better effectiveness;
• Stakeholders’ feed-back is not required after their involvement or generally encouraged;
• It does not contribute to improving the initial situation;
ALINA IONITA, 2011
PAGE 84
6 DISCUSSIONS
� The POWPA provisions
The terms of formulating the requirements are general, even in the case of the suggested activities and no guidelines for their achievements are provided. In the same time, given the very different context of the Parties, a regional or eco-region oriented approach might be more useful.
� The concept of participation in the context of CER
Given its rationale and benefits claimed for participation (previously presented in the literature review, at point 3.1) could be encouraging for the PAAs from a pragmatic perspective. However, by projecting them in the specific context of the Carpathian countries, some critical reflections and discussions emerged.
In conclusion, ideally, the participatory management of protected areas seems to be a combination of 3 main interdependent elements:
� communication, as a mean to ensure transparency, provide knowledge, raise awareness, change attitudes and behviours;
� stakeholder involvement, through different forms of engagement, as a mean to improve the decision-making process, to make it more democratic and develop more pragmatic and long-term benefits for the PA, its management and the social actors involved;
� institutional and formal arrangements, including legislation as means to institutionalize participation and ensure the enabling environment for the coordination of different sectors and for the permanent inter-institutional collaboration.
In consequence, the further development of participation should follow these three dimensions: communication, participatory processes (e.g. consultation, partnerships) and institutional arrangements for governance.
� The rationale for participation
The rights of those being affected to be informed and consulted
Since most of the PA Administrations are governmental bodies, as it is the case for the Carpathian countries, the right of people to have access to public information is partly underpinned by the normative provisions of the Aarhus Convention, together with similar provisions of their national laws concerning the PA regime and some other EU Directives, in the case of the EU states (e.g. SEA).
ALINA IONITA, 2011
PAGE 85
Although this might seem the clearest and incontrovertible argument, the issue of “those who are affected” could still be disputable when clear methodologies to assess the social-economic impact of the PAs are not available or known. While the land owners are easily identifiable as key stakeholders, some other affected parties might be left out. The great number and diversity of institutional actors sharing responsibility
within a PA and the need for communication and inter-institutional collaboration
The power of this argument in the Carpathian context depends on one hand on the PAA vision and on their openness to communicate and collaborate “out of the box”, not formally, as a responsibility of their mandate but openly and effectively. Although this complexity of institutional arrangements and responsibilities might be acknowledged by the PAAs, it might also be perceived as overwhelming and discouraging in their already delicate mission and in a context of political favouritism and instability, insufficient resources, low accountability, legitimacy and authority and a lack of interest from the other institutions to communicate, to declare and negotiate/balance their interests.
The complexity of information, knowledge, values, etc needed for an integrative
and effective PA management and the role of stakeholders in providing such
inputs
In a context of poor/insufficient knowledge and low public awareness concerning environmental and nature conservation issues, the adequate expertise and knowledge of stakeholders can become questionable. However, for this argument to perform, some basic assumptions are fulfilled: the right stakeholders (having the right information) are identified and invited to take part in the process, these are interested and motivated enough to bring an input voluntarily and become dedicated to the PA cause, the PAA is able to organized the participatory meetings in such a manner that the right information is brought out and distilled by the participants. An argument for the ineffectiveness of Consultative Councils in the case studies was that of its members not being aware and well informed on the issues under debate. In such cases participation can involve higher costs that benefits and can lead to disillusionments among participants.
These issues can be overcome by public/stakeholder information campaigns, training the PA staff to improve their communication and group dynamic management skills and exercise.
� The benefits of participation
In order to achieve the benefits that are attributed to participation, some pre-conditions have to be fulfilled, that are rarely mentioned in the guidelines.
ALINA IONITA, 2011
PAGE 86
As argued by Reed M.S. (2007), “the quality of a decision is strongly dependent on the quality of the process that leads to it”. In the context of lacking communication and facilitation skills within the PAA staff in the Carpathian PAs, it is much more difficult to enhance the quality of decision-making process. In analyzing the organizational framework for participatory management of national parks in Romania, one question of the online questionnaire which was filled in by national and nature park staff referred to the possible solutions of making the Consultative Councils overcome their status of formal and ineffective structures. The main solution proposed by the PA people was that of “making their meetings more interactive than simple sessions of information”.
� The issue of natural resource management inside protected areas
In most Carpathian countries PA Administrations are the conservation managers, but not the managers of the land and/or natural resources. Different categories of land use are most of the time managed by different institutions, subordinated to and budgeted by different Ministries. According to the territorial-administrative organization and the decentralization of public management, at the local level, where the PA Administration works, there are different branch offices/local level bodies (e.g. Forestry Districts) of the same organization (e.g. Regional Forest Directorates) that have responsibilities on managing the land inside the PAs, with their specific, different knowledge and vision on conservation issues, different resources and priorities. Land managers are key stakeholders to the PA management. Their involvement in the effective application of conservation measures and control over their implementation is essential to achieving the nature protection goals of any PA.
In this complex web of stakeholder categories framed by administrative and governance arrangements, the management effectiveness of PAs depends on the terseness and power of law or on the support of other institutional actors sharing responsibilities concerning the land management.
In the given situation of the Carpathian countries, the PA managers have to fully rely on the legislation that imposes the restrictions deriving from conservation rationales when asking landowners and resource administrators to adapt their management practices to the objectives of the PA. Furthermore, in many cases there are no or very low compensation payments for non-intervention management or for any of the revenue losses. PA staff, including rangers, is not always empowered to stop illegal activities and to apply penalties.
Therefore, this situation requires a very good management of stakeholder involvement and participative management should be the solution to effective and efficient management of the PAs. Involving stakeholders in planning and
ALINA IONITA, 2011
PAGE 87
decision making is actually the only way for establishing management measures and activities that will be accepted and properly implemented.
Even where PA administrations are the owners of core conservation areas, like for e.g. in Hungarian national parks or sometimes in Ukrainian protected areas, it is very important to inform, consult and even actively involve stakeholders, especially local communities in management activities. After all, the final aim of any PA should be to demonstrate and teach the real sense of sustainable development, i.e. how socio-economic development should happen only based on responsible use and even protection of natural values.
The results of the RAPPAM come to strengthen the conclusions of our studies: land-owners and land managers are key stakeholders, for the management of ecosystems and natural resources in the PAs, whose collaboration is mostly needed in order to achieve the PA conservation objectives. In this sense, as previously emphasized in the RAPPAM reports, some aspects need to be addressed simultaneously:
- strengthening the PAAs in order to be able to apply the coercive measures - make the compensatory system for the land-owners work - support the dialogue and the collaboration between the land-owners and local communities and the PAAs.
The plans meant to address the major threats should first take into account the dialogue, the negotiation and the identification of problems together with the stakeholders.
ALINA IONITA, 2011
PAGE 88
7 CONCLUSION
The results of the assessment prove that the progress regarding the stakeholder involvement in the PA establishment, management planning and management activities is slow, and there is need for a sustained effort in this sense. Even though in most of the countries the law includes provisions on the possibility to develop different types of governance (including private and collaborative management) exist, the provisions concerning a comprehensive approach, based on the PA life/management cycle to the development of participatory management and guidelines in this sense are insufficient or lacking. Many of the PAs have been declared with no or limited stakeholder involvement, resulting in conflicts and negative attitudes, therefore the PAAs have the difficult mission of recovering this handicap. National and site level evaluations on this issue were not undertaken and the existing multi-stakeholder bodies (which were established in most of the Carpathian countries) for the management of PAs are neither based on the principle of inclusiveness nor functional in the sense of “fully and effectively involving stakeholders”. As resulting from the case studies, given the hindering background (social, economic and political) context for participation, a great importance is being given by the PA practitioners to information as a form of participation (although passive from the perspective of the stakeholders), to consultation and functional/instrumental partnerships. However, innovative models of participatory management were also emphasized by some case studies (Szabo et al., 2008, Švajda, 2008, Lawrence, 2008), but their design and development was done mainly by projects where international expertise was involved. Although their viability and effects were not tested in a long term period, their development represents a good beginning and a good model for other PAs from the countries with a similar context.
The Ecoregion approach to the Carpathian territory represents an enabling factor for a coherent approach to nature conservation, supported by the legislative, institutional and organizational framework given by the Carpathian Convention, the CNPA, The WWF Danube-Carpathian Programme and the involvement of other non-governmental organizations as the CERI.
7.1 An approach for the CER ?
Even though, as resulting from the study, the needs and the functioning of the society together with the specific legislative and administrative framework for PA management are not fully supportive for participatory management, the PA administrations and custodians can achieve some significant progress in improving their relationship with the stakeholders and in fostering their involvement in the PA management. While the legislative change could be a
ALINA IONITA, 2011
PAGE 89
slower and more difficult process, the greatest efforts in this sense need to be done at the local level and the PAAs can have the greatest contribution in achieving the PoWPA objectives. Even when participation is not required by the law as an obligation, a PAA can decide through internal regulations to establish working groups and other mechanisms to enhance stakeholder involvement.
The enhancement of stakeholder involvement could be done by simultaneously following the directions of: capacity building, assessment of status (stakeholder analysis) and evolution, planning and monitoring, clear normative specifications.
Considering the background conditions in the Carpathian countries of predominantly government-managed PAs, lacking roots for a participatory culture and decision-making, insufficient knowledge, understanding and public support for the management of nature PAs, low capacity and lack of technical expertise for stakeholders to get effectively involved in their management, sharing power might be risky, challenging the effective achievement of PA conservation objectives. Given the multiple aspects of the Carpathian countries that hinder stakeholder involvement in and support for PA management, together with the lack of evidence on the possible outcomes and effects on power relations and effectiveness with respect to conservation, participation should be subject to precaution. Therefore, stakeholder involvement has to be developed step by step, starting with transparency, communication, consultation and partnership, within the multi stakeholder bodies and the framework of different projects, while steadily evolving to join-management and more participatory forms of governance. More attention should be given to the quality of the process and to the outcomes, which should, first of all contribute to enhancing the effectiveness of PA management. In the same time, attention has to be given to monitoring the changes, which could be done only if clear indicators of success and milestones are established in a participatory way. As part of the assessment, context particularities need to be identified, their impact on the effectiveness of PA management assessed in order to find the appropriate approach and propose further actions.
Although participation did not prove its benefits in such a context, means to prevent disillusionment exist. It is capitally important for the PAAs to adapt the proposed models to the context, to have a targeted and realistic plan, to monitor the results permanently and to adjust to the unexpected and undesired changes that might inevitably occur.
In order to make this slow process towards participatory management more effective, the governments and central PA management authorities have to provide means to develop a good PA governance with respect to the principles of subsidiarity and authority. While the PAAs are the closest to the problems at stake, their capacity (financial, human, technical, etc) and their autonomy for decision-making is most of the times to low to be able to develop as a local authority and a “coordinator” of other stakeholders’ actions over the PA territory or its region.
ALINA IONITA, 2011
PAGE 90
In the same time, for a sound planning and development, complementary financial measures have to function, in order to alleviate conflicts, socio-economic negative effects over the livelihoods of the local stakeholders and motivate people to participate. The assessment of PA benefits and threats is also an important issue strongly related to the participatory and effective management.
The recommendations and the methodology, which are subject to limitations are going to be tested and checked, therefore feed-back is strongly encouraged.
ALINA IONITA, 2011
PAGE 91
REFERENCES
7.2 Literature
ABRAMS, P., BORRINI-FEYERABEND, G., GARDNER, J., HEYLINGS, P. (2003): Evaluating Governance – A handbook to accompany a participatory process for a protected area, draft for filed testing, 2003
ANTHONY, B. AND MOLDOVAN D. (2008): Poised for engagement? Local communities and Macin Mountains National Park, Romania. International Journal of Biodiversity Science and Management, no. 4, p 231-242.
ARNESTEIN S. (1969): A ladder of citizenship participation, Journal of thr American Institute of Planners, 35, pp. 216-224.
BORRINI-FEYERABEND G., PIMBERT M. ET AL. (2007): Sharing power. A global guide to collaborative management of natural resources, Earhtscan, London, UK.
BORRINI-FEYERABEND G., KOTHARI A., OVIEDO G. (2004): Indigenous and Local Communities and Protected Areas: Towards Equity and Enhanced Conservation. Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series No. 11. – IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
BORRINI-FEYERABEND G. (2004): Governance of protected areas, participation and equity, pp. 100–105 in Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Biodiversity Issues for Consideration in the Planning, Establishment and Management of Protected Areas and Networks. Technical Series no. 15. Montreal: SCBD.
BORRINI-FEYERABEND G. (1996): Collaborative Management of Protected Areas: Tailoring the Approach to the Context - IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
CENESTA (2008): Governance as key for effective and equitable protected area system, CBD PoW briefing note no.8.
DUDLEY, N., EDS. (2008): Guidelines for Applying Protected Area Management Categories. Gland. Switzerland: IUCN. X + 86 pp.
DUDLEY, N., MANSOURIAN, S., STOLTON, S. (2008): Tracking National Progress in Implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity’s Programme of Work on Protected Areas, WWF, Gland, Switzerland.
ALINA IONITA, 2011
PAGE 92
GETZNER, M. JUNGMEIER, M., LANGE S. (2010): People, parks and money – Stakeholder involvement and regional development: a manual for protected areas, 215 p.- Klagenfurt: Verlag Johannes Heyn, Proceedings in the Management of Protected Areas, vol.2.
ERVIN J. (2004): Preliminary results of RAPPAM implementation in The Czech Republic
ERVIN J. (2003): WWF - Rapid Assessment and Prioritization of Protected Area Management (RAPPAM) Methodology, Gland, Switzerland
HESSELINK, F., GOLDSTEIN, W., VAN KEMPEN P.P., GARNET T., DELA J. (2007): Communication, Education and Public Awareness (CEPA). A toolkit for National Focal Points and NBSAP Coordinators, Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity and IUCN: Montreal, Canada.
HOCKINGS M., STOLTON S. AND DUDLEY N. (2003): Evaluating effectiveness: A Framework for Assessing Management of Protected Areas- IUCN Cardiff University Best Practice Series, IUCN Cambridge UK and Gland, Switzerland.
IUCN WCPA (2010): Next steps: Convention on Biological Diversity Programme of Work on Protected Areas, Gland, Switzerland.
LAWRENCE A. (2008): Experiences with participatory conservation in post-socialist Europe, International Journal of Biodiversity Science and Management 4, pp 179-186
LAWRENCE A. (2006): No personal motive? Volunteers, biodiversity, and the false dichotomies of participation, Ethics, Place and Environment 9, p. 279-298
LOCKWOOD, M., WORBOYS L.G., KOTHARI A. (2007): Managing Protected Areas: A global guide, London: Earthscan.
MANSURI G., RAO V. (2004): Community-Based and –Driven Development: A Critical Review - The World Bank Research Observer, vol. 19., no 1, The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development.
NAUGHTON-TREVES L., BUCK-HOLLAND M., BRANDON K. (2005): The Role of Protected Areas in Conserving the Biodiversity and Sustaining Local Livelihoods, Annu. Rev. Environmental Resources.
PIMBERT, M.P., PRETTY, N.J. (1995): Parks, People and Professionals: Putting ‘Participation’ into Protected Area Management, Discussion paper no. 57, UNRISD, Geneva.
REED, M.S. (2008): Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review, Biological conservation, no. 141, p 2417-2431.
SECRETARIAT OF THE CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL BIODIVERSITY (2004): Programme of Work on Protected Areas (CBD Programmes of Work), Montreal, Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 31p.
ALINA IONITA, 2011
PAGE 93
STANCIU E., STEINDLEGGER G. (2006): Implementarea metodologiei RAPPAM in Romania. Principalele concluzii si rezultate (WWF RO web).
STROBEL D. (2007): Recommendations for the Strategic Development of Sustainable Integrated Protected Area Management in the Carpathian Ecoregion Based on the Assessment of international Frameworks and Practical Experiences Around the World, unpublished MsC thesis, Vienna, 98pp.
SZABO E.A., LAWRENCE A.,IUSAN C., CANNEY, S.(2008): Participatory protected area management – A case study from Rodna Mountains National Park, Romania, International Journal of Biodiversity Science and Management 4, pp 187-199
ŠVAJDA, J. (2009): Evaluation of Integrated Protected Area Management in Slovak National Parks.Thesis, Klagenfurt, 112 pp
ŠVAJDA, J. (2008): Participatory conservation in a post-communist context: The Tatra National Park and Biosphere Reserve, Slovakia, International Journal of Biodiversity Science and Management 4, pp 200-2008
THOMAS, L. MIDDLETON J. (2003): Guidelines for Management Planning of Protected Areas. IUCN Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. ix +79pp.
WWF (2004): Slovak Case Study. Management Effectiveness Assessment of National Parks using WWF’s RAPPAM Methodology
7.3 Internet Resources
The Carpathian Convention: http://www.carpathianconvention.org/text.htm CERI – The Carpathian Ecoregion Initiative: http://www.carpates.org/ CNPA – The Carpathian Network of Protected Areas: http://www.carpathianparks.org/ CBD – PoWPA – Convention on Biological Diversity – Programme of Work on Protected Areas: http://www.cbd.int/protected/pow/learnmore/intro/ EC – European Commission – Environment: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/index_en.htm GDM - Green Development Mechanism: http://gdi.earthmind.net/ IUCN – The World Conservation Union: http://www.iucn.org
UNECE – United Nations Economic Commission for Europe: http://www.unece.org/env/pp/ ECI – Environmental Change Institute – University of Oxford – symposium web site: http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/research/humaneco/romania-conference08.php
WWF - World Wild Fund for Nature: http://wwf.panda.org/
ALINA IONITA, 2011
PAGE 94
List of Figures
Fig. 1: Forms of PA governance and options for their management authorities
concerning the involvement of stakeholders ........................................... 18 Fig. 2: Communication and participation within the life cycle of a PA: fields of activity and, conditions and reccomended interventions
Fig. 3: Stakeholder involvement in different fileds of management activity Fig. 4: Intensity of public debate in different periods of the life cycle of a PA
Fig. 5: The Carpathian Ecoregion
Fig. 6: Methodological steps for the analysis
Fig. 7: Main land use categories in some Carpathian PAs (case study results) Fig. 8: Land ownership in some Carpathian PAs (case study results)
Fig. 9: Major steps in planning for participatory management
Fig. 10: The PA context analysis and stakeholder identification
Fig. 11: The stakeholder analysis phase
Fig. 12: Assessing the current level of stakeholder involvement
Fig. 13: The planning for participatory management phase
ALINA IONITA, 2011
PAGE 95
List of Tables
Tab. 1: Types of participation and their characteristics .................................. 17
Tab. 1: Types of participation and their characteristics
Tab. 2: The protected areas selected for the site level assessment Tab. 3: Management responsibility and PA governance in the CER Tab. 3: Levels of stakeholder involvement in the PA management in the CER Tab. 4: The main stakeholder groups identified in the CER Tab. 5: Progress of Carpathian countries with PoWPA Tab. 6: Priorities concerning the PoWPA activities in the Carpathian countries
ALINA IONITA, 2011
PAGE 96
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
CBD Convention on Biological Diversity CBDS Convention on Biological Diversity Secretariat CCPAMETT The Carpathian Countries Protected Area Management
Effectiveness Tracking Tool CENESTA Centre for Sustainable Development CEPA Communication, Education and Public Awareness CER The Carpathian Ecoregion CERI Carpathian Ecoregion Initiative CNPA The Carpathian Network of Protected Areas EU European Union IUCN International Union for Nature Conservation MP management plan N2000 Natura 2000 NBSAP National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan NGO non-governmental organization NP national park NPA national park administration PA protected area PAA protected area administration PA4LP Protected Areas for a Living Planet Programme PLA Protected Landscape Area PoWPA Programme of Work on Protected Areas UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization WCPA World Commission on Protected Areas WWF-DCP World Wild Fund Danube-Carpathian Programme
ALINA IONITA, 2011
PAGE 97
Appendix
Appendix 1: Preliminary questionnaire for the national level assessment Appendix 2: Guiding form for collecting additional information for the national level assessment Appendix 3: Questionnaire/form for collecting information for the assessment of stakeholder involvement from the PA level Appendix 4: Scores for progress on Governance approaches in the Carpathian countries (2007)
ALINA IONITA, 2011
PAGE 98
Appendix 1: PRELIMINARY QUESTIONNAIRE FOR THE NATIONAL LEVEL ASSESSMENT
Thinking of the current national system of protected areas and focusing on those which are situated in the
Carpathian Ecoregion in your country, please answer the following questions.
1. Who took the initiative of establishing the current network of protected areas (PAs)?
The Government The local public administrations
The local communities Private owners
Research bodies/universities Other initiative (please specify)
_______________________________________________________________________________________
2. Thinking of the PAs establishment process, the stakeholders and the local communities were:
Informed on the intent to declare current PAs
Consulted before the establishment of PAs
Informed only after the protected areas were established
The stakeholders and local communities had the initiative for establishing PAs themselves
None of the above versions
For other versions, please give more details_______________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
3. The PAs have their own management plans, actually in force.
YES NO Elaborated but not approved There is an on-going management
planning process
If your answer is YES, please specify which of the PA categories do.
___________________________________________________________________________________
4. Were the stakeholders and the local communities involved in the elaboration of management
plans?
YES NO
If your answer is YES, please give more details by choosing the affirmation(s) which are better
reflecting the reality:
The stakeholders were consulted during the elaboration of the management plan
The stakeholders were consulted only after the management plan was ready
The stakeholders were asked to agree on a final version of the management plan
(Some of) the stakeholders prepared the management plan themselves (with or without
assistance)
ALINA IONITA, 2011
PAGE 99
Name ___________________________________Institution____________________________________________
Country _________________________________
Notes:__________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
5. Which of the following PA categories have their own Administrations?
National parks Biosphere reserves None of the PAs
Nature parks Natura 2000 sites Other categories
6. Are there any administrative structures, established by the national legislation, allowing the direct
or indirect involvement of stakeholders in the PA management? (e.g. Consultative Councils, Advisory
bodies, Work groups, etc) YES NO
If your answer is YES, please specify its name, constituency and role (consultative or decision-making)
in the management of PAs.
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
7. Please choose the type(s) of governance for the PAs in the Carpathian Ecoregion in your country.
Government protected areas (a government body – Ministry or Park Agency, reporting directly
to the Government, holds the authority, responsibility and accountability for managing the PA,
determines its conservation goals and management objectives)
Co-managed protected areas (a plurality of actors make and enforce decisions, sharing the
management authority and responsibility)
Private protected areas (private landowners make and enforce decisions)
Community conserved areas (local communities make and enforce decisions)
8. Who are the main land owners in national and nature parks? (multiple choices )
The state Local public administrations
Local communities associations Private companies
Individual private owners Other categories (please specify)
___________________________________________________________________________________
9. If restrictions are imposed, is there a system for financial compensations for the land owners who
have properties in the PAs? YES NO . If YES, is it functional?
YES NO If your answer is NO, please give more details on the
reasons.
10. If you know any initiative (at national level or site level) focused mainly on participative management
/the involvement of stakeholders and local communities in the management process of PAs, please
give more details on: the initiator, the name of the project(s) and the PA(s) involved.
___________________________________________________________________________________
ALINA IONITA, 2011
PAGE 100
Appendix 2: Guiding form for collecting additional information for the national level assessment
1. THE PA MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
a) When were the current large PAs in the Carpathians established? (Was it a recent decision
to establish the whole network, or the Carpathian PA network came in time, in a step by step
process of designation?)
b) When were the Carpathian PA Administrations established?
c) Which were the institutions involved in the design and establishment of the PA system?
(Please name them and shortly describe their roles)
d) According to the national legislation, is there any obligation to have the official or the
formal accept of stakeholder/local communities/natural resource managers at the
establishment of a new PA?
2. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES IN PA MANAGEMENT
The legal responsibility for nature conservation belongs to the Ministry of Environment (variable in
each country).
Please explain the roles and the responsibilities in the PA management system and answer to the
fallowing questions.
a) Who has the delegated authority for the management of PAs? Which are the authorities
and the institutions responsible from national level to PA Administration level?
b) Who manages the natural resources inside the PA (forest/pasture/wetlands)?
(Please name each institution responsible for each category of resources).
c) Who establishes the different PA categories? Is there a scientific authority undertaking a
scientific study who proposes the establishment of a PA?
(Please name the institution and its administrative belonging/affiliation).
d) Who makes the internal zoning for the PAs? Is there, according to the law, the obligation to
consult any stakeholder(s) for a final decision concerning zonong?
e) Who develops the PA management plans and establishes the management objectives?
f) Are there guidelines (at national level, approved by law) for the development of
management plans?
g) Who makes the strategies for nature conservation? (Please name the institution)
h) Who finances the PA Administrations?
3. GOVERNANCE OF PAs
a) Are there any other organizations/institutions (excepting the one named at point 2) that
have the delegated responsibility and authority (alone or in collaboration with the PA
Administrations) for PA management? or there are only government PAs..
ALINA IONITA, 2011
PAGE 101
(If the case, give separate answers for the PAs in the Carpathians and for those
outside the Carpathians)
b) Is the national legislation recognizing the possibility for some other actors to manage
PAs?
c) If yes, which are the conditions? (e.g. to prove financial capacity)
4. ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURES FOR STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT
a) Each PA Administration has its own (Consultative/Advisory/Research) Council?
b) Which is its role and obligations according to the law? Does it have a shared obligation
and responsibility with the PA Administration for decision-making or it has just a
consultative/advisory role?
c) Which should be the purpose of its meetings? Are the members of this Council asked to
give information, to express their opinion on management issues or to decide by vote,
together with the PA Administration?
d) Who are the members of this Council? (local, regional, national level)
(Please name the categories of members. e.g.: city halls, county councils, regional
forest districts, local forest districts, universities, etc)
e) Are all the ones who represent the interests of the stakeholders (at least theoretically)
represented in these Councils? Or is it restricted to the most influential stakeholders?
f) Is the presence at the meetings compulsory for all the members? Or it is just an optional
obligation?
g) Is the consensus (unanimous/majority of votes) of this Council compulsory for taking a
decision?
h) Do you consider that the Council meetings are effective for the management process?
Can you offer arguments?
i) Are they effective in expressing their relevant interests, needs, ideas?
5. CONSULTATION
a) Does the national legislation have clear provisions about stakeholders’ involvement,
transparence and public consultation procedures in the management of PAs? Do you
think that there is any problem in the law hindering participative management?
b) If the PA Administrations are governmental institutions, do they have to act under the
Aarhus Convention? Does this have any positive effect on the transparence of PA
management process?
c) Is it compulsory for the PA Administration to involve stakeholders in elaborating plans
as for example the Tourism and visiting strategy?
ALINA IONITA, 2011
PAGE 102
d) According to the national law, should the identification and establishment of
management objectives for PAs (ex. supporting the local development, the development of
ecotourism, if the case), management activities the targeted outcomes be established by
consensus with the stakeholders? Is only the PA Administration deciding in this respect?
e) Is there any connection between the local development panning (done by the city halls)
and the PA management planning? Are there legislative provisions in this respect?
6. Do you think that stakeholder participation to the PA management has the same status in all
the PAs in your country? Are there cases where the situation is different (e.g. more difficult
to deal due to strong interests and conflicts or better due to better capacities and initiatives
undertaken by the PA Administrations, etc).
ALINA IONITA, 2011
PAGE 103
Appendix 3: Questionnaire/form for collecting information for the assessment of stakeholder involvement from the PA level
E. GENERAL INFORMATION
A.1. INFORMATION ON THE PROTECTED AREA (PA) / NATURA 2000 SITE
Name: Location: Established in (year): IUCN category:
Area (hectares): Natura 2000? YES, since: NO
Who had the initiative14
of establishing the PA?
Where there any of the stakeholders involved? YES NO
If your answer is YES, please name them: (Please use the categories listed at the point B and detail if necessary.)
Number of administrative
territories inside/in the vicinity of
the PA
Number of communes (or
equivalent):
From which, partially
overlapping:
Number of counties/administrative regions (or equivalent):
Number of human settlements
inside the PA Out of which, rural and urban
Main land use categories (please fill in with the corresponding percentage or area)
Forest:
Pasture:
Hay-
meadows:
Arable:
Constructions:
Waters/wetlands:
Other
categories:
Categories of ownership (please fill in with the corresponding percentage or area)
State:
Public
administrations15
:
Associations of
owners:
Private property
(ex.
corporations):
Individual private
owners:
Other categories
(Schools,
Churches):
Please list the assets and resources (within the PA/site) of special economic interest for the development of local
communities (e.g. a road, a quarry, a mountain/ski resort, etc):
A.2. INFORMATION ON THE PA ADMINISTRATION
Name: Location16
Established in (year): Number of staff members (total):
For NGOs that are custodians, but have no staff, please specify what your human resources are (only for number of
members that are active in the protected area):
14
Please indicate if the PA was established as a result of the initiative or at least with the support of the local community or
local actors, as a sign for their appreciation for the area. In this case, it indicates a high degree of local awareness and
interest for protecting the natural heritage. Or it was a top-down designation? 15
Public authorities might have their own (private)land.(for e.g. in Romania) 16
Please specify if the PA Administration has more than one office (in a different location), where a part of the staff runs its
regular activity.
ALINA IONITA, 2011
PAGE 104
Please list the positions that have responsibilities and tasks in community outreach and work with some of the key
stakeholders.
Staff position Educational level Fields of expertise
Professional
experience in the PA
management
(nr. of years)
Is in regular
contact/has to work
with the following
stakeholders*
* Please use the categories listed at the point B and detail if necessary.
B. STAKEHOLDERS
In the framework of the present study, stakeholders are defined as individuals or groups that:
• have land or resource use rights,
• manage resources in the PA
• could have a significant impact on the PA
• could be affected by the restrictions in the PA
Categories to be considered: (key)
A. Land owners B. Land and/or resource managers, C. Natural resource users, D. Tourism businesses, E. Local
communities, F. Local authorities, G. NGOs, H. Others
Types of stakeholder attitude toward the PA management and nature conservation related issues:
1. Offensive (O), 2. Defensive (D), 3. Inexpressive/Indifferent (I)
Types of relations with the stakeholder:
1. Neutral (N), 2. Collaboration (Co) 3. Conflicting (C)
Levels of involvement
1. Information 2. Consultation 3. Analysis 4. Common decision-taking
Information = stakeholders are informed on decision already taken by the PA Administration
Consultation = stakeholders are asked for information and about their opinion on management issues, but the final
decisions are taken by the PA Administration, sometimes without incorporating the input from the stakeholders
Analysis = stakeholders are/were involved in finding/identifying different management solutions
Common decision = stakeholders discuss the issues with the PA Administration and the final decision is taken together
17 Please try to estimate how much of the PA teritory is of direct interest for the stakeholder. For e.g. a touroperator might
be interested in 100% (if organizes tours in all the PA) or less, if only parts of the PA are in their programmes
1. Did you carry out a stakeholder analysis and revised it periodically? YES
NO
If YES, please attach the document with the results of the stakeholder analysis.
2. Who are the key stakeholders in the management of your PA? Please name them (see the categories in the grey box)
and give more detailed information on their interest, attitude and relation with them.
Please complete the table by using the categories and the codes described in the definition, at the beginning of the part B.
Stakeholder Category*
% of the area of
interest for the
stakeholders17
Interest in the PA – what
the PA offers to
them/expectations
Their
attitude*
Your
relation
with them*
* Please use the categories defined in the grey box above.
ALINA IONITA, 2011
PAGE 105
C. DECISION-MAKING PROCESS (GOVERNANCE) and STAKEHOLDERS’ INVOLVEMENT IN THE PA
MANAGEMENT
Please think about the level of key stakeholders’ (as identified at question nr. B.2.) involvement in the PA
management. Try to detail separately for the management planning, for the decision-making process and for
the management activities.
3. Regarding the level of information and awareness concerning the PA you are managing, please try to choose the
appropriate answer to the following questions, for each of the stakeholder categories.
Please choose the corresponding response for the park level. If there are some areas where the situation is different, please
specify in the Notes column. If the case, for the NO and Mostly no answers, please give more details explaining the situation
(Try to explain why not? in the Notes column).
Please ask the PA staff to give an honest evaluation.
Stakeholder
(the categories in the grey
box)
GENERAL LEVEL NOTES
(exceptions, important issues) YES Mostly
yes Mostly no
NO
1. STAKEHOLDERS KNOW ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF THE PA
A. Land owners
B. Land / resource
managers
C. Resource users
D. Tourism businesses
E. Local communities
F. Local authorities
G. NGOs
H. Others
2. STAKEHOLDERS HAVE BEEN OFFICIALLY INFORMED BY THE PA MANAGER (through maps, informational materials, etc)
ABOUT THE PA BOUNDARIES
A. Land owners
B. Land / resource
managers
C. Resource users
D. Tourism businesses
E. Local communities
F. Local authorities
G. NGOs
H. Others
3. STAKEHOLDERS ARE AWARE WHY THE PA WAS ESTABLISHED AND WHAT THE MAIN OBJECTIVES ARE
A. Land owners
B. Land / resource
managers
C. Resource users
D. Tourism businesses
E. Local communities
F. Local authorities
G. NGOs
H. Others
4. THEY KNOW ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF THE PA ADMINISTRATION
A. Land owners
B. Land / resource
managers
C. Resource users
D. Tourism businesses
E. Local communities
F. Local authorities
G. NGOs
H. Others
ALINA IONITA, 2011
PAGE 106
C.1. MANAGEMENT PLANNING
1. Is there a management plan or an on-going management planning process for the PA? YES NO
2. Who is/was conducting the management planning process?
The PA Administration
A Consultancy Company
Other (please specify)
3. A R E / W E R E K E Y S T A K E H O L D E R S ( A S I D E N T I F I E D T H R O U G H Q U E S T I O N N R . B. 2. )
I N V O L V E D I N T H E M A N A G E M E N T P L A N N I N G P R O C E S S ? YES NO
If your answer is YES, please give more details in the table below.
Stakeholder Category
Level of involvement
(see levels in the grey
box)
Observations/
Comments
C.2. DECISION-MAKING
1. Are key stakeholders involved in the decision-making process? YES NO
If your answer is YES, please give more details in the table below.
Stakeholder Category
Level of
involvement
(see levels in the
grey box)
Example of
management issue
Observations/
Comments
2. Who takes final decisions in key issues regarding the PA? (Approval of plans and projects potentially affecting
biodiversity, internal zoning, changes of the boundaries, etc.)
You can have multiple choices, in which case please indicate for what type of issues are the various agencies deciding.
Responsible Ministry (central authority)
National Agency for Protected Areas
PA Administration
Legally established Board/Council of the PA
Each land/resource owner/administrator for their area
Others (please specify)
C.3. MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES
Are key stakeholders involved in management activities?
YES
NO
If your answer is YES, please give more details in the table below.
Stakeholder Example of activity Observations/Comments
ALINA IONITA, 2011
PAGE 107
E. COMM UNIC A TION WITH STAKEH OLDERS
18
Administrative structure, with representative role for the stakeholders, allowing their direct or indirect involvement in
the management process (e.g.: Consultative Council, Advisory Body, permanent Work group, etc).
19 If representatives of institutions/organizations please indicate the institution. If individuals, please indicate their
expertise. 20
Please use same groups, as defined at point B.2.
C.4. ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURES AND THEIR EFFICIENCY IN STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT
1. Is there any mechanism in place18
to allow active participation of key
stakeholders in PA planning and management? YES NO
If your answer is YES, please answer the following questions.
The existing mechanism allows stakeholders to have: Consultative role Decision-making role
Constituency19
:
Please describe its attributions:
2. How active are the members of these structures and which is the degree of their involvement in the decision-
making process? Please fill in the following table.
Categories of
stakeholders
Presence at
the meetings*
Active participation** Level of
involvement*** Observations/Comments Issues of direct
interest Generally
* Please choose between: always, frequent (>70 % of the meetings), less frequent (40-70 %), rarely (<40 %), never; **Please
choose between: very active (VA) Less active (LA) Not active at all (NA);
*** Please use the levels described at the beginning of part B.
Which are the means used for the communication with the stakeholder groups and local communities?
Some situations where communications means are used are listed below. Please indicate if you have/had the situations
described and specify the corresponding means of information used and the target groups.
*Please take into account the following means of communication and use their associated code. E – e-mail, WP – web page,
PH – telephone, FX – fax, RM – regular mailing, LR – local radio, LTV – local television, NP – local news paper, PI – personal
information (through PA staff), IM – informational materials (leaflets, brochures, posters, flyers), IO – informational
centres/offices, OTH – others means (please specify)
Aim/Situation
Relevant for
your PA
(Yes or No)
Means of
communication*
Target groups20
(key stakeholders)
Information and awareness campaigns (concerning
the PA, nature conservation issues, etc)
Inform stakeholders on:
- meetings on PA related issues
- events organized by/in which the PA Administration
is involved
- management problems
- management activities
- management decisions
- the result of the council board meetings
Make the information available before meetings
involving stakeholders’ consultation
ALINA IONITA, 2011
PAGE 108
F . PERCEIVED BENEFITS AND CONSTRAINTS – AS A M OT IV AT IO N F OR ST A KEH OL D ER ’S
IN V OL V EME NT IN T HE PA M A NA G EME NT
G. PERCEPTION/VISION OF PA’S ADMINISTRATION
1. Considering the specificity of your PA for conservation and the relation with the stakeholders, do you consider
key stakeholders’ involvement in the management process as necessary?
YES NO Not really I don’t know
2. If your answer is YES, please indicate what would be the main purpose for stakeholder involvement?
Please choose from the above predefined options.
Gather information and ideas for the PA management
Avoid or solve already existing conflicts cause by the PA existence / management objectives
Involve the participants in the planning process itself
Legitimate decisions already made by the PA Administration
3. In your opinion, which are the management activities where participation is most important?
4. What do you think that should be done, in your case, in order to encourage stakeholders to get involved in the
management process/in management related actions?
H. RESULTS AND CHALLENGES FOR STAKEHOLDER’S INVOLVEMENT IN THE PA MANAGEMENT
1. I F Y O U H A V E A G O O D R E L A T I O N W I T H ( S O M E O F ) T H E S T A K E H O L D E R S , .
Please answer by appreciating each of the following causes. YES Mostly
yes
Mostly
no
NO
Good cooperation is maintained due to the possibility of obtaining reciprocal benefits
Good cooperation is based mainly on the stakeholders’ interest of obtaining benefits
Good cooperation is the result of a high degree of awareness on PAs objectives and
role
Good cooperation is mainly favoured by personal relations between members of PAs
Administration and stakeholders
Good cooperation is mainly due to fulfilling the legal request to involve the
communities
Good cooperation is the result of some activities implemented with good and visible
results by the protected area administration
21 Example: income from tourism activities, income from wood or pasture valuation, etc
Which are, in your opinion, the main benefits and constraints for the local communities, related to the PA’s existence?
Please specify whether you think that the stakeholders are aware of them.
Stakeholder
category
BENEFITS Constraints/Restrictions
related to the PA’s
existence
Perceived by the
stakeholders?
Y/N
Observations/
Comments
Direct
economic
benefits21
Environmental
services
ALINA IONITA, 2011
PAGE 109
2. If your relation with local communities is a conflicting one, what could be, in your opinion, the main causes?
3. Do you consider your resources (human, financial, technical, etc), as PA Administration, as sufficient for the
involvement of stakeholders in the management process?
YES NO Not really I don’t know
4. What are, in your case, the main issues in adopting a transparent and participative management?
Please answer by appreciating each of the following causes. YES
Mostly
yes
Mostly
no NO
Lack of/insufficient knowledge related to this approach and the appropriate means to
addopt it
Insufficient personal
Insufficient financial resources (for informational materials, travelling costs, etc)
Lack of/insufficient means of communication
Lack of information and awareness concerning the management problems at
community (key stakeholder) level
Dissatisfactions (negative attitudes, conflicts) related to restrictions imposed for
natural resource use inside the PA and lack of financial compensations
Lack of understanding of real benefits from participation
Lack of interest for public involvement
Lack of powerful partners for collaboration at local level (NGOs, associations, etc)
The national legislation concerning PAs
Conflicting interests (between different stakeholders) in the PA
Long distance between the Administration and the communities surrounding the PA
Other problems:
5. Please complete the following table with information on information and public awareness campaigns and projects
involving stakeholders in management activities:
Objectives Timeframe Categories of
stakeholders involved
Who was the
beneficiary Who was the initiator?
DATA ON THE RESPONDENT
Name of the person completing the questionnaire
Respondent’s name and position
Date Place/PA
Observations/Comments
ALINA IONITA, 2011
PAGE 110
Appendix 4: Scores for progress on Governance approaches in the Carpathian countries (2007)
PoWPA Targets Summary of Activity PoWPA Goals
2.1.2; 1.1.4; 2.2.1 to 2.2.4
Promotion of different governance types for protected areas, including participatory governance
1.1, 2.1
and 2.2
CBD PoWPA Deadline
Year of Report
Score on progress
and the meaning of notes
Quality of progress
and the meaning of notes
SERBIA
2015
(Governments are encouraged to review
governance types in
protected areas
by end 2006
2007
2 - Started but still some important work is needed - Different governance types exist
and are recognised but progress towards incorporating a range of
governance types within the
protected area system is slow
2 - Medium quality - Governance types are decided mainly by the
government but after consultation with some
stakeholders
2009 2-Started but still some important work needed
2 - Medium quality
2011
3 - Well underway - Different governance types are being
promoted and developed although this process is not completed
2 - Medium quality
POLAND
2007
3 - Well underway - Different governance types are being
promoted and developed although
this process is not completed
2 - Medium quality- Governance types are
decided mainly by the
government but after consultation with some
stakeholders
2009 3 - Well underway – Idem 2 - Medium quality
2011
4 – Completed - All suitable
governance types are being
utilised within the protected area system
4 - High quality-Governance types are decided by all
relevant stakeholder groups
UKRAIN
2007
2-Started but still some important work need - Different governance types exist and are recognised but
progress towards incorporating a range of governance types within
the protected area system is slow
2 - Medium quality - Governance types are decided mainly by the
government but after consultation with some
stakeholders
2008 2-Started but still some important work need
2 - Medium quality
2011 - -
THE CEZCH REPUBLIC
2008
2-Started but still some important work need - Different governance types exist and are recognised but
progress towards incorporating a
range of governance types within
2 - Medium quality
ALINA IONITA, 2011
PAGE 111
the protected area system is slow
2009 - -
2011 - -
SLOVAKIA
2007 2-Started but still some important work need 2 - Medium quality
2008 2-Started but still some important work need
2 - Medium quality
2011 - -
HUNGARY
2007 0 - Not started or recognized 2 - Medium quality
2008 0 - Not started or recognized 2 - Medium quality
2011 - -
ROMANIA
2007
4 – Completed - All suitable governance types are being
utilised within the protected area system
2 - Medium quality
2008 4 – Completed 2 - Medium quality
2011 - -