ECNC Project “KEN - Knowledge for Ecological Networks: Catalysing

Stakeholder Involvement in the Practical Implementation of Ecological

Networks”

Work package 4:

Identification and analysis of stakeholders for

ecological network implementation in Europe

- Case studies from Germany, United Kingdom, Croatia and

Switzerland -

November 2008

by

Dr. Rosemarie Siebert,

Dipl.-Ing. agr. Silja Tiemann and

Andrej Lange

Leibniz-Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research

Institute of Socio-Economics

2

CONTENT

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................................ 6

2 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 10

2.1 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CASE STUDY REGIONS..................................................................... 10 2.2 METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................................... 12

3 STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................... 14

3.1 KEY STAKEHOLDERS – THE POWER, INFLUENCE AND RELEVANCE OF EACH STAKEHOLDER.......... 14 3.2 STAKEHOLDER PERCEPTIONS - RELATIONSHIP TO THE SITUATION .............................................. 20 3.3 STAKEHOLDER RELATIONSHIPS TO EACH OTHER – COOPERATION, CONFLICTS AND FORMS OF

INVOLVEMENT...................................................................................................................................... 23

4 BARRIERS AND FACTORS OF SUCCESS FOR MANAGING STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT IN THE AREA - CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS............................... 28

5 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 33

6 ANNEX ......................................................................................................................................... 35

6.1 INFORMATION ON CASE STUDY REGION/ PROJECTS IN BAVARIA (GERMANY) ............................... 35 6.2 INFORMATION ON CASE STUDY REGION/ PROJECTS IN ENGLAND ................................................ 36 6.3 INFORMATION ON CASE STUDY REGION/ PROJECTS IN CROATIA ................................................. 38 6.4 INFORMATION ON CASE STUDY REGION/ PROJECTS IN SWITZERLAND ......................................... 39 6.5 LIST OF STAKEHOLDERS FROM CASE STUDY REGION ALLOCATED TO STAKEHOLDER GROUPS ...... 40 6.6 QUESTIONNAIRE FOR INTERVIEWS (QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE PARTS):............................. 42

Figures

FIGURE 1: ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK FOR STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS IN THE “KEN” PROJECT.............................. 13 FIGURE 2: SUMMARY OF INTERVIEWEE OPINIONS: NAMED STAKEHOLDERS AND THEIR FELT RELEVANCE FOR THE

ECOLOGICAL NETWORK IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS IN GERMAN CASE STUDY AREA .................................... 24 FIGURE 3: SUMMARY OF INTERVIEWEE OPINION: EFFECTIVENESS OF FORMS OF INVOLVEMENT (BAVARIA) .......... 26 FIGURE 4: SUMMARY OF INTERVIEWEE OPINION: EFFECTIVENESS OF FORMS OF INVOLVEMENT (ENGLAND)

(CHEQUERED BAR =VERY EFFECTIVE; BAR WITH CROSSES =EFFECTIVE; AND STIPPLED BAR =NOT EFFECTIVE). 26 FIGURE 5: SUMMARY OF INTERVIEWEE OPINION (BAVARIA) : RATING OF THE MOST IMPORTANT AND VERY

IMPORTANT FACTORS FOR SUCCESSFUL PARTICIPATORY IMPLEMENTATION OF ECOLOGICAL NETWORKS ..... 30 FIGURE 6: SUMMARY OF INTERVIEWEE OPINION (ENGLAND): RATING OF THE MOST IMPORTANT AND VERY

IMPORTANT FACTORS FOR SUCCESSFUL PARTICIPATORY IMPLEMENTATION OF ECOLOGICAL NETWORKS.

(CHEQUERED BAR = MOST IMPORTANT; BAR WITH CROSSES = VERY IMPORTANT; AND STIPPLED

BAR = NEGLIGIBLE IMPORTANCE) ........................................................................................................... 31 FIGURE 8: MAP OF BAVARIAN CASE STUDY REGION .............................................................................................. 35 FIGURE 9: YORKSHIRE AND HUMBER REGION AND WORKSHOP FOCAL AREAS..................................................... 37 FIGURE 10: ENGLAND HABITAT NETWORK (EHN) AND URBAN AREA EXTENT .................................................... 37 FIGURE 11: PROTECTED AREAS AND SITES OF ECOLOGICAL NETWORK IN KARLOVACKA COUNTY (CROATIA) ...... 38 FIGURE 12: CANTONS OF SWITZERLAND WITH CASE STUDY AREA ST. GALLEN (ENCIRCLED)................................ 39

Abbreviations

ABSP Bavarian Programme for the Protection of Species and Habitats, “Bayerisches Arten- und Biotopschutzprogramm” (Germany)

ALE District Offices for Rural Development, “Ämter für ländliche Entwicklung” (Germany)

ANL Bavarian Academy for Nature Conservation and Landscape Management, “Bayerische Akademie für Naturschutz und Landschaftspflege“

BBV Bavarian Farmers Union, “Bayerischer Bauernverband” (Germany)

BfN Federal Agency for Nature Conservation, “Bundesamt für Naturschutz” (Germany)

BGB German Civil Code, „Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch“

BMU German Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety, “Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit” (Germany)

BUND Friends of the Earth Germany (here, the Bavarian section), “Bund Naturschutz in Bayern e.V.” (BUND Bayern) (Germany)

CBD Convention on Biological Diversity

CRO NEN Croatian National Ecological Network (enacted by NPA and Decree on Ecological Network) (Croatia)

DVL German Land Care Association, “Deutscher Verband für Landschaftspflege“

ECNC European Centre for Nature Conservation

EHN England Habitate Network (UK)

GTZ German Technical Development Co-operation, “Gesellschaft für technische Zusammenarbeit”

IPA Important Plant Area (Croatia)

LCA Land Care Association, “Landschaftspflegeverband (LPV)” (Germany)

LBV Bavarian Society for the Protection of Birds, “Landesbund für Vogelschutz in Bayern e. V.” (Germany)

LfU Office for the Environment, “Landesamt für Umwelt” (Germany)

MINC Ministry of Culture (Croatia)

NABU Bavarian Society for Nature Conservation, “Naturschutzbund” (Germany)

NGO Non Governmental Organization

NPA Nature Protection Act (Croatia)

PAN A private landscape consultancy firm, “Planungsbüro für angewandten Naturschutz” (Germany)

PEEN Pan-European Ecological Network

PI Public Institution (for Management of Protected Areas) (Croatia)

REN National Ecological Network (Switzerland)

SAC Special Area of Conservation (Croatia)

SINP State Institute for Nature Protection (Croatia)

SPA Special Protection Area (Croatia)

StMLF Bavarian Ministry for Agriculture and Forestry, “Bayerisches Staatsministerium für Landwirtschaft und Forsten” (Germany)

StMUGV Bavarian Ministry for the Environment, “Bayerisches Staatsministerium für Umwelt, Gesundheit und Verbraucherschutz” (Germany)

VöF Regional Land Care Association Kelheim (Bavaria), „Verein zur Sicherung ökologischer Flächen Kelheim“

ZALF e.V. Leibniz-Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research, “Zentrum für Agrarlandschaftsforschung e.V.” (Germany)

1 Executive summary

I Introduction

The objective: The ecological network concept is a response to biodiversity loss. Core areas for conservation are preserved by buffer zones and connected via elements such as corridors (rivers, hedges etc.) or stepping stones (e.g. ponds). Connecting elements that are less fixed in spatial or geographical terms, such as vectors (e.g. sheep) or flexible areas, might be of value as well. Thus, the concept integrates “normal use” areas that extend beyond nature conservation areas (covered by law). This is in line with the current paradigm change from a segregative, static, preservation-oriented nature conservation to a more integrative, dynamic and innovative one. The implementation of such ecological networks requires the involvement of all European countries and within these a wide range of stakeholders in order to achieve long-term cooperation between them.

The objective of this report is to analyse in detail the stakeholder perspective in ecological network implementation based on case studies (Germany, England, Croatia and Switzerland), in order to acquire a deeper insight into the barriers and central factors of success and to be able to give recommendations on how to manage stakeholder involvement.

The regions:

• In Germany legal efforts are ongoing to establish a nation-wide ecological network on 10% of the German territory by 2010 (Article 3 of the Federal Nature Conservation Act; National Strategy on Biodiversity). However, due to Germany’s federal structure, which comprises sixteen Länder, and because decision-making authority for the field of nature conservation is located at Länder level, several different approaches to establishing ecological networks in the sense of PEEN and Article 10 of the EU Habitats Directive exist. There is no such thing as a “German way”. Implementation efforts exist mainly at a local to regional scale. Bavaria is one of the German “Länder” (federal state) that boasts a long tradition of conservation-related legislation as well as a large number of attempts to implement ecological network projects (347 projects on about 9% of Bavarian territory). Therefore Bavaria was selected as a case study region and key stakeholders at regional level (Bavaria) and two ecological network projects were analysed which can be viewed as best practice examples (the “Sallingbachtal” project in the region of “Kelheim” in Lower Bavaria, and the “Sandachse Franken” project in the Nuremberg area) were analysed.

• The case study from England took the Yorkshire and Humber region as a study region. Stakeholder engagement was based on the England Habitate Network (EHN) which is part of a co-ordinated Pan-UK initiative to implement PEEN and meet Article 10 obligations.

• In Croatia the case study region is Karlovacka County, which is caracterised by high biodiversity. Within this region 80 sites (76 important for wild taxa and habitats (SACs according to Natura 2000) and 4 of international importance for birds (SPAs according to Natura 2000)) were selected. Within the ecological network, sites are connected by natural or artificial corridors which are defined by the Nature Protection Act (NPA) as an ecological component or a series of such components that allow for migration of the populations of living organisms from one site to another and constitute an integral part of the ecological network

• In Switzerland the analysed ecological network called REN is established at the national level. Through scientific reports and maps (zoning) it shows the areas relevant to nature conservation as well as existing and potential corridors since 2004. Until now, just one third of all cantons use the REN practically. The Canton Sankt Gallen was selected as a case study region.

5

Methodology: The analytical framework is based on the methodological background of a stakeholder analysis. A common framework was worked out for all four case studies conducted. A stakeholder analysis is a qualitative survey aimed at analysing the relationships and conflicts between stakeholder groups (actors) in a given situation (ecological network implementation) within a certain geographical context. The goal is to better understand the way the system works by revealing:

key stakeholders,

− their perceptions of the situation,

− cooperation, conflicts and forms of involvement,

− barriers and factors of success in relation to a participatory implementation process.

This provides a basis for putting forward conclusions and recommendations for managing stakeholder involvement in the area. Based on this framework, the methodological instruments used for research are those of qualitative social research. For this purpose face-to-face and phone interviews were conducted in all case study areas. These were based on qualitative key questions and underlined by some quantitative questions (not for statistical purposes).

The Interviews were done with representatives of the key stakeholder groups (such as agriculture, nature conservation, forestry, hunting, transport, water management, landscape planning, construction, civic groups, education and tourism) identified in the case study regions. According to the individual case study conditions and capacities of the project partners the number of interviewed individuals varies among the case studies. In Germany 31 individuals were interviewed face-to-face. In the United Kingdom 20 individuals were interviewed via telephone for the qualitative part and 31 individuals answered the quantitative part. In Croatia 15 individuals were interviewed face-to-face. In Switzerland 9 were conducted (by phone and face-to-face).

II Results of stakeholder analysis

Key stakeholders: A coalition of a wide range of different stakeholders from all administrative levels is needed in order to implement ecological networks. State authorities have a crucial influence on implementation by providing general guidelines and financing (agri)-environmental programmes and institutions (e.g. ABSP, BayernNetz Natur, LCAs in the Bavarian case) that catalyse implementation. However, implementation on the ground depends on securing support from regional and local stakeholder groups. It depends a lot on the individual case, but even more on the institutional structure of the countries with sectors and organizations are viewed as key stakeholders. Nevertheless nature conservation authorities (at all administrative levels), agriculture (at regional to local level) and “planning institutions” were the key stakeholders mentioned most often, followed by local politics and administration, civic groups and forestry. Civic groups, like the Bavarian Land Care Associations (LCAs) can be the “creative mind” in this process and initiate projects involving the different stakeholder groups. Initially sceptical groups are won over by building confidence and trust on the basis of their legitimacy (e.g. environmentalists, farmers and local politicians are represented equally on the board of each LCA) and continuity in terms of staffing. Nevertheless groups with economic power, like in industry and construction sectors, have a huge influence in land use decisions too, which is growing in areas where population is dense and the general economy is growing. A general lack of resources, due to the fact that other sectors than nature conservation are given more importance, is stated. Foundations having ecological networks as objectives are an important promoter of implementation.

Stakeholders’ perceptions of the situation: Definitions of an ecological network vary among different stakeholders and their actual working situation. The majority of perceptions are centred on a physical dimension considering aspects of connectivity and landscape

6

permeability but also ecological processes within the areas are reflected. Working in a specific project or taking part in workshops on the theme brings about a higher degree of understanding of the ecological network concept and the relevance of single projects (local dimension) for the international dimension. Ecological networks are seen as an important instrument for biodiversity conservation, but it was said that the manner of agricultural cultivation in particular and the Common Agricultural Policy also play an important role. In general, the concept is seen positively by people who already were involved in the planning phase before legislation was enacted; otherwise it is viewed as an imposed obligation impeding economic development. One point of conflict is how far ecological networks need to be spatially fixed over a long period (e.g. by land purchase) in order to be functional, or whether there could also be flexible areas. According to the interviewees, more monitoring activities – rather than just politicking – are needed in order to clarify the real effects of such different forms of ecological network implementation. Public relations and environmental education are also seen as very important for creating awareness and a common understanding as a basis for further action. The most convincing arguments in favour of participating in ecological network projects were in the Bavarian case the principle of voluntariness and economic benefits showing that nature conservation may also mean economical development, but also arguments based on ecological knowledge, e.g. in the English case ecological networks as a tool to counteract problems resulting from climate change are relevant.

Stakeholder relationships, cooperation, conflicts and forms of involvement: Key stakeholders need to be represented in management and coordinating structures at regional and local level in order to achieve sustainability in the projects and avoid major conflicts. Relationships among stakeholder groups can be conflictive within all groups, especially if the actors are land owners or users; there is no single group that consistently triggers conflict. Among stakeholders involved in ecological networks conflicts occur both at the regional level and at the project management level due to divergent understandings (different paradigms) of how ecological networks or, in broader context, nature conservation are best implemented. Conflictive relationships to land users and owners often develop from negative experiences in the past, leading to difficulties in today’s cooperation (e.g. Natura 2000). Pessimism appeared to be present in relation to the over-riding strength of economic interests compared to the interests in nature conservation. Any kind of direct communication (face to face) is seen as the most effective way to involve stakeholders and to avoid or resolve conflicts. Various well accepted instruments for involvement are in use. Round tables are common and effective, but may lead to frustration when used for informational purposes only, resulting in a lower participation of stakeholders in the long run. The standard of stakeholder involvement is different in the case study regions, but increases in quality where a longer tradition in nature conservation project implementation is existent and well-organised civic groups act as “creative minds” and catalyst in the process. One problem that remains is continuity. Established management structures need to be long lasting in order to be reliable, resulting in sustainable stakeholder participation. Involvement is a slow, time consuming process, as trust has to be built up; this requires permanently financed staffing resources. Institution building of management and coordination structures is what is needed to channel the implementation process and balance top-down with bottom-up approaches

III Barriers and factors of success for managing stakeholder involvement in the area - Conclusions and recommendations: The case studies confirm that a legal basis is a central promoter for ecological network implementation. According the English case sooner implementation of ecological networks was mainly hindered by a lack of a statutory obligation. Planning at national level (top-down) is needed to establish consistent, scientifically sound and functional ecological networks that embody clear ecological principles instead of rather coincidental ones where real effects can be questioned. A central problem is that such planning documents often remain unused by local stakeholders in concrete planning and implementation initiatives due to the fact that local knowledge has not been integrated and guidelines on how to use them are missing. The Bavarian case is a good example how this situation can be improved; by establishing coordinating structures at

7

all levels and advisory service for local stakeholders who are willing to implement nature conservation initiatives that fit into the consistently planned Bavarian-wide ecological network. The lack of resources (human and funds) due to low priority given to nature conservation is a major problem stated in all case studies. Growing competition over land and higher land prices due to higher prices for agricultural products are seen as a powerful barrier to further projects. Economic interests prevail when arguments become polarised, e.g. biodiversity vs. job creation. Thus, to establish ecological networks by statutory obligation or land purchase (site-based conservation), is not practical in all cases. A more integrative and dynamic style (flexible areas) to establish ecological networks showed success even in densely populated areas (Bavarian case). The ever growing efforts needed to cut through existing bureaucracy; the vague nature of the obligations required from cooperating land owners and users (potential sanctions) proved to have a negative impact on acceptance. Monitoring activities on the real effects of ecological networks on species, but also on the socio-economic side are quite low. A ranking on a given list of factors of success for participatory project implementation showed that interviewees counted “resources for compensation and rewards for ecological services” along with “the involvement of key stakeholders right from the beginning” as the most important factors. “Personal benefit (financial or image/non-material) due to win-win-situations”, “good project management” and “good experiences and communicative skills of project manager” were also seen as very important. It was stated that all these factors are always strongly related to each other. One aspect viewed critically was the “possibility to impose sanctions”, which is seen as destroying the good relations created among the stakeholder groups (e.g. to agriculture). “Voluntariness” is viewed as very important to promote participation of land users and owners on the one hand (Bavarian case), but might hinder the whole implementation process on the other, because there is no need for action (English case).

With regard to the management of stakeholder involvement in ecological network implementation, one can conclude that a systematic and participatory planning process is crucial. At national level a scientifically robust framework (planning tool) is needed for strategic purpose, but implementation on the ground needs integration of local knowledge by involving key stakeholders right from the very beginning. This is possible by participatory methods, like Round Tables or various other forms of fact-to-face meetings (written forms of involvement are viewed as less effective). The establishment of sustainable and long lasting management and cooperation structures at regional level as well as at project level is crucial to develop trust among the different stakeholder groups and acceptance for the ecological network concept. In this way, a common understanding of the concept can be built in order to promote a paradigm change from static and preservation-oriented, site-based nature conservation to a more integrative, dynamic concept. On such a common basis further steps towards functional ecological networks embedded in worldwide efforts can be devised. These processes, on the one hand, require time get to know each other and to develop effective institutional structures for all administrative levels. They also require institution-based funding in order to facilitate the development of professional and long lasting management structures based on continuity of staffing, and to provide financial resources to compensate stakeholders for their activities.

2 Introduction

The ecological network concept is a response to biodiversity loss. The idea of the Pan European Ecological Network (PEEN) is to preserve core areas for conservation by means of buffer zones and to connect them via connecting elements such as corridors (rivers, hedges etc.) and stepping stones (e.g. ponds). Connecting elements that are less fixed in spatial or geographical terms, such as vectors (e.g. sheep), might also be of value. The concept integrates “normal use” areas beyond nature conservation areas (accounted for by law in the sense of Article 10 of the EU Habitats Directive) in order to implement functional ecological networks. Thus the concept is in line with the current paradigm change from a segregative, static, preservation-oriented nature conservation to a more integrative, dynamic and innovative one. The implementation of such ecological networks requires cooperation among a wide range of stakeholders (such as authorities, farmers, nature conservationists, landscape planners etc). The degree of participation of these stakeholders varies in intensity. This report analyzes stakeholder involvement in ecological network implementation by comparing four case studies of project partners from Germany, England, Croatia and Switzerland. The case studies vary in length and elaborateness. The German case as best practice examples for the involvement of stakeholder in ecological network implementation is taken as the centre of focus to which other cases are compared. The key stakeholders are analyzed, stakeholder perceptions of the ecological network concept are outlined and the forms of involvement in operation that lead to good cooperation among the actors are examined. Barriers to implementation as well as key factors of success are revealed in order to generate recommendations about how to manage stakeholder involvement. Further details on individual case studies can be found in respective country reports (Catchpole, 2008; PiU, 2008; SINP, 2008; Siebert et al. 2008).

2.1 Characteristics of the case study regions

Four case studies in Germany, the United Kingdom, Croatia and Switzerland have been conducted. In the following a description of the conditions regarding ecological network implementation in the case study regions within the named countries is given.

In Germany legal efforts are ongoing to establish a nation-wide ecological network in the sense of PEEN on 10 % of German territory by 2010 [Article 3 of the Federal Nature Conservation Act (BGB1, 2002); National Strategy on Biodiversity (Bundesregierung, 2007)]. However, due to Germany’s federal structure, which comprises sixteen “Länder”, and because decision-making authority for the field of nature conservation is located at Länder level, several different approaches to establishing ecological networks exist. While several Länder have undertaken efforts aimed at implementation, these exist mainly on a local to regional scale and are initiated by means of bottom-up approaches. Given this background, there is no “German way” as such; however, several best practice examples exist, showing how implementation might be successful (Siebert and Tiemann, 2007). Eventually, Bavaria (federal state) was selected as a case study region because the state has a long tradition of conservation-related legislation within a coherent framework, as well as a large number of implementation efforts and ecological network projects running throughout the region. Furthermore it provides a very good institutional structure by its “BayernNetz Natur” (Bavarian nature conservation network). This network is managed by a private landscape consultancy firm and was established for implementation of the state-wide “Bavarian Programme for the Protection of Species and Habitats” (ABSP). ABSP serves as a regional conceptual framework for conservation activities (biodiversity and the establishment of an ecological network are important objectives) since 1984. Its implementation through larger projects started in 1986, being one of the first endeavours of this kind in Germany. A cooperative approach and an emphasis on voluntariness and participation are essential pillars of all project activities. Most of the larger projects follow an integrative approach (including aspects such as nature conservation, marketing, tourism, education etc.). Thus,

9

“BayernNetz Natur” aligns the interests of local initiatives with regional planning, which is vital for a coherent ecological network (for more details, see section 3.1). Currently, there are about 347 projects in progress under the ABSP initiative on about 9 % of Bavarian territory (Helfrich et al. in press). About 13 % of Bavaria’s territory consists of Natura 2000 areas, national parks, nature conservation areas, or natural forest reserves. The Bavarian Strategy on Biodiversity stipulates that there should be a strong link between the BayernNetz Natur projects (Bavarian ecological network) and the Natura 2000 area network, and that fragmentation by transportation and construction activities on land and water should be reduced (StMUGV, 2008).

The Bavarian case study focuses on two best practice ecological network projects: the “Sallingbachtal” project in the region of Kelheim in Lower Bavaria, and the “Sandachse Franken” project in the Nuremberg area (area map and further explanation see Annex 6.1, p.34). The main criterion for project selection was a highly successful integration of different stakeholders in a cooperative way, under varying circumstances. The “Sallingbachtal” is a rather small project and one of the first BayernNetz Natur initiatives. It was set up 20 years ago in a rural area as a pilot project. It provided a basis for further undertakings, so that over the last 20 years it has been possible to foster good cooperation between different stakeholder groups. The “Sandachse Franken” project (in the years 2000-2006) is one of Bavaria’s largest projects. It is located in a metropolitan region and represents an attempt to develop an ecological network in an area where population density and land prices are high. Public-private partnerships formed with a large number of different stakeholders and based on contracts over a limited time were the method used to convince landowners and users to cooperate.

The case study from England selected the Yorkshire and Humber region as a study region (see map in Annex 6.2, p. 35). The stakeholder engagement was based on the England Habitate Network (EHN) which is part of a co-ordinated Pan-UK initiative to implement PEEN and meet Article 10 obligations (see also Catchpole, 2008a).

In Croatia, ecological network is enacted through the Nature Protection Act (NPA) (Official Gazette 70/05) and defined as a system of interrelated or contiguous, ecologically important areas. These areas show a well balanced biogeographic distribution. Within the ecological network, its sites are according to NPA connected by natural or artificial corridors which allow for migration of the populations of living organisms from one site to another and constitute an essential part of the ecological network. In October 2007, the government of the Republic of Croatia promulgated a decree on ecological network (based on a study of the State Institute for Nature Protection (SINP)) with all sites, their target features and conservation guidelines. The decree enacted management responsibilities, financing, monitoring and surveillance as well as a responsibility to incorporate ecological network in all spatial plans.

The case study region was Karlovacka County, which is caracterized by high biodiversity (see map in Annex 6.3, p. 37). Within this region 80 sites (76 important for wild taxa and habitats (SACs) and 4 internationally important for birds (SPAs)) were selected.These sites are connected by natural or artificial corridors, which constitute an integral part of the ecological network.

In Switzerland the analysed ecological network called REN is established at the national level. Through scientific reports and maps it shows the areas relevant to nature conservation since 2004 as well as existing and potential corridors. REN should make a contribution to: protection and re-establishment of habitats, networking of important habitats and valuable areas, reduction of fragmentation and to the improvement of the quality and variety in the landscape. Until now, only one third of all cantons use the REN practically. The Canton Sankt Gallen was selected as a case study region (see map in Annex 6.4, p. 37).

10

2.2 Methodology

The overall objective was to analyse in detail the stakeholder perspective in ecological network implementation, in order to get a deeper insight into the barriers and critical success factors for ecological network implementation. In order to achieve this, an analytical framework based on the methodological background of a stakeholder analysis was developed.

A stakeholder analysis is a qualitative survey whose purpose is to analyse relationships and conflicts between stakeholder groups (actors). The goal is to gain a better understanding of the system, to involve the target players and to identify their different interests in the system. Stakeholder analysis is the most widespread practical approach to analysing actors and is based on certain fundamental concepts (e.g. advocacy coalition framework, “argumentative turn”, policy network approach, game theory), bearing in mind the multi-actor context of policy-making (Hermans, 2005). According to (Elias et al. 2004), who carried out a synthesis on the views of authors who consider stakeholder analysis to be a useful tool, this form of analysis helps in understanding problems to do with complexity and compatibility, discovering patterns of interaction, improving interventions through analysis, managing decision making, and predicting conflicts. According to (Stringer et al. 2006), stakeholder analysis is a useful tool for selecting relevant groups to engage in social learning activities. They see social learning activities as an important participatory approach in environmental management, as it leads to an understanding and appreciation of opposing views. This forms the basis for engaging in joint project implementation, as with ecological networks. Figure 1 below gives an overview of the linkages between different aspects involved in the issue of stakeholder involvement in ecological network implementation.

11

Figure 1: Analytical framework for stakeholder analysis in the “KEN” Project

Source: Illustration by author based on literature review

Conclusions for managing stakeholder involvement in order to achieve implementation without major conflicts

“Relation to the issue“

Problem

Solution

Environment/ area where ecological network implementation takes place

Network of actors

Stakeholder

Stakeholder

“Relation to each other“

Stakeholder

“Ecological networks“

“Biodiversity loss“

Individual stakeholder

Attitude/perception

Interest/objective

Behaviour/ action

+ Resources/power Impact of action

Institutions to catalyse stakeholder involvement

“Barriers/

success factors“

Level of stakeholder involvement

Hypothesis: Implementation difficulties due to wide range of stakeholders

How to catalyse stakeholder involvement?

12

Taking this framework as a basis, the methodological instruments used for research are those of qualitative social research. A qualitative questionnaire backed up by a smaller quantitative questionnaire was used (see ANNEX 6.6). The short quantitative section was developed in support of the qualitative interviews in order to underline certain key aspects and facilitate a comparison of results from the four partner countries involved in the project. These questions are not statistically representative and are being used for illustrative purposes only.

In Bavaria (Germany) a total of 31 individuals at different administrative levels (local to regional) and from different sectors, such as agriculture, nature conservation, forestry, hunting, transport, water management, landscape planning, construction, civic groups, education and tourism, were interviewed (face-to-face).

In the Yorkshire and Humber region (England) 20 qualitative interviews were conducted via phone with representatives of key stakeholders identified as significant in the England Desk Study. The quantitative part of the questionnaire was answered by a spatially stratified sample of 31 delegates (including 18 of the individuals who participated in the qualitative interviews before) from different sectors (agriculture, nature conservation, forestry, water management, spatial planning, landscape planning, general public) during a sub-regional workshop.

In Karlovacka County (Croatia) 15 interviews (face-to-face) were conducted at regional and local level with people working in different sectors (agriculture, nature protection, forestry, hunting, fisheries, spatial planning, construction, tourism and economics).

In the canton Sankt Gallen (Switzerland) 9 interviews had been done (by telefon and face-to-face) with interviewees of the fields agriculture, nature conservation, forestry, hunting, fishery and landscape planning.

The general interview structure for all partners was worked out by the Leibniz-Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF e.V.) and is based on the following four thematic complexes:

A) Importance of individual stakeholder (power, influence)

B) Perception of ecological networks (relationship to situation)

C) Cooperation and conflicts (relationship to each other)

D) Conclusions and recommendations for managing stakeholder involvement in the area/ barriers to implementation and critical success factors

The following chapters of this report refer to these topics and reflect the results of the interviews. A comparison of the four case studies is drawn and conclusions for each complex of the stakeholder analysis (A-C) are derived. In the end, general conclusions on barriers and factors of success (complex D) on the way to a functional European ecological network are drawn.

3 Stakeholder analysis

3.1 Key stakeholders – The power, influence and relevance of each stakeholder

Stakeholders from the different sectors involved in ecological network implementation (e.g. agriculture, transport) - henceforth called stakeholder groups – can be found at all levels, from the national to the local. Because a wide range of different stakeholders exists within the case studies, individual stakeholders were aggregated into stakeholder groups. The groups are quite broad so as to be applicable for all project partners (Croatia, Switzerland, UK). A list indicating which type of stakeholder are sorted into which stakeholder group can be viewed exemplary for the German case study in ANNEX 6.5, p. 39.

13

In the following, central aspects on the key stakeholders and general conditions in the case study regions are described in boxes for each case study region. The description is based on the reports of the partners.

The Bavarian case (Germany): About 58 % of the interviewees (31 individuals) came from the private sector and 42 % from the public sector. About one third of all our interviewees work on the regional level and two thirds mainly at project regional level. At the national level the Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN) was consulted for the purpose of assessing the role of Bavarian activities in the context of ecological network implementation efforts in Germany (further information concerning the national see (Siebert and Tiemann, 2007). About 70 % of the interviewees were rated as key stakeholders1. They come from the stakeholder groups agriculture, nature conservation, forestry, hunting, transport, water management, landscape planning, civic groups and tourism. All interviewees were asked how they rate their own influence on ecological network implementation. About 60 % rated their influence as “very high” (especially nature conservation authorities and land care associations) or “quite high”, about 25 % as “moderate” and 16 % as “low”. The individuals giving the answers “very high” and “high” fit in with those individuals we rated as key stakeholders.

At the regional level (Bavaria) the main implementation instrument for a Bavarian-wide ecological network according to the ABSP criteria is BayernNetz Natur, an umbrella institution for measure-based nature conservation in Bavaria. Its management is financed by the Ministry for the Environment, Health and Consumer Protection (StMUGV) which sets nature conservation targets and support programmes. Management is currently outsourced to a private landscape consultancy firm. This institutional structure makes it possible to bring the nature conservation interests of local initiatives in line with regional planning, which is vital for achieving a coherent ecological network (Bavarian-wide coordination). An extension service to authorities and NGOs wishing to implement nature conservation projects is provided. It also does monitoring and evaluation, albeit to a lesser extent due to a lack of human and financial resources.

The StMUGV cooperates with the Bavarian Ministry for Agriculture and Forestry (StMLF), which does agenda setting for targets and programmes in agricultural and woodland areas. Cooperation with the Forest Administration has been especially difficult in the past due to the existence of separate administrative structures for nature conservation in woodland areas. Furthermore, a controversially debated forest reform in 2005 (seperating the state forest into state administrations and commercially organised forest enterprises) required administrative capacities, resulting in nature conservation projects being given quite low priority over the last years, which is now changing for the better.

The main financial resources for the BayernNetz Natur projects come from state support programmes and a foundation under public law founded in 1982, the Bavarian Nature Conservation Fund (Bayrischer Naturschutzfonds). The purpose of this fund is the conservation of species and biotopes and the establishment of ecological network structures as a basis for a Bavarian-wide ecological network. Funding comes from the yields of the foundation’s asset base (€ 51.1m) and from private donations. The asset base was built up by selling Bavarian real estate.

The Bavarian Academy for Nature Conservation and Landscape Management (ANL), which is a state-supported (StMUGV) education and research institution, conducts a large number of seminars on nature conservation in order to link research and education in Bavaria.

1 According to GTZ guidelines for stakeholder analysis a key stakeholder can be viewed as someone who

possesses at least two of the three core functional elements legitimacy, resources and relationships/connections with a “high” rating (Zimmermann and Maennling, 2007)

14

Another set of important actors are non-governmental organisations (NGOs). The Land Care Associations (LCAs) are a very important stakeholder for ecological network implementation, which is locally rooted and at the same time networking on a regional level. The first German Land Care Association (LCA) was founded in Bavaria in 1986 to enhance co-operation between groups of environmentalists, farmers and local politicians, all of whom are represented equally on the board of each LCA. They work according to the principle of voluntarism and have no sovereign rights. Due to this form of constitution, the LCAs enjoy a high level of legitimacy and are well accepted by all stakeholder groups. They are financed both by operating as a service provider that implements nature conservation measures financed through state programmes (e.g. agri-environmental schemes) and by membership subscriptions. According to (Anheier et al. 2002) self-organisation, public spirit and dedication to public concerns are three indicators that point to the existence of potential in the sphere of civil society. The LCAs show such a potential and were therefore allocated to the stakeholder group “civic groups”. We also allocated the nature conservation associations (like Friends of the Earth Germany, Bavaria section2 (BUND Bayern) and the Bavarian Society for the Protection of Birds3 (LBV)) to this group due to their strong commitment to public concerns and the fact that people from various occupational backgrounds are engaged in nature conservation NGOs. These groups are very supportive of the ecological network concept. Compared to other German Länder, Bavaria has a powerful nature conservation lobby group with good contacts to the authorities at regional and national level and a strong internal network of local groups. This is due to the fact that nature conservation has a long tradition (this was pointed out by various interviewees). One organisation representing the hunters is the so-called “Wildlandstiftung4”. It is also a licensed nature conservation organisation, but has a clear occupational background and is therefore allocated to the stakeholder group “hunters”. It is also very active in its commitment to corridors for wild game and projects for wildlife conservation. The Bavarian Farmers Union (BBV) varies enormously in its perception of ecological networks, depending on the region concerned. At regional level its attitude is critical, whereas its activities at local level - and especially the attitude of individual members (farmers) on the ground - are in some cases (e.g. in the Kelheim area) very supportive.

At the local project level a different picture can be drawn for each project region. This is due to the fact that the Kelheim area is a rural area, whereas the “Sandachse” project was implemented in a metropolitan region. In the rural area the main land user groups are farmers (including shepherds) und foresters. Due to the long history of successful nature conservation projects that brought money and ideas into a region with large areas of abandoned land, farmers are very supportive. An atmosphere of trust has developed among the local actors. The tourism sector is another important stakeholder that enables nature conservation to occur in tandem with an increase in income. One example of such a win-win situation is sheep production used for landscape conservation on the one hand and for special tourist meals on the other, as has been implemented in the region in a project coined “Altmühltaler Lamm”5. Also important are the water management sector and the authorities working in it, given that the region contains river valleys that are very valuable for nature conservation. These authorities have also been very supportive in the past.

In both projects, the Land Care Associations proved to be a key stakeholder, with a high level of legitimacy and with no obvious conflict potential. The Associations provide a contact forum for different stakeholders, offering support in planning, coordinating and implementing various project activities connected with nature conservation at local level. They also act as a mediator in case of conflicts. In addition, actors in both regions mentioned the importance of support from local politicians and administrations without sector affiliation (local authorities

2 http://www.bund-naturschutz.de/

3 http://www.lbv.de/menu-oben/english.html

4 http://wildland-stiftung.de/index2.html

5 http://www.altmuehltaler-lamm.de/inhalt.html

15

and districts). When mayors and heads of the rural district authorities back a certain idea, it is much easier, according to the interviewees, to bring together the other stakeholder groups. The range of land users in the “Sandachse Franken” project area is much broader, as transportation (on road, by air, on water), the construction industry and private firms also play a major role. Because of this, the project management implemented a special agency called “Sandachse Agency”, whose role was to talk to all these stakeholders in order to integrate them into the project and to convince them of the usefulness of taking part in the network. The most convincing argument for the private land users was voluntariness and the opportunity to participate for a certain time without setting the integrated areas of the network in stone. This gives them an opportunity to earn good publicity for doing something for the common good while maintaining their flexibility for economic activities in the future.

The Yorkshire and Humber Region case (UK): The range of stakeholders participating in the analysis included civic groups, landscape planners, spatial planners, water resource managers, foresters, conservationists and agricultural advisors (representing a limited sub-set of a much wider range of potential stakeholder groups). The interviews revealed a number of additional stakeholder groups that were perceived as being important to ecological network implementation in England as well, such as scientific research, tourism and transport. Public sector organisations (about 75 %), as well as the local and sub-regional administrative scales (about 85 %), were most commonly represented in the study. In general, there was a perception that ecological networks and the England Habitat Network (EHN), in particular, would make a positive contribution across most of the work areas that were relevant to the stakeholders who were interviewed. Their contribution was perceived as limited by a couple of stakeholders however. Most of the stakeholders had significant experience in spatial planning, land management and/or nature conservation. Financial resources were limited in most instances and the main route to implementation was largely perceived as being through personal influence. This was directly related to the use of individual knowledge and experience in relation to daily activities. There was a general undercurrent to most interviews that suggested a lack of shared responsibility for implementation. Clearer leadership may be needed to drive implementation forward. Influence was perceived by most as being reasonable. Opportunistic actions, that were associated with existing partnerships, were seen as a good route to delivery in this respect. Most stakeholders who participated in the survey felt that they only had a moderate ability to influence ecological network implementation (50 %). Just one interviewee stated his influence as “high” and about 30 % of the interviewees stated their influence as “quite high”, where as 20 % saw it as “very low”. Information provision among the stakeholders was generally good and many organisations had internal systems that were able to provide contextual information on habitats and designated land although few had access to any information that explicitly defined connectivity between existing sites, such as the EHN. Only very limited use appeared to be made of external information sources. The key stakeholders were mostly associated with a relatively narrow range of other stakeholders. Traditionally, environmental initiatives and projects in England have followed a similar pattern and have not engaged with all the potential stakeholder groups who might be able to influence outcomes in terms of practical delivery. One interviewee stated the opinion that integration of a wider range of stakeholder groups, especially within the business community, can be problematic as a considerable amount of effort is required to maintain an active engagement.

The Karlovacka county case (Croatia): Due to Croatia's institutional structure study focuses on stakeholders within this county that represent the regional (Karlovacka county) (70 % of our interviewees) and the local level (30 % of our interviewees). Stakeholders interviewed include all relevant sectors in Karlovačka county - spatial planning, construction, forestry, agriculture, fisheries, tourism, nature protection, hunting, and economics. Following institutions were stated as being of great importance:

16

CROATIAN FORESTS - COUNTY ADMINISTRATION. They are very important stakeholders especially when management of CRO NEN sites is concerned. In Karlovacka county foresters are supportive of the implementation of ecological network. They are one of the good examples of benefits that early involvement (in all phases) brings to implementation of CRO NEN. ADMINISTRATIVE DEPARTMENT FOR SPATIAL PLANNING, CONSTRUCTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION deals with administrative work, analysis, planning and other assignments in connection with spatial planning, construction and environmental protection within the jurisdiction of the County. Its relevance is high since spatial plans should incorporate information from all sectors and take into account all areas of special importance to nature when planning new touristic, natural (green) and building areas and developing new infrastructure. Most of its staff are already familiar with the term ecological network but their perception still fluctuates from neutral to negative. The reason for negative perception is a usually result of misconception of ecological network concept, seeing it as strict protection and as areas where no further development is allowed. ADMINISTRATIVE DEPARTMENT FOR ECONOMY AND COMMUNAL AFFAIRS. Its relevance comes from their insight on economical situation within a county. They were involved in final stage of preparation of ecological network but only through consultation process within the ministries. At a regional level they think their influence is very small. Their position is supportive but they had expected their involvement in the planning phase preparation to be stronger. KARLOVAC COUNTY TOURIST ASSOCIATION. Tourist association can be very helpful in providing information on protected areas and CRO NEN sites in cooperation with the public institution for management of protected areas in Karlovacka county. It can be a starting point for promoting CRO NEN and nature protection as a whole. THE SPORT FISHING ASSOCIATION (SFA) is important for its constant presence in the field. The association uses nature resources and is very often the first ones to notice any significant change in the area. As many ponds and lakes are a part of CRO NEN - important ornithological sites - it is very important to provide the SFA with information about those sites (if they are used by the SFA) and about nature protection measures and as well as with management guidelines that the SFA can incorporate in its management plans. For now the association is supportive. HUNTING ASSOCIATION. Their importance, same as for fishermen, is their constant presence in the field so every disturbance to nature can be reported to competent authorities. Their management plans could also incorporate management guidelines for CRO NEN sites. Their position is supportive. It was their early involvement that resulted in more confidence, raised awareness and better co-operation of all interest groups. CROATIAN AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION INSTITUTE (CAEI). CAEI educates farmers in measures of good agricultural practice and other measures beyond GAP that include those designed for managing target species and habitats of CRO NEN. The institute is important because of its direct work with users of natural resources and its power to transfer important information directly to individual farmers about CRO NEN. PUBLIC INSTITUTION FOR MANAGEMENT OF PROTECTED AREAS IN KARLOVACKA COUNTY (PI).

Their importance is very high since they are the ones that should lead the implementation of CRO NEN in a County. But, since they are under-capacitated and until this year they did not have financial background to change that or start some new activities concerning ecological network sites earlier, their work is very hard. Other sectors like spatial planning and construction or water management are still too strong and are leading the county's development. It became clear that these stakeholders are the most relevant when CRO NEN is concerned. In theory, all stakeholders that are in any way connected to certain area, whether they are managing or just using it, must be taken into account from highest to lowest level (private citizens), governmental and non-governmental institutions as well as association of citizens. But when talking about relevance and their power to influence, governing institutions usually are the most important and their lack of knowledge or their misconceptions about CRO NEN and Natura2000 concept can be a problem. Through the interviews it was found out that little

17

if any information has until now trickled down to some of the local level or even regional level institutions. Karlovacka County is one of the most perspective counties in Croatia. In the last 10 years its economy has risen dramatically. In the last 4 years, the rise of total income on a county level is a result of positive trends in three of the most important branches: processing industry, whole and retail sale and construction. Connected to this, development of new infrastructure and building areas has been accelerated. Those sectors lead the development of Karlovacka County and implementation of ecological network depends highly on their negative or supportive position. Most of them, especially investors, see it as "obstacle" in a further development. That is another reason why activities in informing and education have to be improved.

The canton Sankt Gallen case (Switzerland): According to the interviews the major part of work done in order to implement ecological networks currently lies in planning and coordination. In the Canton guidelines exist for the implementation of ecological network projects. Most of the interviewees (6) state their influence on implementation of ecological networks as “quite high”. Several different network projects in the area of forestry, water management and agriculture are in conduction.

What can be concluded for Stakeholder involvement?

In order to implement ecological networks a coalition consisting of a wide range of different stakeholders from all administrative levels is needed. Taking all case studies in mind these stakeholders come from the following sectors: agriculture, civic groups, construction, economics, fisheries, forestry, hunting, nature protection, scientific research, spatial planning, tourism, transport and water management. All cases show that state authorities have considerable influence on the overall development of ecological networks through planning activities, providing general guidelines for implementation and financing (agri)-environmental or nature conservation programmes. As the English case show a lack of coordination and clear leadership might be a problem leading to the fact that the main route to implementation is personal influence and existing partnerships ignoring a wide range of stakeholders. However, implementation on the ground depends on the assistance of local stakeholders. The Swiss case also shows that planning and coordination occur at higher level (national), but implementation is done locally taking in mind the existing national guidelines for implementation. In the Bavarian case civic groups, which are well organised, are the “creative minds” in this process and do initiate new projects. They are the ones who bring different stakeholder groups together. In particular, the Land Care Associations which work according to the principle of voluntary participation, showed ability to involve stakeholders who are initially sceptical by building confidence on the basis of their legitimacy and their continuity in terms of staffing. The Croatian case shows that all stakeholder groups are of some importance. However,t governing institutions and those among them which have economic influence, such as industry and construction, are the most powerful ones. Economic power in a sector means also power in land use decision. As the German and the Croatian cases show, influence of agriculture and forestry groups declines while groups connected to industry and construction gain power when areas are more densely populated and economy is growing. A lack of knowledge or misconceptions about ecological networks within the powerful groups (in Croatia currently especially a problem at lower administrative levels) hinder the implementation. Therefore, information and education on the advantages of ecological networks are seen as very important. In the English case, information, knowledge and experience are seen as quite good among all stakeholder groups, but a general lack of resources for implementation is still stated, due to the fact that other sectors are nevertheless given more importance. Thus, funding of nature conservation projects remains a central problem. As the Bavarian case shows, implementation of a huge amount of projects was possible by the existence of a foundation having ecological networks as one of its primary objectives.

18

3.2 Stakeholder perceptions - relationship to the situation

This section analyses stakeholders’ perceptions of the ecological network concept and its implementation in the case study areas. It analyses what “ecological network” means to the stakeholders and whether they felt adequately integrated in the implementation process.

What does the term “ecological network” mean to you?

All cases show that the term ecological network meant a number of different things to different stakeholders. The study revealed a wide variety of views on the issue. In all cases the majority of interviewee perceptions were centred on a physical dimension considering aspects of connectivity, landscape permeability but also ecological processes within the areas are considered. In the German case, interviewees also referred to an interpersonal aspect viewing ecological networks as a concept that exists mainly in peoples’ minds, bringing various stakeholders together and channelling their local activities into nature conservation projects. The spatial dimension or physical connectivity is always a point of discussion. Some people think that ecological networks have to be fixed as physical networks for a long period of time in order to function well, while others think that they can be flexible and functional at the same time. The English case furthermore showed that connectivity can even have negative effects for some species due to the potential spread of diseases and invasive non-native species (especially in river systems). What is seen as an ecological network depends on the working situation of the person and on the project in question. As the German case show the term “ecological network” in itself often does not mean much to local stakeholders, but they like the idea of having a defined project in their region. They therefore support the concept, albeit in a rather indirect manner, without exactly determining what an ecological network might be. It was also said that the term itself (in German “Biotopverbund”) has a negative connotation because of negative experiences during the process of Natura 2000 site selection; this led to the fear of experiencing further constraints in relation to land use. Equally, however, the connection to Natura 2000 and its international dimension may also have positive effects because it leads to a growing awareness of the value of a region, and this also promotes acceptance of nature conservation measures. The Croatian case showed the same,;stakeholders that were not involved in consultation processes before the decree on ecological networks was enacted by the government see it as an imposed obligation and impediment to development. They express serious concerns about full legislative implementation. Whereas stakeholders who have been involved from the beginning consider ecological networks to be a mechanism of species protection defined through Croatian laws arising from obligations in a process of EU approximation.

Which spatial dimension comes to mind when referring to ecological networks?

The scale that interviewees most often associated with ecological networks appeared to be determined, to a certain extent, by the scale at which they worked. Those who referred to the national or international level were mainly those who also worked at a higher administrative level. People working in concrete ecological network implementation (local projects) on the ground often fail to see the larger dimension of ecological networks. However, working in projects related to the issue of ecological networks also fosters an understanding of the relevance of such local projects to the worldwide effort to preserve biodiversity. Many interviewees subsequently emphasised that, in practice, ecological networks should be considered at all scales because of the highly variable requirements of different species. The regional level was the one named most often in all cases, due to the fact that planning and coordination needed to make networks functional occurs at that level. In the English, the German and the Swiss case, the local level is seen as very important, whereas the international and also the national dimension is considered as existent but not that important for implementation. In Croatia this is viewed vice versa; just 3 % of all interviewees saw the local dimension, but 37 % referred to the international and 30 % to the national dimension. The German interviewees also reported difficulties in terms of working together with other districts, due to the existence of different working procedures and principles; this was cited

19

as a factor for why they felt it was better to stay at the local level, where actors know each other. In Bavaria there is no stronger preference for working together with other German Länder compared to working together at an international level.

In your view, what significance does the ecological network concept have?

How do you weight the importance of ecological networks as opposed to other nature conservation measures?

In a questionnaire for an ECNC study in 20036 the question “Do you think that ecological networks will contribute to the conservation of habitats, ecosystems and species?” was answered with “yes” (the categories given were “yes”, “no”, “don’t know”) by 98% of the 107 interviewees from all over Europe. In order to obtain more specific responses, more categories were offered in our study. In the German case we also received answers in the positive categories only. 42 % of the 31 interviewees answered “Yes, they are the solution” and about 23 % answered “Yes, but only a little”; the rest of the interviewees created a third category in between these two. During discussions it became clear that there was a need for a third “Yes” category; even though ecological networks are an important concept and instrument for nature conservation (also for strategic reasons in politics), they are just one among many in some interviewees’ perception. This was the opinion of most of the interviewees in the other case studies too. Ecological networks are not an alternative to existing approaches, e.g. as protected areas important “nodes” in ecological networks, but a supplementary approach that will allow protected areas to adapt to climate change. In the Bavarian case several stakeholders from nature conservation, civic groups and landscape planning referred to the common agricultural policy as the one factor that influences the whole land use system and, as such, has a huge influence on the functionality of a network. In addition, it was stated that wild life conservation programmes for specific species are also very important measures. In general, the goal of the concept is viewed as good; however, the implementation on the ground is a problem. In the Bavarian case lack of knowledge about the real effect of ecological networks on species is also viewed as a problem. According to these respondents, there should be more monitoring activities in order to measure the success of projects. The ecological network concept was also described as a concept based on politicking, with few proven effects.

What is your position regarding the implementation of the ecological network concept?

Did your position change during the project/your work on the issue?

What are the most convincing arguments for you to participate, or not to participate, in the implementation process?

In the Bavarian case the majority of our interviewees (77 %) responded to the first question with “very supportive” and 19 % answered “supportive”; just one person opted for “neutral”. This is due to the fact that we chose people for the interviews who are engaged somehow in ecological network implementation. This was the case in the other case studies as well. In the English case the workshop on ecological networks where the interviewees took part seemed to create some positive reinforcement. Also in the Bavarian case, people’s positions had become more positive (or stayed very supportive as in the first place) by working in that area. In general, greater awareness of nature conservation issues and of biodiversity in particular has been established during the last years. In the Croatian case, just one stakeholder group, the physical planners, saw the concept very sceptical. They thought is would be necessary to incorporate management (conservation) measures into spatial plans so that investors would be able to calculate with these right from the starting point of their investment plans. In the Bavarian case interviewees from the agriculture stakeholder group reported that in the past there had been fears around the issue of contact between the stakeholder groups agriculture and nature conservation or civic groups. Those involved in

6 (Rientjes and Roumelioti, 2003)

20

agriculture feared that limitations in land use options would be imposed on them. These fears had been overcome by a process of confidence building among the local stakeholders over a longer time period and by the principle of voluntary participation. Besides this, the fact that nature conservation projects were able to bring financial resources to the region, generating benefits for various stakeholders and the community as a whole, was very convincing. The nature conservation group was also convinced to participate because it meant doing something about fragmentation and getting involved alongside other European neighbours. A further argument is that the concept operates to counteract the potential extinction of species due to climate change. Landowners and users from the private sector in Bavaria also reported that the most convincing argument for them to participate was that the areas of the network were not fixed by law, allowing them the flexibility they need to use land differently in the future. Various interviewees from the civic group in Bavaria highlighted voluntariness (of participation in the projects) together with a consensus orientation and long-term relationships (stability) as the most convincing factors for their partners (land owners and users) to participate. They see integrative projects like the “Sandachse Franken” (large and small ones) as the way to implement ecological networks. There is a need for more than nature conservation measures in the spatial dimension alone: the network also has to be in people’s minds in order for change to occur in the long term. As such, environmental education and information for the public were seen as very important by the majority of interviewees in this group. However, the group is not univocal on this issue: others (albeit fewer people) expressed the opinion that a network is only a network if it is visible in a spatial dimension and that the major emphasis should be on acquisition of areas for nature conservation (site-based nature conservation). These contradictory opinions (different paradigms) led to some conflicts during the implementation phase of the “Sandachse” project. In the English case, climate change adaptation was perceived as the most convincing argument that supported ecological network implementation. This was seen as both a practical measure and a political expediency. The political agenda created by climate change was perceived as a stronger incentive for action than biodiversity conservation drivers (like e.g. CBD). In the Croatian case, tourism development on ecological network sites is viewed as a good argument for further efforts.

In which policy or project phases of the implementation process of ecological networks are/were you involved?

Did you feel that you were involved at the right time and extensively enough?

As the implementation of ecological networks comprises different phases and the quality of the initial phases influences the output of the following ones, it is interesting to know if key stakeholders are integrated in earlier phases. Acceptance grows when stakeholders take part right from the beginning (for further information, see (Siebert and Tiemann, 2007) section 3.2.3). In the Bavarian case 65 % of the interviewees, took part during the planning phase, 90 % said that they are/were engaged in implementation on the ground and 48 % said that they take part in various kinds of monitoring and/or evaluation activities. The high degree of participation in the planning phase is explained by the fact that we talked mainly to people in superior positions who were key stakeholders and often represented a larger group of stakeholders. Interviewees in both project regions all felt that they were involved early enough and nearly all that they were sufficiently involved, or else the question could not be answered, because it was the respondent’s job to involve others. Those who had not taken part in planning stated that they didn`t want to because it is not their job. From these results one can conclude that the involvement of key stakeholders was quite good, even though it cannot be assumed that we talked to all relevant stakeholders, as the critical ones often refused to take part in interviews. The interviewees we talked to at project level were all very motivated to continue their work. Especially in the “Sandachse” project region, respondents expressed their frustration about the fact that funding further activities has become so difficult and that the project cannot be continued even though it had integrated such a large number of different stakeholders and had tried out new ways of creating ecological networks. The English case implicates that integration of local information and local opinion in a consistent

21

and repeatable manner into initiatives is the basis to reduce conflict potential. The Croatian case where the ecological network was planned on a state level, and stakeholders of the regional level were consulted just to a limited extent (just 18 % of the interviewees were involved during the planning phase), show that stakeholders feel they have not been involved on time nor to a satisfying extent. In that case all stakeholder groups expressed the need for better coordination and information materials on ecological networks.

What can be concluded for stakeholder involvement?

How an ecological network is defined depends to a large extent on the actual working situation of a stakeholder. The majority of perceptions are centred on a physical to functional dimension considering aspects of connectivity, landscape permeability but also ecological processes within the areas. Working in a specific project or taking part in workshops on the theme brings about a higher degree of understanding of the ecological network concept and the relevance of single projects (local dimension) for the international dimension. Generally, the concept is viewed positively by people who have already been involved in the planning phase before legislation was enacted; otherwise it is viewed as an imposed obligation impeding economic development. The national level in general does not seem to play such an important role, because implementation occurs on the regional to local level. Ecological networks are seen as an important instrument for biodiversity conservation, but it was said that other factors e.g. well protected areas as a basis or the manner of cultivation in agriculture - and thus the common agricultural policy –play an important role as well. In the German case one point of conflict is the extent to which ecological networks need to be spatially fixed for a long time (e.g. by land purchase) in order to be functional, or whether they could be flexible areas. The interviewees’ opinion was that in order to clarify the real effects of different ways of implementing ecological networks, more monitoring activities are needed instead of just politicking. Public relations and environmental education are seen as very important for creating awareness and a common understanding as a basis for further action in all cases. Generally, a growing understanding of the need for nature conservation as well as of the need to involve key stakeholders in all phases is observed in recent years. In the Bavarian case, most convincing arguments for participating in ecological network projects were the principle of voluntariness and economic benefits. Financial benefits resulting from the nature conservation projects were offered for a wide range of different stakeholders in the region, showing that nature conservation may also mean economical development. But also knowledge and the understanding that ecological networks may help to counteract problems developing from climate change and serve as an argument to participate in implementation of ecological networks, as the English case showed.

3.3 Stakeholder relationships to each other – cooperation, conflicts and forms of involvement

This section analyses the relationships among the stakeholder groups. It clarifies which groups are seen as key stakeholders and which methods were used to involve them.

Who are the key stakeholders for ecological network implementation?

The interviewees were asked to name all stakeholders relevant to their work and then to specify whether these were key stakeholders for implementing ecological networks or just somehow important partners; they were also asked about the nature of the relationship, from “very good” to “conflictive”. In the Bavarian case the individual stakeholders are assigned to the stakeholder groups in accordance with the scheme showed in annex 6.57.

7 This means that any interviewee could mention a group several times if there were more than one actor fitting

in a group; the results were aggregated later on.

22

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Agricu

lture

Natur

e Con

serv

atio

n

Fisher

ies

Fores

try

Huntin

g

Trans

port

Energ

y

Wate

r Man

agem

ent

Spatia

l/Reg

ional

Planni

ng

Land

scap

e Pla

nnin

g

Const

ructi

on in

dustry

Civic

grou

ps

Touris

m

Loca

l poli

tics a

nd a

dmin

istra

tion

Named stakeholders

Ho

w o

ften

nam

ed

Important

Key stakeholder

Figure 2: Summary of interviewee opinions: named stakeholders and their felt relevance for the ecological network implementation process in German case study area

Figure 2 shows the sum of opinions of the interviewees regarding which are the key or at least important stakeholder groups. The issue of importance can be seen in the frequency with which the stakeholder group is named by the 31 interviewees and also in the different patterns within the bars showing whether it is a key stakeholder or not. Figure 2 shows clearly that nature conservation authorities, civic groups (including nature conservation associations and land care associations, and thus project providers and project management) and agriculture (including farmers, their associations and agricultural authorities) are the groups most often mentioned. In addition to this, “local politics and administration” proved to be a very important one. Cooperation with the latter group depends largely on the goodwill of individuals, but it is the stance taken by senior members of the local administrations that decides how effective implementation will be.

Regarding the funding aspect a foundation (Bavarian Nature Conservation Fund) is another very important actor, which is not considered seperately in the figure.

The Swiss case also named nature conservation, agriculture and local politics and administration as the key partners. Furthermore private landscape planning firms (Ökobüros) are mentioned as key stakeholders.

In the English case also nature conservation and agriculture were the key stakeholder group named most often, followed by water management spatial/regional planning, but civic groups were just named as important.

In Croatia all interviewees agreed on the point that national and regional governments are key stakeholders. Other stakeholders were named as well, but differ enormous depending on the working area of the interviewee. The comparison of the cases shows that nature conservation and agriculture are central actors, but it depends on the institutional structure of the countries which sectors and organizations are furthermore viewed as key stakeholders.

How cooperation among the key actors is assessed?

23

What is leading to good cooperation? When do conflicts grow? What is done to solve conflicts?

The case studies showed that there might be conflicts in relation to all types of stakeholder groups. There is no consistent conflict party. Nevertheless there is an indication of where conflicts might occur more often. Conflicts occur readily with all land users and owners and therefore more often among agriculture, forestry and nature conservation. In the case of agriculture, the farmers’ union was sometimes seen as conflictive, as are individual farmers, whereas cooperation with the agricultural sector in the projects in general was seen as good. At the same time, it was also mentioned that sometimes stakeholders from the nature conservation authority side or individuals in nature conservation associations generate conflict due to their strong principles and a poor ability to cooperate by finding consensus between nature conservation and economic concerns. A significant degree of pessimism appeared to be present in relation to the over-riding strength of economic interests, e.g. when it comes to the question of nature conservation vs. job creation. Conflicts often develop from negative experiences in the past leading to difficulties in today`s cooperation. “Round tables” are viewed as a very good method to solve conflicts, because willingness to discuss problems increase and often it is even possible to create some sort of win-win-situation (e.g. tourism). But Round tables may lead to frustration when they are used solely for passing on information without giving space for participative decision-making. This results in a lower participation of stakeholders in the long run. In general, the case studies show that there is a need for better cooperation on sectoral level, because existent cooperation depends a lot on personal contacts between the sectors. “Neutral” (not representing a special stakeholder group) institutions like the LCAs in Germany show the way to reach better cooperation.

What kind of measures are applied in order to involve stakeholders in the implementation process of ecological networks?

Which ones do you consider to be very effective?

During the interviews we asked people which forms of involvement are in use (relevance) in their working area and how they would rate their effectiveness. The results for the Bavarian case can be seen in Figure 3 and those for the English case in Figure 4. The forms of involvement are presented from top to bottom, according to the increasing extent of stakeholder participation they allow (information -> information with feedback -> assisting decision making -> being part of decision making -> making the decision). Face-to-face communication is relevant in all levels of participation (information –> decision making). Public relations/public events and field trips were forms we had not thought of before but which were mentioned fairly often in the category “other” by the interviewees, hence their inclusion in the list. The results show that face-to-face information by means of direct conversation among the stakeholders is the form used most often as well as being the one which is seen as being most effective. Also used very often, not least for legal reasons, is the information letter. However, its effectiveness was rated as being quite low, similarly to written statements. Round tables are also viewed as very effective, at least those with decision making power. The open discussion forum was viewed as having low effectiveness due to its lack of specificity, often turning into a tittle-tattle club. The standing forum, by contrast, makes longer-term relationships possible and discusses concrete concerns; this is seen as being very effective or effective.

24

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Information letter

Meeting of association

Written statement/Consultation

Face-to-face information

Moderated w orking session

Thematic w orkshop

Open discussion forum

Round table (only input for decision)

Standing forum

Round table (w ith decision-making pow er)

Public Relation / Public Events

Field Trips

Named forms of

involvementHow often named

Very effective

Effective

Low effectivity

Figure 3: Summary of interviewee opinion: effectiveness of forms of involvement (Bavaria)

The English case show that the usual forms of involvement are to some extent different, but there exist also analogy (see Figure 4).

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Written Information

Consultation Meetings

Written Consultation

Participatory Workshops

ThematicWorkshops

Discussion Forum

Steering Group

Executive Committee

Other practical guidance and w w w

Named forms of

involvement

How often named

Very effective EffectiveLow effectivity

Figure 4: Summary of interviewee opinion: effectiveness of forms of involvement (England) (chequered bar =very effective; bar with crosses =effective; and stippled bar =not effective).

25

Moderated meetings and consultation meetings were seen as the most usual and effective way of involvement. This stays in line with what the German case showed (Moderated working session and round tables). The Swiss case and the Croatian case show the same tendency, because all forms of group meetings/discussions and face-to-face discussions/conversation were named as very effective forms, whereas “written information and written consultation/statements” were viewed as common practice (formal necessity), but with rather low effectiveness. In contrast the latter are viewed as very usual but also effective in the English case. In the Croatian case interviewees said that there have been conducted just some workshops until now, due to the fact that ecological network implementation efforts just started recently, but such meetings should be held more often as to show real effects.

How do you assess stakeholder participation in the projects in general?

Are there shortcomings? What should be done better?

In the Bavarian case the interviewees themselves felt well integrated by the above-mentioned forms during the implementation processes in both project areas, and their expectations regarding the degree of participation were generally met. The interviewees see the standards of involving different stakeholders by the above-mentioned forms as good or very good, although there might also be potential for improvement. In contrast in the English case it was seen as good to acceptable and about 20 % of the interviewees said it was insufficient. In the Croatian case ecological network is a very young concept and forms of involvement have not been used extensively yet. Interviewees in Bavaria also said that due to the heterogeneity of stakeholders, “perfect” participation is not possible: there will always be at least minor conflicts and disappointment for some groups and, as such, always an opportunity to improve something in the specific project on the ground. In the “Sandachse” project a special institution, the so called Sandachse Agency, provided information well adapted to the single stakeholder group by personal conversations, advisory service and joint activities. Thus a wide range of stakeholders could be convinced to participate. However, it was pointed out that such structures need to be long lasting. Continuity and reliability are seen as core elements for improving participation and cooperation. This is a decisive advantage of the LCAs. Its staff stays in the area for a long time and is not tied to projects only or to any special stakeholder group. LCAs were named by many interviewees as the organisation perfectly placed to implement ecological networks on the ground. A general problem often mentioned is that participation needs time and human resources. Projects do not provide enough funding for human resources in terms of establishing coordination/management structures in a sustainable way. This problem also becomes very obvious in the Croatian case. Implementation is the next step to go and interviewees expressed, in contrast to the German case, that their expectations on involvement have not been met during the planning phase. They expressed the need for more knowledge exchange, workshops and better information flow, but simultaneously point to the problem that this needs time and funding as well as human resources. Institution building is what is needed to channel the implementation process and balance top-down with bottom-up approaches.

What can be concluded for the management of stakeholder involvement?

It depends a lot on the individual case, but even more on the institutional structure of the case study region which sectors and organizations are viewed as key stakeholders. Nevertheless nature conservation authorities (at all administrative levels), agriculture (at regional to local level) and any kind of “planning institution” were the key stakeholders mentioned most often, followed by “local politics and administration” (local authorities), civic groups (just in the Croatian case these group does not seem to be that influential) and forestry. These groups at least need to be represented in management/coordination structures. Relationships among stakeholder groups can be conflictive within all groups, especially if actors are land owners or users; there is no single conflict party. Conflicts occur both at the regional level and at the project management level due to divergent understandings (different paradigms) of how ecological networks or in a broader context

26

nature conservation are to be implemented best. Conflictive relationships to land users and owners often develop from negative experiences in the past leading to difficulties in today`s cooperation (e.g Natura 2000). A significant degree of pessimism appeared to be present in relation to the over-riding strength of economic interests, e.g. if it comes to the question nature conservation or job creation. Any kind of direct communication (face-to-face via Round tables, workshops or individual talks) is seen as the most effective way to involve stakeholders and to avoid or resolve conflicts. In Germany and Switzerland Round Tables are very common and viewed as effective, but may lead to frustration when they are used solely for passing on information without giving space for participative decision-making. Information letters and written consultation are viewed as a formal necessity with low effectiveness in the German, the Croatian and the Swiss case whereas they were viewed as equally effective as meetings in the English case. The general standard of stakeholder involvement is different in the case study regions, but increases where a longer tradition in nature conservation project implementation is existent and powerfully organized civic groups act as “creative mind” and catalyst in the process. These civic groups promote the implementation process enormously, when obtaining a neutral position targeting win-win-situations, thus bringing key stakeholders together. Various well accepted instruments for involvement are in use, but continuity remains a problem. Established management structures need to be long lasting in order to be reliable and to generate sustainable stakeholder participation. Involvement is a slow process, as reliability and trust have to be built up; this is time consuming and requires permanently funded human resources and funds to conduct meetings in order to promote a lively debate among the stakeholder groups. Institution building of management and coordination structures is what is needed to channel the implementation process and balance top-down with bottom-up approaches.

4 Barriers and factors of success for managing stakeholder involvement in the area - Conclusions and recommendations

This chapter highlights the barriers to implementation and the factors of success. On the basis of a discussion of these and of the results presented in the previous chapters (stakeholder analysis 1-3, conclusions highlighted in grey boxes), a number of conclusions are drawn on how the management of stakeholders might work best.

Barriers to implementation:

A legal basis is central for ecological network implementation. According to the interviewees in the English case sooner implementation of ecological networks was mainly hindered by a lack of a statutory obligation.

The central problem seems to be how to bring together top-down planning on the national level, like REN or EHN, which is necessary for a consistent nation-wide ecological network as a basis for a pan-European network, and concrete regional/local implementation initiatives. In the English case, a scientifically sound plan exists, the EHT, as a planning tool for ecological networks at a national level, but it is not used by local planners. A central reason for its not use seems to be the missing integration of local knowledge. The Swiss case is showing the same; the REN, a nation-wide spatially concrete planning tool, is not used as much by the regional and local planners as intended by its producers (just one third of cantons use it at all). Reasons stated are the existence of better local data for planning, which are less abstract. Interviewees said that exemplary case studies how to use REN in an expedient manner for local planning are missing. In the German case this problem is solved very well at regional (Bavarian-wide) level by the ABSP as a planning tool and the coordinating structure of BayernNetz Natur. At the national level however, the problem is even more obvious than in the other cases. Interviewees pointed to the problem that, in contrast to the federal road plan, it has still not been possible to work out a federal landscape plan with spatially specific targets as an instrument for the implementation of ecological networks, nor is there a national action plan on biodiversity (there is just Article 3 of the

27

Federal Nature Conservation Act, telling that on 10% of the territory ecological networks should be implemented and the national strategy on biodiversity, which does not provide resources for implementation). As this work has not been done yet, efforts taken to implement ecological networks differ enormous among the German Länder. Bavaria with its ABSP, the institutional structure BayernNetz Natur and especially the two projects selected for the case study are exceptionally well working best practice examples (flagship projects).

Furthermore, the lack of resources (human and funds) due to low priority given to nature conservation is a reason for slow implementation as stated in all case studies. The economic interest of other stakeholder groups in the potential network areas is a general barrier to implementation. The higher prices for some agricultural products (e.g. crops and energy) are currently leading to competition over land and to higher land prices. This means that land owners are rarely willing to cooperate. Compensation has to be very high in order to convince farmers to cooperate in nature conservation projects8. The same is true for other land owners where competitive land use options exist and prices are high. Economic interests prevail when arguments become polarised, e.g. wildlife protection vs. job creation. In the English case there appeared to be a widespread view that linking ecological network implementation with the provision of key environmental “goods and services”, such as flood attenuation or recreation provision, might by effective at balancing interests.

To implement the ecological network concept a general paradigm change from the former more static and preservation-oriented site-based nature conservation to a more integrative, dynamic and innovative one is necessary. This change is still in process and interviewees in the German and the English case study regions named contradicting positions as one central cause for conflicts about resources for projects within the nature conservation stakeholder group itself.

Another problem mentioned by nature conservation and civic groups in the German case are the ever growing effects of red tape (bureaucracy), leading to the fact that the time available for concrete action using scarce human resources is progressively reduced. For land owners and users, the fuzziness of obligations associated with cooperation in nature conservation and the fear of potential sanctions was mentioned as a problem in the German and Croatian case study. In the German case the negative experience of the Natura 2000 site selection process is often mentioned as having resulted in prejudice towards the ecological network implementation projects. As trust is a key factor in cooperation, changes in staffing structures (especially if the person has an advisory function) and short funding periods for the projects are a big obstacle to long-term sustainability, according to interviewees in the German case study region. Several interviewees mentioned the problem that there are still too few monitoring activities on the real effects (on species but also on the socio-economic side) of ecological network projects.

Factors of success:

As a basis for a coordinated planning and implementation, spatially concrete and consistent maps at the national level (like the Swiss REN) are necessary. In order to bring these maps as a planning tool into practical use lower administrative levels need the possibility to include local data sources while still applying consistent, repeatable, and ecologically robust techniques. Exemplary case studies (as a teaching instrument) on how to use such planning tools in concrete nature conservation projects might promote the process. Future projects and action will need to adopt such a strategic perspective if existing connections are to be systematically improved instead of being rather coincidental. The Bavarian case study (Germany) provides a good example, albeit being implemented at regional level (in one federal state) only. A private landscape consultancy firm financed by governmental authorities coordinates the BayernNetz Natur initiative. It provides service to authorities and NGOs that want to implement nature conservation projects fitting into the ecological network

8 E.g. in 2007 there was such a low acceptance for the Bavarian programme on agri-environmental schemes

(KULAP), which had worked very well in the past, that the premiums for measures will now be doubled.

28

concept. Concrete project planning has to be based on the ABSP, which provides scientific knowledge (there is an update from time to time) at local level. Thus, the regional planning, which is vital for achieving a coherent ecological network, is brought in line with nature conservation interests of local initiatives.

The local initiatives are strong in Bavaria due to a long tradition of civic groups. The development of long lasting management structures by establishing powerful land care association significantly promoted nature conservation because an institutional structure was found for communication and for creation of win-win-situations. This led to trust among the different stakeholder groups, resulting in a lasting willingness on part of the stakeholders to implement further projects in a voluntary and cooperative way. In the “Sandachse” project the additional establishment of a specific management structure (the Sandachse Agency) that concentrated on involving a wide variety of stakeholders in an metropolitan region (Nuremberg) in a flexible manner, showed that ecological networks can even be established in regions where land prices are very high. Partners from private enterprises and administrations were won over by the convincing argument of “voluntariness and flexibility”, which enables land to be withdrawn if it is needed for other economic activities. A considerable amount of publicity and education events were carried out throughout the area. Thanks to this new way of developing ecological networks, the whole concept became very widely publicised and was well accepted by the general public in this area. Nevertheless, as also the English study shows, implementation of national ecological networks that embodies clear ecological principles will need to be driven by strategic priority setting across the country and need authorities for coordination as well.

A list of key factors for participatory implementation of ecological networks was drawn up previously on the basis of a literature review of factors of success for nature conservation projects and participatory processes (see Lichtenberg, 2003); Deutscher Verband für Landschaftspflege (DVL) e.V., 2007; Wiener and Rihm, 2002; Heiland, 2002; Böcher, 2002; Böcher and Krott, 2002a;Böcher and Krott, 2002b; Brendle, 1999). In Figure 5 it is demonstrated how this given list of factors was ranked by the interviewees in the Bavarian case study region (Germany).

0 5 10 15 20 25

Involvement of key stakeholders in planning process

Obvious personal benefit, Win-w in-situations

Advocates that are accepted

Resources for compensation and rew ards

experience and communicative skills of project managers

good project management

Time for trust building

Clear targets/ monitoring

Permanent public relations

Possibility to impose sanctions

“principle of voluntariness”

Face-to-face communication /extension service

Factors of success How often factor was named

Most important factor

very important

How often named aspotentially negligible

Figure 5: Summary of interviewee opinion (Bavaria) : Rating of the most important and very important factors for successful participatory implementation of ecological networks

29

The interviewees’ opinion regarding the factors was that it would be a good list, because all of them are important and in a well working project all of them would be needed. Nevertheless, resources for compensation and rewards for ecological services, involvement of key stakeholders from the very beginning, obvious personal benefit (financial or image/non-material) due to win-win-situations were the factors mentioned as the most important ones. These factors were followed by good project management and good experiences and communicative skills of project manager. The interviewees pointed out that these management factors are strongly correlated. Viewed together show that management by appropriate managers is regarded as very important. Good cooperation among regional stakeholders is a central point. In the German case, this was achieved by holding an annual meeting of the regional stakeholders. This enables ideas to be developed jointly on how to pursue ecological network implementation further, which can be applied by the participants to their specific working area (sector). Such meetings are also needed in the local project region. In the “Sandachse” project a project steering group was developed comprising the relevant stakeholder groups.

One factor was viewed critically: the ablity to impose sanctions. 13 interviewees (of 31) described it as having negative effects. The interviewees said that the ability to impose sanctions would destroy the good relations that existed among the stakeholder groups and that agriculture in particular - but also private companies - would withdraw from the projects if sanctions were imposed. The voluntariness is viewed as very important to promote participation of land users and owners.

The same factors were also asked for the English case (see Figure 6).

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Involvement of key stakeholders in planning process

clear benefit to organisations or individuals

Advocates that are locally/regionally based

financial rew ards and incentives

experience and communication skills

good project management

building trust betw een stakeholders

clear implementation targets and indicator monitoring

ability to impose sanctions for non-delivery

voluntary rather than statuary basis

Face-to-face communication /extension service

other: local know ledge, political support

Factors of success How often factor was named

Most important factor

very important

How often named as potentiallynegligible

Figure 6: Summary of interviewee opinion (England): Rating of the most important and very important factors for successful participatory implementation of ecological networks.

(chequered bar = most important; bar with crosses = very important; and stippled bar = negligible importance)

The involvement of stakeholders from the very beginning was mentioned as the most important factor, followed clear benefits and resources for compensation and rewards and project management skills. Sanctions are not viewed positive eighter, but the voluntariness is not viewed as important as in the German case, it is here the factor most suitable to be neglected. Voluntariness might also hinder the whole process because there is no need to participate in implementation.

30

In the Swiss case, financial rewards and incentives were characterised as most important. Early involvement of stakeholders was followed by communication, locally accepted advocates and public relations. Sanctions very viewed as negligible factor as well.

Also in the Croation case the involvement of stakeholders from the very beginning is viewed as the most important factor followed by resources for compensation and rewards and win-win-situations.

Factors directly connected to people and participation, such as stakeholder involvement from the very beginning and good management, are viewed as being just as important as factors having to do with funding. But if financial resources for compensation and incentives are small, participatory methods need to be very effective to convince land users and owners; or, vice versa, if there is ample funding, people may take part even though the use of participatory approaches might be low. As the the case studies illustrated, stakeholder involvement and funding together generate optimum results in terms of long lasting ecological networks implemented by committed stakeholders.

What can be concluded for the management of stakeholder involvement?

The key to management of stakeholder involvement in ecological network implementation is a systematic and participatory planning process. A systematic, evidence-based and scientifically robust framework is needed for strategic purpose at national level allowing to integrate local knowledge. Key stakeholders have to be involved in the planning phase right from the very beginning by participatory methods, like Round Tables or other forms of face-to-face meetings (written forms of involvement are viewed as less effective by the majority of interviewees). The establishment of sustainable and long lasting management and cooperation structures (institution building) at the regional level and at the project level (e.g. LCAs) is crucial for developing trust (needs time) among the different stakeholder groups and acceptance for the ecological network concept. A common understanding of the concept needs to be developed through discussion processes in order to promote a paradigm change from static and preservation-oriented, site-based nature conservation to a integrative, dynamic and innovative concept viewing ecological networks as an enrichment for existing nature conservation sites. On this common basis steps that need to be taken on the way to establishing functional national ecological network embedded in an international context can be devised; these processes need to be accepted by a wide range of stakeholders. They require time in which to develop effective structures, to discuss different points of view and to establish personal relationships; they also require appropriate funding in order to compensate stakeholders for their activities and to be able to establish professional and long lasting management based on continuity of staffing.

5 References

Anheier, H., Priller, E. and Zimmer, A. (2002). Zur zivilgesellschaftlichen Dimension des Dritten Sektors. In H.-D. Klingemann and F. Neidhard (eds.), Zur Zukunft der Demokratie. Berlin: 71-98.

BGB1 (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch) (2002). Gesetz über Naturschutz und Landschaftspflege (Bundesnaturschutzgesetz - BNatSchG). Passed at the 25-3-2002. BGB1: 1193.

Böcher, M. (2002). Kriterien für eine erfolgreiche nachhaltige Regionalentwicklung. Article arose from the BMVEL financed research project „Politikwissenschaftliche Begleitanalyse von Prozessen nachhaltiger Regionalentwicklung". Göttingen: Institut für Forstpolitik und Naturschutz der Georg-August-Universität. <http://www.leaderplus.de/downloads/free/hinterzarten.pdf>.

Böcher, M. and Krott, M. (2002a). Strategieempfehlung für Konsensverfahren in der Naturschutzpolitik - Ergebnisse eines FuE-Vorhabens. In K.-H. Erdmann and C. Schell (eds.), Naturschutz und gesellschaftliches Handeln - Aktuelle Beiträge aus Wissenschaft und Praxis. Bonn-Bad Godesberg: BfN, 169-182.

Böcher, M. and Krott, M. (2002b). Vom Konsens zur politischen Umsetzung - Wann verlaufen naturschutzpolitische Konsensprozesse erfolgreich? Natur und Landschaft 77(3):105-109.

Brendle, U. (1999). Musterlösungen im Naturschutz - Politische Bausteine für erfolgreiches Handeln. Ergebnisse aus dem F + E-Vorhaben des Bundesamtes für Naturschutz "Akzeptanzsteigerung im Naturschutz: Ermittlung von erfolgreichen und zukunftsweisenden naturschutzpolitischen Musterlösungen sowie Konfliktlösungs- und Vermittlungsstrategien". Bonn – Bad Godesberg: BfN.

Bundesregierung (2007). Nationale Strategie zur biologischen Vielfalt. Passed at the 07.11.2007.

Catchpole,R.D.J. (2008). England Desk Study. Knowledge for Ecological Networks: Catalyzing Stakeholder Involvement in the Practical Implementation of Ecological Networks in Europe. England: Natural England. (Report to ECNC).

Catchpole,R.D.J. (2008b). England Stakeholder Analysis. Knowledge for Ecological Networks: Catalyzing Stakeholder Involvement in the Practical Implementation of Ecological Networks in Europe. England: Natural England. (Report to ECNC).

DVL (Deutscher Verband für Landschaftspflege e.V.) (2007). Natura 2000 - Lebensraum für Mensch und Nature - Leitfaden zur Umsetzung. DVL-Schriftenreihe "Landschaft als Lebensraum", no. 11. Ansbach: DVL.

Elias, A. A., Jackson, L. S. and Cavana, R. Y. (2004). Changing positions and interests of stakeholders in environmental conflict: A New Zealand transport infrastructure case. Asia Pacific Viewpoint 45(1):87-104.

Heiland, S. (2002). Erfolgsfaktoren in kooperativen Naturschutzprojekten. In K.-H. Erdmann and C. Schell (eds.), Naturschutz und gesellschaftliches Handeln - Aktuelle Beiträge aus Wissenschaft und Praxis. Bonn-Bad Godesberg: BfN, 133-151.

Helfrich, R., Riess, W., Sachteleben, J., Schlapp, G., Simlacher, C., and Wagner, M. (in press). 20 Jahre Umsetzung des bayrischen Arten- und Biotopschutzprogramms (ABSP) - eine Erfolgsgeschichte? Natur und Landschaft.

32

Hermans, L. M. (2005). Actor analysis for water resources management - Putting the promise into practice. Netherlands: Faculty Technology, Policy and Management (dissertation), TU Delft.

Lichtenberg, T. (2003). Erfolgsfaktoren für Kooperation zur Umsetzung der CBD am Beispiel des regionalen Entwicklungskonzepts der Insel Rügen. In H. Korn and U. Feit (eds.), Treffpunkt Biologische Vielfalt III. Interdisziplinärer Forschungsaustausch im Rahmen des Übereinkommens über die biologische Vielfalt. Bonn - Bad Godesberg: BfN, 181-188.

PiU (2008). Identification and Analysis of Stakeholders for Ecological Network implementation in Switzerland. Knowledge for Ecological Networks: Catalyzing Stakeholder Involvement in the Practical Implementation of Ecological Networks in Europe. Switzerland: PIU. (Report to ECNC).

Rientjes, S. and Roumelioti, K. (2003). Support for ecological networks in European nature conservation - an indicative social map. Tilburg: European Centre for Nature Conservation (ECNC).

Siebert, R. and Tiemann, S. (2007). Desk Study on Determining the Current Status Regarding Practical Implementation of Ecological Networks in Germany. Müncheberg: ZALF e.V. (Report to ECNC).

Siebert, R., Tiemann, S. & Lange, A. (2008). Identification and Analysis of Stakeholders for Ecological Network implementation in Bavaria, Germany. Knowledge for Ecological Networks: Catalyzing Stakeholder Involvement in the Practical Implementation of Ecological Networks in Europe Müncheberg: ZALF e.V. (Report to ECNC).

SINP (2008). Identification and analysis of stakeholders for ecological network implementation in Croatia. Knowledge for Ecological Networks: Catalyzing Stakeholder Involvement in the Practical Implementation of Ecological Networks in Europe. Croatia: SINP (Report to ECNC).

StMUGV (Bayerisches Staatsministerium für Umwelt, Gesundheit und Verbraucherschutz) (2008). Strategie zum Erhalt der biologischen Vielfalt in Bayern - Bayerische Biodiversitäts-strategie. Passed at the 1-4-2008.

Stringer, L. C., Dougill, A. J., A.J., Fraser, E., Hubacek, K., Prell, C. and Reed, M. S. (2006). Unpacking "Participation" in the Adaptive Management of Social- ecological Systems: a Critical Review. Ecology and Society 11(2):39. [online] http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/art39/.

VöF (Verein zur Sicherung ökologischer Flächen Kelheim) (date not specified). Das Sallingabchtal: Ein projekt zur modellhaften Umsetzung des bayerischen Arten- und Biotopschutzprogrammes (ABSP). Regensburg. (Info Leaflet).

Wiener, D. and Rihm, I. (2002). Erfolgsfaktoren und Qualitätsstandards partizipativer Prozesse in Gemeinden, Quartieren, Städten und Regionen. Basel: Ecos.ch.

Zimmermann, A. and Maennling, C. (2007). Multi-stakeholder management. Tools for Stakeholder Analysis: 10 building blocks for designing participatory systems of cooperation. Eschborn: GTZ.

33

6 ANNEX

6.1 Information on case study region/ projects in Bavaria (Germany)

Figure 8: Map of Bavarian case study region

Source: Illustration by ZALF e.V.

“Sallingbachtal” project:

The area of the “Sallingbachtal” project is situated in the rural district of Kelheim in Lower Bavaria. The district covers an area of about 1,070 sq km and has a population of 113,000. Larger cities in Lower Bavaria include Regensburg, Landshut and Bayreuth. The largest city in the district itself is Kelheim with about 15,000 inhabitants. The Salllingbachtal area covers an area of 16 sq km between the municipalities of Abendsberg and Rohr. The area is dominated by the Danube and Isar rivers; wetland biotopes and water habitats are prominent features. In order to conserve and re-establish these habitats in accordance with traditional

Bavaria

Germany

34

forms of land use, the Sallingbach project was initiated in 1985, being one of the first ecological network projects in Bavaria. The main project partner and most important actor is the regional land care association (“VöF”), which includes representatives from local and regional authorities, farmers’ associations and nature conservation groups. The project is funded as a pilot project for implementing ABSP by the Bavarian Ministry for the Environment. The central measure was land purchase along the Sallingbach river. About 60 ha were purchased by the district of Kelheim as a contractor for about 750,000 euros. About 20,000 euros are spent there anually for biotope maintenance measures.

“Sandachse Franken” project9:

The project area includes seven “Landkreise” (rural districts) as well as five urban districts. It covers an area of 2,000 sq km with an extension of 100 km north-south and 40 km east-west respectively. About 1.5 m people live in the area, the largest cities being Nuremberg, Bamberg, Erlangen, and Fürth. The objectives of the “Sandachse” project include sand habitat conservation network establishment. The project was established against the background of declining sand habitats in the region within the past fifty years, down to 1% of the original area size, as well as a very high proportion of endangered species that exist only on sand surfaces. There is a large focus on information and educational work; project efforts are aimed at raising awareness and increasing the attractiveness of the area for residents and local companies. Cooperation and participation is emphasised. The project steering committee, as the most important decision-making body involved, includes members of all participating municipalities and rural districts, regional administrations as well as land care associations and conservation groups as the main project partners. The project had a budget of about 2.2 m euros over a period of six years.

6.2 Information on case study region/ projects in England

9 Official title: “Conservation and Development of Sand Habitats in the Regnitz Axis – Ecological Networks

along Rednitz, Pegnitz, and Regnitz”. [Online] URL http://www.sandachse.de/index.html.

35

Figure 9: Yorkshire and Humber Region and Workshop Focal Areas

Source: Catchpole 2008

Figure 10: England Habitat Network (EHN) and Urban Area Extent

Source Catchpole 2008

6.2 Information on case study region/ projects in England

36

6.3 Information on case study region/ projects in Croatia

Figure 11: Protected areas and sites of ecological network in Karlovacka County (Croatia)

Source: SINP 2008

6.4 Information on case study region/ projects in Switzerland

Figure 12: Cantons of Switzerland with case study area St. Gallen (encircled)

Source: PiU 2008

6.5 List of stakeholders from case study region allocated to stakeholder groups

Stakeholder groups Stakeholder (in German) Stakeholder (translation)

Agriculture Ämter für Landwirtschaft Agricultural Office at district level Ämter für Flurbereinigung Farmland Consolidation Authorities Landwirte Farmers Schäfer Shepherds Bayerischer Bauernverband (BBV) Bavarian Farmers Union Landesverband der Zuchtschäfer Bavarian Shepherds Union Nature Conservation Agentur Sandachse Project management HNB Upper Nature Conservation Authority Naturparkverwaltung Nature Park Administration UNB Lower Nature Conservation Authorities StMUGV/ Oberste NB Ministry for Environment as chief Nature

Conservation Authority Projektbüro Sandachse Project management Fishery Fischer/Angler Angler Teichwirte (Nutzer) Fishermen (with pond keeping) Forestry Forst (inkl. Forstbetriebe und -

verwaltung Foresters and Forest Administration at local to regional level

Bundesforsten für Truppenübungsplätze

Forest Administration at national level

Hunting Jäger Hunters Jagdverbände Hunters Union Wildlandstiftung " Transport Ämter für Straßenbau Administration for Road Construction Straßenbauverwaltung " Flughafen Nürnberg Airport Verkehrsplanungsamt Traffic Planning Authority Verkehrsverbund Nürnberg Transport Network/ Transportation

Association Energy E.on Private Energy Supplier Water Management Ämter für Wasserwirtschaft Water Management Authorities Wasserwirtschaftsamt Landshut " Stadtwerke Drinking Water Supply Company Wasserwirtschaft General Water Management Wasserverband Water Management Association Spatial/Regional Planning Behördliche Träger der

Landschaftsplanung Rural Planning Authorities

Stadtplanungsämter City Planning Authority Landscape Planning privatwirtschaftliche Planer/

Architekten/ Landschaftsarchitekten in Nürnberg

Landscape Architect/ Landscape Planner (private firms)

construction industry Tiefbauamt Civil Engineering Department Gartenlandschaftsbau Landscaping Civic Groups Naturschutzverbände z.B. Bund

Naturschutz Bayern Unions, Societies and Associations (NGOs) for Nature Conservation, e.g. Bavarian Union for Environmental Protection and Conservation

LBV (Landesbund f. Vogelschutz) Bavarian Society for the Protection of Birds LPV Landschaftspflegeverbände Land Care Associations (LCAs)

39

Education and Ecological/ Social Research

Schulen und Universitäten Schools and Universities Tourism Gastronomen Restaurateur/ Caterer Hotel- und Gaststättenverband Hotelier and Restaurateurs Asssociation Tourismusverband Tourist Office/ Tourism Association Military Militär (Als Landnutzer von

Truppenübungsplätzen) Military as a land user

Local Politics and Adminstration w/o sector affiliation

Bürgermeister Mayor Gemeinden/Kommunen, Stadträte Communities/ Local Authorities, Town

Council Landkreise/Landräte /

Landratsämter Rural District Administration/ Head of the District Authority

6.6 Questionnaire for interviews (qualitative and quantitative parts):

Guided interview „Knowledge for ecological networks” (Part I, qualitative):

A) Relevance of individual stakeholder -> power, influence

1. What are your duties and responsibilities in connection with the issue of implementation of the ecological network? In which way are you affected by it ? (what is your „stake“?) How long have you been involved in ecologic network activities?. In how many projects did you participate?

2. What resources do you have at your disposal (including authority) to carry out your

tasks regarding the implementation of the ecological network? How do you transform your views about this matter into real participation? a) Legal resources: which legal framework supports your request (legitimation)? b) Financial resources (e.g., possibilities to finance projects, information materials)? c) Personal resources (e.g., good qualifications, your role/s in the region etc.)?

3. Which decisions have you been having impact upon? How would you judge your

decision-making authority and your influence regarding the implementation of the ecological network? (see quantitative part). a) Where and how do you acquire necessary information? b) How do you exert influence? Who do you contact in order to take influence?

4. Do you plan to take further action (“what are you doing”) in order to support the implementation of the ecological network? What kind of action? Is there a time frame for these actions/measures?

B) Perception of ecological networks (relationship to situation)

5. What does the term „ecological network“ mean to you? (In your opinion what, are essential objectives? It could be conservation of target species, aesthetic factors, etc.) Which spatial dimension comes to mind when referring to ecological networks? (see quantitative part)?

6. In your view, what significance does the ecological network concept have

(importance, function)? Is it one or perhaps the way to safeguard biodiversity? How do you weigh the importance of ecological networks as opposed to other nature conservation measures? (see quantitative part).

7. What is your position regarding the ecological network concept? What do you think

about it? Did your views change during the course of the project/ your work on the issue? What are the most convincing arguments for you to participate, or not to participate, in the implementation process (could be specific target species, support programmes etc.)? (see quantitative part).

8. In which phases of the implementation process for the ecological network were/are

you involved (planning, implementation, monitoring & evaluation)? Do you feel that you were/are involved at the right time and extensively enough? Were there shortcomings with respect to your participation/involvement? Judging from your experience in past projects, would you further participate in new projects? Why/Why not? What changes need to be made? (see quantitative part).

41

C) Co-operation und conflicts (relationship to each other)

9. In your opinion, who are the key actors/stakeholders for ecological network implementation? What significance do these actors have for your work? (see quantitative part).

10. How would you judge the co-operation with these above-mentioned actors? Are there

any examples for exceptionally good co-operation? (If so, among which stakeholder groups?) Have there been any conflicts? (If so, among which stakeholder groups?) What is the cause for these conflicts? (Could be in content, like conflicts of interests [ecology vs. economy]; individual-related, like personal conflicts; in management, possibly past mistakes, e.g., participation that was too low.)

11. Which actions were taken to foster actors’ interest and involvement? What kind of

measures are applied in order to involve the actors/stakeholders (information, environment education, workshops, round tables, consultations, compensation measures etc.) in the implementation process of ecological networks? Which ones do you consider as very effective? (see quantitative part).

12. How do you judge the stakeholder participation (involvement) in the project/ the work

on the issue in general? Is the participation adequate/ sufficient, or do you see any shortcomings? Are there actors that should be involved, but aren’t yet? What deficits exist? What should be done better? (see quantitative part).

13. How could conflicts be avoided? How were they overcome in the past (e.g., by

participatory approaches, compensation measures, etc.)?

D) Conclusion and recommendation for managing stakeholders in the area/ Barriers to implementation and key factors for success

14. What was done to move the planning concept of the ecological network towards its implementation (or, conversely, why has implementation not yet taken place?). What were/ would the key steps for its implementation? Which institutional structures were/would be helpful? Which actors were/would be central?

15. From your vantage point, what are the three principal reasons for why the ecological

network concept is being implemented rather slowly (e.g., information deficit among local actors; deficit in interest among the public authorities; lack of incentive systems; no funds for compensation; emotional resentments like fear of limited options for action; absence of coordinative structures; absence of adequate legal framework implementation; etc.)?

16. How relevant is a balance ecological and economical interests of the actors? Can you

name successful/ effective measures (e.g., financial compensation, participatory measures, extension services, etc.) leading to this balance? Which role do participatory approaches play?

17. In your view, what are the key factors that would make a participatory implementation

possible? (see quantitative part). What needs to be changed??

42

44