snh commissioned report 248: social, economic and ... · [email protected] this report...

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

Commissioned Report No.248

Social, economic and environmental benefits of

World Heritage Sites, Biosphere Reserves, and Geoparks

(ROAME No. F06NC05)

For further information on this report please contact:

Rachel Hellings Scottish Natural Heritage Battleby Redgorton PERTH PH1 3EW E-mail: [email protected]

This report should be quoted as:

Hambrey Consulting. (2007). Social, economic and environmental benefits of World Heritage Sites, Biosphere Reserves, and Geoparks. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No.248 (ROAME No. F06NC05).

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

© Scottish Natural Heritage 2007.

UNESCO exists to promote collaboration among nations through education, science and culture. Within Scotland, there are three UNESCO mechanisms to designate areas for management towards this end - World Heritage Site (WHS), Biosphere Reserve (BR) and Geopark. Based on a review of case studies and documented experience from around the world, this report makes recommendations for anticipating and maximising the social, economic and environmental benefits from UNESCO designated areas in Scotland.

The case studies suggest that benefits (in all categories) vary widely between sites, depending on the resource base of the site, the nature of the local economy, governance structures, and individuals involved. Nonetheless, many of the sites appear to deliver four key benefits:

enhanced leverage to pull in funding for a wide range of purposes; stimulus to awareness raising and educational initiatives; enhanced tourism image and profile; enhanced opportunities for niche branding of local products and services.

These benefits appear to be enhanced in those cases where there is substantial community buy-in, and this varies according to the approach taken to designation, as well as local circumstance and tradition.

The actual impact of a new site in Scotland will depend very largely on:

The existing economic geography of the site. A remote site with a small local population and a finite tourist market will confer limited social and economic benefits.

The system of site governance. A system offering only limited and formal involvement to the local population will have a minimal impact on community capacity.

Local leadership. Where confident site management leaves power with strong local businesses and community leaders, economic and social benefits may be marked.

The report presents a set of social, economic, environmental and governance criteria which may be used to select or assess candidate sites in Scotland, in terms of their potential, need, and capacity to deliver benefit.

ii

COMMISSIONED REPORT

Summary Social, economic and environmental benefits of World

Heritage Sites, Biosphere Reserves and Geoparks Commissioned Report No.248 (ROAME No. F06NC05) Contractor: Hambrey Consulting Year of publication: 2007

Background

Main findings

iii

For further information on this project contact: Rachel Hellings, Scottish Natural Heritage, Battleby, Redgorton, Perth PH1 3EW

For further information on the SNH Research & Technical Support Programme contact: Policy & Advice Directorate Support, Scottish Natural Heritage, Great Glen House, Inverness IV3 8NW.

Tel: 01463 725000 or [email protected]

iv

CONTENTS Executive summary.......................................................................................................... vii 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................1 2 Purpose and structure of the UNESCO designations ................................................2

2.1 World Heritage Sites ..........................................................................................2 2.2 Biosphere Reserves ...........................................................................................3 2.3 Geoparks............................................................................................................4 2.4 Designations compared......................................................................................4

3 Assessing Benefits.....................................................................................................5 3.1 Economic principles in the evaluation of benefits...............................................6 3.2 Existing policies as a basis for evaluating benefits ............................................7 3.3 Summary of benefits ........................................................................................10

4 Literature search ......................................................................................................10 4.1 UNESCO designations – functions and administration ....................................10 4.2 Measuring social, economic and environmental benefits of protected areas – review of methods and findings....................................................................................11 4.3 Assessing the relevance of governance, the policy community and stakeholder involvement on UNESCO designated areas - review of evidence ...............................13

5 Criteria for categorising benefits ..............................................................................14 6 Evidence of benefits - Key points from the case studies and literature....................15

6.1 Some snapshots...............................................................................................15 6.2 Environment .....................................................................................................18 6.3 Economy ..........................................................................................................18 6.4 Social................................................................................................................19 6.5 Comparison of designations.............................................................................20

7 Estimating the impacts of new sites in Scotland – methodology..............................21 7.1 The policy based approach ..............................................................................22 7.2 Wider impact assessment ................................................................................24 7.3 Local variation in impacts .................................................................................25 7.4 Other considerations for site selection .............................................................26 7.5 Indicators available in Scotland........................................................................28

8 Recommendations ...................................................................................................30 8.1 Indicator data....................................................................................................31 8.2 Criteria for site selection in Scotland ................................................................34

9 References...............................................................................................................36 10 Appendix 1 Case Studies.........................................................................................1 11 Case Study 1 Giant’s Causeway and Causeway Coast World Heritage Site ...........2

11.1 Summary ............................................................................................................2 11.2 Geography; Natural, human and economic........................................................2 11.3 Management/governance...................................................................................3 11.4 Local benefits .....................................................................................................3 11.5 Wider benefits/policy and strategy fit..................................................................4 11.6 Key lessons and hopes for the site ....................................................................4 11.7 Annex .................................................................................................................7

12 Case Study 2 West Norwegian Fjords - Geirangerfjord & Nærøyfjord - World Heritage Site ..............................................................................................................9

12.1 Summary ............................................................................................................9 12.2 Geography; Natural, human and economic........................................................9 12.3 Management/governance.................................................................................10 12.4 Local benefits ...................................................................................................10 12.5 Wider benefits/policy and strategy fit................................................................11 12.6 Key lessons and hopes for the site ..................................................................11 12.7 Annex ...............................................................................................................14

v

13 Case Study 3 North Pennines AONB European Geopark ......................................16 13.1 Summary ..........................................................................................................16 13.2 Geography; Natural, human and economic......................................................16 13.3 Management/governance.................................................................................17 13.4 Local benefits ...................................................................................................17 13.5 Wider benefits/policy and strategy fit................................................................19 13.6 Key lessons and hopes for the site ..................................................................19 13.7 Annex ...............................................................................................................22

14 Case Study 4 Abberley and Malvern Hills Geopark ................................................25 14.1 Summary ..........................................................................................................25 14.2 Geography; Natural, human and economic......................................................25 14.3 Management/governance.................................................................................26 14.4 Local benefits ...................................................................................................26 14.5 Wider benefits/policy and strategy fit................................................................27 14.6 Annex ...............................................................................................................29

15 Case Study 5 Braunton Burrows Biosphere Reserve .............................................31 15.1 Summary ..........................................................................................................31 15.2 Geography; Natural, human and economic......................................................31 15.3 Management/governance.................................................................................32 15.4 Local benefits ...................................................................................................33 15.5 Wider benefits/policy and strategy fit................................................................34 15.6 Key lessons and hopes for the site ..................................................................35 15.7 Annex ...............................................................................................................37

16 Case Study 6 Entlebuch Biosphere Reserve ..........................................................40 16.1 Summary ..........................................................................................................40 16.2 Geography; Natural, human and economic......................................................40 16.3 Management/governance.................................................................................41 16.4 Local benefits ...................................................................................................41 16.5 Wider benefits/policy and strategy fit................................................................43 16.6 Annex ...............................................................................................................46

17 Case Study 7 Rhön Biosphere Reserve .................................................................47 17.1 Summary ..........................................................................................................47 17.2 Geography; Natural, human and economic......................................................47 17.3 Management/governance.................................................................................47 17.4 Local benefits ...................................................................................................48 17.5 Wider benefits/policy and strategy fit................................................................49 17.6 Annex ...............................................................................................................52

18 Appendix 2 – policies in detail..................................................................................55 18.1 Scottish policy measures and indicators ..........................................................55 18.2 UNESCO objectives and measures .................................................................60 18.3 Benefits criteria and Scottish policies...............................................................62

19 Appendix 3 ...............................................................................................................63 19.1 The use of economic multipliers.......................................................................63 19.2 Using multipliers at a local level. ......................................................................65 19.3 Practical advice for the non-specialist. .............................................................66

20 Appendix 4 ...............................................................................................................67 20.1 The Criteria for Selection..................................................................................67

Tables Table 1 How do UNESCO sites differ from other Scottish protected areas? ................5 Table 2 Scottish policy measures and/or indicators .......................................................9 Table 3 Criteria used in this study to categorise benefits from UNESCO protected

areas ................................................................................................................15

vi

Table 4 Likely contribution of UNESCO sites to selected Scottish Policies .................23 Table 5 Summary - Giant’s Causeway and Causeway Coast World Heritage Site ........6 Table 6 Summary - West Norwegian Fjords - Geirangerfjord & Nærøyfjord - World

Heritage Site ....................................................................................................13 Table 7 Summary - North Pennines Geopark ...............................................................21 Table 8 Summary - Abberley and Malvern Hills Geopark .............................................28 Table 9 Summary Braunton Burrows Biosphere Reserve.............................................36 Table 10 Summary - Entlebuch Biosphere Reserve .......................................................45 Table 11 Summary - Rhön Biosphere Reserve ..............................................................51 Table 12 Benefits criteria used in this report compared with Scottish policies................62

Figures Figure 1 Snapshots of the case studies .........................................................................17 Figure 2 Entlebuch Biosphere Reserve governance......................................................41 Figure 3 Product Labelling - Producers and Groups40...................................................42 Figure 4 Tourism statistics .............................................................................................42 Figure 5 SWOT Analysis of RA2, dotted lines indicate equal position of factors ...........52

vii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Scope of the study 1. This report examines the social, economic and environmental benefits of World

Heritage Sites (WHS), Biosphere Reserves (BR), and Geoparks, designated under the auspices of the United Nations (UNESCO). A literature review and seven case studies were used as the foundation of the report which:

– Describes the likely potential impacts of the designations with reference to their contribution to fulfilling Scottish policies.

– Compares the purposes of the UNESCO designations with other Scottish protected areas.

– Proposes how the impacts of sites under these designations could be assessed in Scotland

– Recommends how to select new sites in a way that maximises the benefits of the designations.

2. All three designations have strong educational roles and are committed to sustainable development and stakeholder participation. However their purposes are quite distinct:

– WHS focus on the protection of unique heritage quality – BRs are based on a core area protected for biodiversity, with surrounding buffer

and sustainable development areas – Geoparks are intended to protect and promote earth heritage and also have a

strong tourism role.

3. Seven case studies are presented in the report:

– Giant's Causeway and Causeway Coast World Heritage Site (Northern Ireland) – West Norwegian Fjords – Geirangerfjord and Nærøyfjord World Heritage ite S– North Pennine AONB European Geopark – Abberley and Malvern Hills Geopark – Braunton Burrows Biosphere Reserve – Entlebuch Biosphere Reserve (Switzerland) – Rhön Biosphere Reserve (Germany). These case studies were desk based, drawing only on existing published materials supplemented with information provided by site managers.

Assessing benefit 4. A range of approaches to measuring social, economic and environmental benefit that

would be applicable to these designations is evident in the literature. For economic issues simple approaches to measuring direct local impacts can be combined with estimates of impacts in the wider economy (using multipliers). Indirect and non-use values are important when considering social and environmental benefit.

viii

5. We have drawn on the literature and previous studies to generate a broad assessment framework for the case studies comprising eight high level categories of potential benefit:

Environment Economy Social

Biodiversity Employment and income Social inclusion

Landscape/greenspace Business opportunity Health and well-being

Ecosystem services Education and training

6. We have also assessed benefit in terms of contribution to the specific aims and objectives of the UNESCO designations, and Scottish government policies, including those for economic development, tourism, sustainable development, agriculture, rural development, biodiversity, and landscape. These approaches are largely complementary, since the benefits sought under these designations and policies can be readily categorised as above.

Evidence of impact 7. There is little hard evidence in the literature about the benefits of UNESCO sites.

Some work has been done around the world, often focusing on tourism benefits. None of this indicates how much benefit the designation itself generates compared with the role of the underlying heritage resources. More evidence is available about the influence of the designations on governance processes. UNESCO guidelines encourage participation by a wide range of stakeholders and this seems to have been put into effect at sites in many countries.

8. The case studies suggest that benefits (in all categories) vary widely between sites, depending on the resource base of the site, the nature of the local economy, governance structures, and individuals involved. Nonetheless, many of the sites appear to deliver four key benefits:

– Enhanced leverage to pull in funding for a wide range of purposes; – Stimulus to awareness raising and educational initiatives; – Enhanced tourism image and profile; – Enhanced opportunities for niche branding of local products and services . These benefits appear to be enhanced in those cases where there is substantial community buy-in, and this varies according to the approach taken to designation, as well as local circumstance and tradition.

9. All designations seek to increase social inclusion in terms of both governance and opportunity. The sense of place, community and collective opportunity may be strengthened, and education and awareness benefits are likely to run deeper. Enhanced inclusion, in the widest sense of the word, is likely to increase social and community sustainability.

10. None of the designations confer increased statutory environmental protection, although they do provide a mechanism and impetus for improved site management. The success of this again depends on local circumstances. Designation does, however, confer some leverage, since there is always the possibility of de-listing.

11. Landscape, greenspace, and to some extent ecosystem services, may benefit in those cases where environmental awareness is raised and environmental

ix

management systems are improved, although we found no clear evidence to demonstrate this.

12. Although local economic benefits are likely to result from an increased inflow of funds, branding and tourism opportunities (exemplified in particular in the Entlebuch and Rhön Case Studies), it is more difficult to identify a significant contribution to the wider or national economy. Perverse effects need to be considered, such as attracting funds away from other needy areas. Costs can also be significant – the direct costs of setting up the administrative arrangements, and a range of indirect “transaction” costs associated with establishing a major new integrated initiative.

Differences between designations 13. Although the UNESCO designations share many characteristics there are significant

differences, and these are reflected in the relative levels of benefit. All designations are likely to generate social inclusion benefits, although this is likely to be less for the Geopark designation, given the more limited management issues. They are also all likely to generate increased awareness and understanding, “branding” and tourism opportunities.

14. Otherwise relative benefits correspond broadly to the emphasis of the designation objectives: tourism in the case of Geoparks, education and heritage conservation for WHS, sustainable development and environmental protection for BR.

Impact of designation in Scotland 15. The case study experience suggests that designation can and does generate a range

of social, economic and environmental benefits, and these benefits are broadly consistent with Scottish policy objectives. However, they are likely to be local, and impact on national economic objectives may be limited.

16. The review also suggests that the actual impact of a new site in Scotland will depend very largely on:

– The existing economic geography of the site. A remote site with a small local population and a finite tourist market will confer limited social and economic benefits no matter how appropriately governed.

– The system of site governance. A system giving only limited and formal access to the local population may achieve some objectives but will have a minimal impact on community capacity. The Entlebuch case – the outcomes of which meet most relevant Scottish policy objectives - demonstrates the benefits to be gained when the local community has a strong sense of ownership.

– Local leadership. Where confident site management leaves power with strong local businesses and key community leaders, economic and social benefits may be marked.

17. Any attempt to estimate the likely impact (past or future) of an actual or proposed UNESCO designation in Scotland should take account of basic principles for evaluation as well as practical considerations. Outcomes are most important, but will be difficult to measure or assess in the short term, and it may be necessary to measure outputs and processes. Impacts may take a long time to materialise and cover a wide area, but be small in scale compared with other forces. The benefits arising from designation may be hard to separate from those generated by the existing underlying resources. A range of approaches and yardsticks will be needed

x

as a single measurement index would be too narrow. Finally, different conditions at different sites may mean the same action has different results.

18. Three considerations are of particular importance:

– the additional value that a UNESCO designation offers (compared with doing nothing)

– the likelihood of success (taking particular account of local social and economic structures and traditions)

– the cost of setting up and running the designation

19. Evaluation should be based as far as possible on existing data (relevant data sets and statistics are detailed in the report) but will need to be supplemented with a clear understanding of local social and economic structures, issues and trends. Three issues are particularly important:

– Potential - the area’s potential to generate benefits, especially in relation to tourism and environmental branding

– Need - the development needs of the area

– Capacity - the local community and government capacity to make the designation work

20. The report identifies relevant indicators in each case. Human or community capacity is the most difficult to describe with existing information. The process of planning a new site should in any case be a participative one, so this can itself be used as an indicator of capacity.

Site selection 21. In the light of the evidence and conclusions the report makes detailed

recommendations about selecting new UNESCO sites in Scotland. A range of mandatory and priority selection criteria are described in four categories:

– environmental criteria, to ensure the site is appropriate for UNESCO designation. – economic criteria to identify the potential of the area. – social criteria to describe the area’s needs. – governance criteria to describe the area’s capacity.

22. The approach provides an objective way to compare possible sites. It is not intended to provide an arithmetic answer. The final decision should be based on the best balance of likely impacts, and, crucially, local enthusiasm and support. However, the sites with the highest potential may not deliver the greatest value as many of them are likely to be successful without a UNESCO site. The areas of greatest need are a higher risk, but the additional impact of a UNESCO site could be greatest here.

1

1 INTRODUCTION This report makes recommendations for anticipating and maximising the social, economic and environmental benefits from UNESCO designated areas in Scotland. It is based on a review of experience around the world, and sets this in the context of national and local objectives in Scotland. In order to cover the range of issues and scales it draws on some basic economic principles and also takes account of the need for practical decision making.

At the start of the twenty-first century environmental policy has reached a stage where environmental protection includes widely different types of designated area. Geographical types range from pristine wilderness to urban landscapes. Legislation and management may be in the hands of government locally, regionally, nationally, at continent level, or globally. Often the responsibilities are shared between levels. Non-governmental interest groups, including local communities, may be given a role to play, or may demand one. The purpose of environmental designations may be simple (one instrument — one policy) and aimed solely at achieving environmental objectives. But increasingly governments aim to harmonise policies across different sectors, to prevent policy conflict and to seek synergy between them. In which case environmental designations may be required to deliver benefits for health, tourism, education, and many other fields.

In this complex policy world which environmental designations are most suited in different places? Which will deliver the benefits that a particular suite of policy objectives seek? And which will be most effective on the ground, with the key actors? The answer is not obvious. It is particularly difficult to deal with in the case of international designations. They are designed to apply in a wide range of regions and across the whole of the development spectrum. So although terms such as World Heritage Site may be widely known, the role of the sites may be harder to understand in national or local terms.

This is the context for thinking about the benefits of UNESCO sites, and it provided the starting point for this study. The source material here is taken from published and unpublished reports of any kind and from discussions with key contacts at a range of case study sites. The report is not restricted to experience in Scotland or the UK, though most of the material included here has come from countries at a similar development stage to the UK. However, Scottish government policies are an important influence on any assessment of the potential of environmental designations, so that is another important starting point. Equally, non-governmental groups may see benefits in different terms and the report aims to take account of this.

The scope of the analysis is broad, covering any social, economic and environmental benefits arising from UNESCO designations. Benefits must, of course, be considered “net”: taking account of any costs and disbenefits that may arise from designation. Ideally the effects of nested designations will be separated out so the additional effects of the UNESCO sites can be isolated. The report must also seek to get behind the aspirations and to report on the realities.

Economic benefits arising from sites may be in the form of market based goods and services, or in the less easily measured form of public goods. Both are important to society. Finally, UNESCO sites may have subtle effects: the governance processes they inspire may ease the path for existing national environmental protection designations, and so increase their effectiveness.

None of these points are easy to address as there are few rigorous evaluations of UNESCO sites available, and fewer still are quantitative. To get round this we

2

have used the source material to paint a series of pictures through case studies. Consultation with a local contact in each case should have ensured that the cases are both accurate and insightful.

The Scottish policy landscape is complex so the report reviews the most relevant policies and measures. From them it derives a more manageable set of possible benefits or criteria. These provide a consistent framework for describing and discussing the evidence. The approach taken here follows on from previous studies of this type, and develops it.

At the other end of the scale UNESCO has global objectives and each of the designations has its own set of goals and mechanisms. The international dimension is one of the unique features of the designations, and may be one of their benefits. This cannot be assumed however. For example, a progressive increase in the number of WHS is likely to be partly a result of states’ wish to market their heritage resources to tourists. The role of UNESCO, the likelihood of devaluing the WHS brand, and the scope for other organisations to promote other international heritage brands, is a topical issue (The Economist, 2006). The report takes these questions into account.

Ultimately the answer to the question about benefits is required to help decide how Scotland should proceed with UNESCO sites – more, less, the same, or different types? In the light of the evidence gathered here we make recommendations about methods for estimating the impacts of new sites. Finally, we propose criteria that could be used to select new sites that will deliver the greatest benefits.

2 PURPOSE AND STRUCTURE OF THE UNESCO DESIGNATIONS

2.1 World Heritage Sites “The cultural and natural heritage is among the priceless and irreplaceable assets, not only of each nation, but of humanity as a whole,” (UNESCO, 2005). The World Heritage Convention (UNESCO, 1972) embodies this principle and adds that parts of our heritage are of outstanding universal value and must be specially protected. Since 1972 the UNESCO approach has recognised that sustainable development can make a contribution to conserving and protecting world heritage.

One of the main practical results of the convention has been the establishment of World Heritage Sites (WHS), which comprise features of outstanding universal value. Countries that have signed the convention nominate proposed WHS to the UNESCO World Heritage Committee. If the Committee accepts that the sites meet certain criteria they are added to the World Heritage List and become WHS.

By signing the convention countries accept a range of world heritage duties: they should involve a wide range of stakeholders, identify the lead government department, and allow their heritage experts to discuss implementation. The convention also identifies a number of specific duties on countries to protect and promote cultural and natural heritage. One of these is that they should propose a list of WHS to the UNESCO committee.

WHS designation may be based on the cultural or natural heritage of a site (defined in Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention), or on a combination of the two. If a number of separate sites in combination are of outstanding universal value they may be designated as a single “serial property”. Any WHS may cross national boundaries if the normal criteria are met.

3

WHS must be of outstanding universal value, meaning “cultural and/or natural significance which is so exceptional as to transcend national boundaries and to be of common importance for present and future generations of all humanity,” (UNESCO, 2005). The ten criteria used to assess this can be summarised as follows (mainly natural heritage in bold, see also Appendix 4):

1 a masterpiece of human creative genius 2 an interchange of human values in design or planning 3 testimony to a cultural tradition or civilization 4 an example of a stage in human history 5 a traditional human settlement, land-use, or sea-use especially when it

has become vulnerable 6 associated with events or living traditions, with ideas, beliefs, or art/literature 7 natural phenomena or areas of exceptional natural beauty 8 examples representing major stages of earth's history 9 examples representing significant ongoing ecological and biological

processes 10 natural habitats for in-situ conservation of biological diversity

Apart from outstanding universal value, sites must also meet conditions of integrity and, for sites relevant to criteria 1-6, authenticity. Authenticity concerns the credibility and truthfulness of cultural heritage, generally by reference to values and norms within the relevant culture. All WHS sites must meet the integrity condition, which has three components: including all the heritage elements necessary to express the site’s value, adequate size, and lack of deterioration due to neglect or development.

Once WHS are included in the world list the main focus must be on their protection and management, with the aim of retaining and enhancing their universal value and authenticity/integrity. This must be done by legislation and regulation as well as by following traditional management processes. One prerequisite is for sites to have clearly defined boundaries that include all the relevant assets and make sense as functional units. Additional buffer zones may be defined to improve the protection of the main site, even though they may not meet the full WHS criteria. Every site must have a management plan. Sites that have uses apart from heritage conservation must be used in ways that are ecologically and culturally sustainable and do not have adverse impacts on the world heritage resources.

2.2 Biosphere Reserves UNESCO launched Biosphere Reserves (BR) in 1976 as a contribution to the Man and Biosphere Programme (MAB) objective of achieving a balance between conserving biological diversity, promoting economic development, and maintaining associated cultural values. BRs are intended to provide a means of testing, refining, demonstrating, and implementing this objective (UNESCO, 1995). As with WHS, states nominate their chosen sites which are then assessed against standard criteria and conditions before they are eligible to be listed as part of the BR network.

Every reserve should contribute to the three MAB objectives of conservation, development, and education. The last includes direct demonstration, environmental education and training, as well as research and monitoring. To assist in achieving these complex objectives reserves should be structured into core protected areas, buffer zones, and a transition or co-operation area. Buffer zones include sustainable management activities compatible with the needs of the core area and including sustainable tourism and recreation. The transition area

4

can include a wide range of economic activities and human settlements. The aim here is to develop these in a sustainable way that is linked to, and compatible with, the rest of the reserve.

The Seville strategy (UNESCO, 1995) identified four objectives for BR:

to conserve natural and cultural diversity, to provide models of land management and sustainable development, to provide for research, monitoring, education and training, and to strengthen the BR network itself.

Under each main objective the strategy lists a number of more specific objectives and actions, and indicates whether the latter apply at international, national, or reserve level. Section 18.2 lists reserve level activities or objectives that are most relevant for this study.

The Seville+5 review of BRs (UNESCO, 2001) identified some additional initiatives that would improve the effectiveness of the network and its reserves. In particular the concept of “quality economies” was introduced, which deals with the potential of branding and marketing, and the need for a stronger socio-economic perspective on BRs.

2.3 Geoparks

2.4 Designations compared Scotland has a multitude of national and international designations for the conservation and management of natural heritage at a site level. The following table indicates how the objectives overlap and can be distinguished, using a broad classification of characteristics.

The Global Network of National Geoparks was formed by UNESCO in 2004, as a platformfor cooperation and exchange between experts and practitioners in geological heritagematters on a worldwide scale.

The aim of the Network is to provide “an international framework to enhance the value ofthe Earth heritage, its landscapes and geological formations, which are key witnesses tothe history of life” (UNESCO, 2006). In practice the purpose of geoparks is seen as beingwider than this: “Geoparks are not just about rocks – they are about people ... we want tosee as many people as possible getting out and enjoying the geology of the area. Ouraim is to maximise geotourism...” (Woodley-Stewart, quoted in UNESCO, 2006b).

A European country wishing to apply for a Geopark within its borders to become amember of the Global Network of Geoparks must follow the European Geoparks Networkprocess and criteria for application, and UNESCO participates at every stage in theevaluation of and decision on the applications. When a proposal is accepted the Geoparkis added to the Global Network. UNESCO Guidelines for developing geoparks refer to sixcriteria:• size and setting,• management and local involvement,• economic development,• education,• protection and conservation, and• contribution to the global network.

The Geopark applicants’ self-assessment form (see Annex in UNESCO, 2006) gives anindication of the relative importance attached to the criteria. 35% of the weighting isbased on conservation, 25% on management, 15% each on education and geotourism,and 10% on economic development.

Unlike WHS and BR designations Geoparks show a less centralised lead from UNESCO.Although the organisation provides branding and helps to control admission to the globalnetwork, there is considerable activity at continental level, for instance through theEuropean Geoparks network.

5

Table 1 How do UNESCO sites differ from other Scottish protected areas?

Protection Promotion

Biod

iver

sity

Geo

logy

/geo

m

orph

olog

y

Land

scap

e

Rec

reat

ion

Edu

catio

n

Res

earc

h

Tour

ism

Eco

nom

ic

deve

lopm

ent

Inte

rnat

iona

l ne

twor

k

Par

ticip

atio

n

National Nature Reserves

Sites of Special Scientific Interest National Scenic Areas National Parks

Ramsar Sites Special Protection Areas Special Areas of Conservation World Heritage Sites

Biosphere Reserves

Geoparks

KEY Major function Minor function

3 ASSESSING BENEFITS Economic theory can describe benefits in terms of the provision of goods and services, whether they are simple commodities or more complex social and environmental factors. The difficult part of the question is always “who benefits?”. Section 4 demonstrates that there are often concerns about how equitably benefits (and costs) are distributed. Different individuals and groups value benefits differently, and there is rarely a consensus even in small groups at a local level. This poses some problems for a study such as this which aims to describe benefits and make recommendations about maximising them.

We have taken two complementary approaches. First we have used Scottish policies to identify priorities and objectives which have a high degree of consensus. Although they include some divergent goals they are a reasonable indication of the priority the public attaches to different issues. Of course they also provide the administrative framework for decision making so they are directly relevant to the management of UNESCO sites in Scotland. Policies influence the way government collects information so they are also relevant to methods for selecting UNESCO sites and maximising their benefits.

National policies conceal the divergence of opinion between sectors and localities, however. They are also subject to political change and may not be stable in the longer term. On their own they are not an adequate way of defining benefits. So this report also adopts a more basic approach to defining benefits,

6

using principles from economic and sustainable development theory. The result is a more open range of benefits, which may mean more to people at a local level, and should appeal to a wider range of interests.

Throughout the report both approaches are used to describe benefits, as appropriate. The next section outlines the principles behind the general economic approach to analysing impacts.

3.1 Economic principles in the evaluation of benefits UNESCO designations are granted to sites satisfying a number of criteria, and are intended to contribute towards a series of economic, social and environmental objectives relating to sustainable development. Evaluation of the impact, efficiency and effectiveness of designations can contribute to their utility and is increasingly promoted by various bodies.

At the start (ex-ante) evaluation may assist in clarifying the likely costs and benefits associated with designation, and inform choices between candidate sites. Evaluation of progress (ex-post) may offer assessment of real costs and benefits and help to guide best practice for future designations and management. However, weighing-up the relative costs and benefits associated with any UNESCO designation is a difficult task since identification and quantification are hindered by several factors.

First, the objectives of a designation may be described in terms of processes and outputs rather than outcomes. It may be possible to translate them into outcome benefits, but for practical reasons it may be better for the evaluation to focus on the effectiveness and efficiency of achievement of the stated objectives.

Second, economic, social and environmental systems tend to be dynamic rather than static in nature and to have complex spatial linkages. That is, cause and effect may be separated by distance in both time and space, and to evolve over time. This leads to what, in economics, are termed direct, indirect, and induced effects plus halo and spill-over effects. For example, raising levels of human capital through education programmes takes time and higher skilled workers may not necessarily remain locally. Consequently, identification of costs and (especially) benefits becomes more challenging and monitoring efforts must be directed by scientific principles.

Third, scientific data and understanding of systems is rarely complete and such systems often display stochastic rather than deterministic qualities. In other words the data available, and models derived from it, may fail to capture true relationships adequately. As a result the predicted effects may be wrong because of external and random factors. For example, re-establishment of a particular plant species at a site may depend as much upon seed-banks in neighbouring areas and favourable weather conditions over a period of several years as it does upon size and shape of a site and its sympathetic management. So even if the choice and management of a designation is entirely appropriate, the achievement of desired outcomes may be frustrated.

Fourth, concerns about system complexity and an understandable desire to measure more easily observable results, may have led to monitoring that is directed towards aspects of the designation or compliance process rather than actual outcomes. Hence, for example, monitoring of hectarage enrolment and visitor numbers rather than biodiversity enhancement or visitor enjoyment (and another reason why process and output are monitored rather than outcome).

7

Fifth, evaluation entails careful consideration of “additionality” – the counterfactual: what would have happened in the absence of the designation1? To put it another way, as the flip-side of the opportunity cost coin, what additional benefits have been gained? As with chances forgone, benefits gained can be difficult to discern – especially if the possibility of “displacement” from other sites is taken into account. For example, income generated within a designated site may merely be at the expense of income lost from neighbouring areas. Given the apparent tendency for designations to “stack” on some sites2, the additionality of a given designation may be even more difficult to discern (SNH, 2005).

Finally, even if cost and benefit categories can be identified and measured it is still difficult to compare and aggregate across categories. In particular, it may be unacceptable to use the same yardstick to compare certain factors, or even to compare them at all. In that case implicit value judgements supported by a mix of qualitative and quantitative measures may be used. For example, methods such as contingent valuation are not universally accepted as accurate or indeed appropriate measures of the richness of cultural and social non-use values embodied in landscapes. Equally, the distribution of costs and benefits across different groups is rarely equal, leading to consideration of equity – measures of which are difficult to agree. Combined with the other evaluation problems, this lends support to the adoption of “rapid appraisal” techniques, accepting input and output objectives and available data as proxies for outcome measurement. Consequently, evaluation exercises may merely “flag” categories of costs and benefits and trends (positive/negative) in their condition, offering a mix of quantitative measures of impact and descriptive expressions of others.

3.2 Existing policies as a basis for evaluating benefits Having described the economic principles involved in describing benefits, we now look at the existing policies that might benefit from UNESCO designations.

The presence of all three types of protected area in Scotland suggests that UNESCO, the UK Government, and the Scottish Executive have broadly similar objectives for protection and sustainable use of heritage and environment. The priority they attach to the detailed objectives is likely to vary, and at a regional or site level a different set of local priorities is likely to exist.

So different stakeholders are likely to perceive the benefits of UNESCO sites in different ways, depending upon their geographical place and their constituency. In order to understand these sets of priorities, and the related objectives measures and indicators, it was necessary to unpick national and international policies and to relate the detailed elements to one another. Having done so it became obvious where there is overlap between policy objectives.

The main part of this report is based on a relatively simple set of criteria which group likely benefits. The criteria were informed by the policy analysis, and can be traced back to specific objectives in Scottish or UNESCO policies. However the detailed relationships are difficult to present, so most of this material has been relegated to Appendix 2 – policies in detail. A simplified analysis of the interactions between Scottish and UNESCO policy objectives is presented in Table 4 on page 23.

1 The term additionality is used to refer to the additional effect of an instrument of this type. In economic language the term counter-factual is used to describe what would have happened in the absence of the instrument. 2 See Table 1

8

The Scottish policies, the key themes arising from them, and the UNESCO objectives for the three types of site are as follows.

3.2.1 Key Scottish policies included in the study A Framework for Economic Development in Scotland, as implemented

through Smart Successful Scotland (Scottish Executive, 2004) Scottish Tourism: The Next Decade - A Tourism Framework for Change

(Scottish Executive, 2006) Choosing our future: Scotland's sustainable development strategy (Scottish

Executive, 2005a) A Forward Strategy for Scottish Agriculture (Scottish Executive, 2001) Rural Scotland - a new approach (Scottish Executive, 2000) Scotland's Biodiversity: It's in Your Hands - A strategy for the conservation

and enhancement of biodiversity in Scotland (Scottish Executive, 2004b) European Landscape Convention (Council of Europe, 2000)

3.2.2 Scottish policy priorities, measures and indicators The Scottish policies analysed here included 142 measures or indicators. It is clearly difficult to work with such a large array of information, yet condensing it loses some of the reality. In this report there is also a need to keep as much detail as possible to inform the later sections on significant impacts and site selection. The table below is based on the following simplification of the policy measures and indicators:

Duplicate measures and indicators have been removed Measures and indicators that are of no relevance to UNESCO sites have

been removed Similar measures have been grouped within a policy, as have similar

measures across policies. These are indicated by the term “(various)”. The result is a more manageable table that covers all the relevant policies, draws out from them the relevant priorities, and where possible lists the targets and indicators the Scottish Executive has identified. The following table also provides the basis for the analysis in Table 4, page 23.

9

Table 2 Scottish policy measures and/or indicators

POLICY PRIORITY/ MEASURE/ INDICATOR

Climate change (various)

Un/employment (various)

Education and training (various) Cross Policy

Community/ demography (various)

Gross Domestic Product per head of population

High growth firms (business starts)

Percentage of businesses trading online Smart Successful Scotland

Proportion of employers exporting

Value of tourism revenue

Number of visitors

Tourism quality (various) Tourism Framework for change

Sustainable tourism (various)

Choosing our Future Ecosystem Health (various)

Business development/ diversification (various) A Forward Strategy for Scottish Agriculture Visits to the countryside

We will improve access to services essential to our life and work, and ensure that quality of life will depend on what you need, not where you are.

Rural Scotland - a new approach Scotland's natural and cultural heritage must be allowed to flourish in all its diversity. We will encourage local and regional influences to play their part ..

Species protection (various)

Biodiversity Action Plan

Protected areas (various)

Sustainable use (various)

Scotland's biodiversity - it's in your hands

Integration and landscape scale (various)

European Landscape Convention Landscape protection (various)

3.2.3 UNESCO criteria and objectives As with Scottish policies, the UNESCO policies also include a range of quite specific objectives. The full list (shown in Appendix 1 section 18.2) runs to 68 objectives and measures. The main topics within this are as follows.

World Heritage Sites (UNESCO, 2005) Outstanding universal value (selection criterion) Integrity Protection

Biosphere Reserves (UNESCO, 1995) Integrate biosphere reserves into [biodiversity] conservation planning

10

Secure the support and involvement of local people Ensure better harmonization and interaction among the different biosphere

reserve zones Integrate biosphere reserves into regional planning Improve knowledge of the interactions between humans and the biosphere Improve monitoring activities Improve education, public awareness and involvement Improve training for specialists and managers Integrate the functions of biosphere reserves

Geoparks (UNESCO, 2006c) Management and protection Information and education Geotourism Sustainable Regional Economy

3.3 Summary of benefits This section has outlined the theoretical and practical issues to be considered when assessing socio-economic impacts and benefits. As another way of assessing benefits it has also outlined how UNESCO sites may contribute to national and international policies. The next section reviews the published evidence.

4 LITERATURE SEARCH The main purpose of the literature search was to establish what impacts might be expected at UNESCO sites, how the impacts could be evaluated, and what evidence existed about the impacts of existing sites. In order to do so it was also necessary to review the functions and administration of UNESCO designations.

4.1 UNESCO designations – functions and administration The UN has published a wealth of literature on site designation. The concept of developing social, environmental and economic benefits is, in theory, well entrenched at least in relation to Biosphere Reserve (BR) and Geopark (GP) designation. Section 2 explains the key documents that set out the legislation, guidelines, criteria and conditions pertaining to the various designations. To recap briefly on the available literature the key papers and their relevance are described below, together with any initiatives specifically related to the impacts of designation.

For World Heritage Sites, the key papers are the UN Convention dating from 1972 (UNESCO, 1972) and updated guidelines written in 2005 (UNESCO, 2005). An explanation of the criteria for designating sites is repeated here in Appendix 4. World Heritage Sites that are not only used for heritage conservation (i.e. are more than a man-made structure alone) must be used in ways that are ecologically and culturally sustainable. To assist with this the joint IUCN/UNESCO project “Enhancing our Heritage” (UNESCO, 2007a, 2006e) has been testing a tool-box of monitoring methods on sites in Africa, Latin America and South Asia, although none as yet in Europe. This approach, which uses the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) “Management Effectiveness Evaluation Framework” is to be extended to other World Heritage Sites. The framework was revised and reprinted in 2006 and may also be relevant to Biosphere Reserves and Geoparks (Hockings et al, 2006). The gateway relating to World Heritage Sites is at the UN website (UNESCO, 2007d).

11

For Biosphere Reserves the essential UN references are the Seville Strategy (UNESCO, 1995) and the Seville+ 5 report (UNESCO, 2001) written 5 years later. These papers show the development of the original Biosphere Reserve concept (described in section 2.2) to include strong socio-economic components as well as core environmental objectives. The Biosphere Reserve Integrated Monitoring (BRIM) (UNESCO, 2007b) scheme has provided assistance with multi-disciplinary monitoring of Biosphere Reserves since its launch in 1991. BRIM has resulted in a guide on concepts and methods for social monitoring (Lass and Reusswig, 2002), and various ecological databases. In 2002 the UNESCO Man and the Biosphere programme also set up a Task Force to provide advice and guidance on key Biosphere issues relating to “quality economies” (UNESCO, 2007c). This includes advice on marketing, conservation finance, eco-jobs and sustainable tourism. A UN website (UNESCO, 2007e) provides the gateway to official information on the network of Biosphere Reserves.

For Geoparks, UNESCO provides a set of guidelines and criteria (UNESCO, 2006c) for national geoparks aiming to belong to the Global Geoparks network. There are two main Geopark organisations, the Global Geopark network (World Geoparks Network, 2007) and the European Geopark network, with UNESCO (UNESCO, 2006b) acting as umbrella organisation and adjudicator on admission to the Global network. This is a recent designation, with the first sites named in 2004. There are currently five sites in the UK and one in the Republic of Ireland.

4.2 Measuring social, economic and environmental benefits of protected areas – review of methods and findings.

4.2.1 Methods Section 3.1 describes the principles involved in measuring impacts and benefits. It is clear that both theoretical and practical difficulties arise. So, in order to make the question more approachable, simplified models and frameworks have been developed. Both Moxey (Moxey, 1999) and Stoll-Kleeman (Stoll-Kleemann et al, 2006) describe theoretical frameworks such as the OECD DSR framework (see OECD, 2003), which divide indicators into those of state (e.g. environmental indicators), driving force (e.g. weather, government policies) and response (buying behaviour, migration of people and animals, policy changes).

Formal guidance has also been issued by government bodies, setting out their expectations for assessment of policy and programme interventions (e.g. European Commission 2007, HM Treasury, 2007). Specific guidance on spatially-targeted interventions (such as site designations) is also available (HM Communities and Local Government, 2007).

An economic benefit analysis such as the one used for Natura 2000 sites in Scotland (Scottish Executive 2004c) uses techniques such as contingent valuation alongside conventional estimates of market based economic activity. This broadens the scope of the analysis to allow for non-use (e.g. existence value) as well as direct (e.g. recreation) and indirect (e.g. ecosystem services) values. The result is a mix of different types of value collected by different evaluation methods, expressed as a single monetary index. The validity of such a result can be contentious. In addition the scope may still be too limited, and the Scottish study itself noted that social, cultural, educational and health benefits must be treated separately. Nor are the wider economic impacts covered by a site based benefits study. For example the impact of tourism or food labelling in the local economy must be estimated in other ways.

In the USA the National Parks Service spreadsheet-based model (the Money Generation Model or MGM) (Stynes and Propst 2001) is used to estimate the

12

effect a national park has on the local economy. The purpose and use of this model is summarised in an open letter (Gregory 2002), which states that “the MGM is…a refined formula…designed by an economist for application by non-economist professionals to estimate economic benefits in the local area around a park.” The model uses multipliers (see Appendix 3, page 63, for discussion of this concept) to help estimate the benefits. It is quite adaptable and can be updated.

The US government has also developed an Environmental Benefits Index (Cattaneo et al 2006) to determine whether or not it is worth putting a particular area of farmland into what is similar to the EU’s set-aside. They rank possible benefits to arrive at an overall score, and use this across all states. In Europe, Cardiff University have produced a set of Best Practice Guidelines relating to assessing the economic value of protected areas (IUCN 1998). This guideline includes the American MGM model, considering that it is of use for the local community situation, but prefers to use contingent valuation to look at the bigger picture in terms of national resource allocation.

Hambrey Consulting (Hambrey 2004) developed a relatively simple framework for indicator based assessment of social, economic and environmental impacts of SNH activity and designations. This drew on the broad dimensions of sustainable development on the one hand, and various existing policy related indicator suites on the other. It also emphasised the need to use task and locality appropriate indicators to assess impact against the higher level dimensions or criteria associated with sustainable development.

4.2.2 Findings Across the world a wide range of published material addresses the benefits of UNESCO designated sites, though Geoparks are less well represented presumably because of their youth. Much of the material deals with developing countries, where both development and conservation needs are intense. In any part of the world descriptions of aspirations for achieving benefits are much more common than robust evaluation of outcomes.

The purpose of geoparks in China has been described as both conservation and development (Xun and Milly, 2002), and their socio-economic benefits estimated in terms of tourism numbers, tourism revenue, tourism jobs, and capital value of tourism projects (Xun and Ting, 2003). However it is not clear what proportion of these benefits would have arisen without geopark status. Some benefits can be attributed to the designation more directly, including the educational value of linking scientific knowledge with the tourist industry, and the opportunities for international scientific exchange.

SE Asia also offers experience in considering the benefits at a World Heritage Site (Kim et al,, 2007) and Biosphere Reserve (Lu et al, 2006a). At the former a willingness-to-pay survey of visitors to a cultural site suggested values about 2.5 higher than the admission rate charged. At the latter, conservation management incentives and tourism have both increased local employment rates. Some social problems have arisen because of in-migration from adjacent areas. In neither case was any attempt made to separate the effects of the UNESCO designation from the effects of the heritage resources themselves.

Perhaps the most practical attempt to assess the economic impact of a World Heritage Site comes from Atlantic Consultants in their report (Atlantic Consultants, 2003) on the likely such effects of the proposal to designate the Cornish tin mining area. This takes a pragmatic approach using the best available information to describe the likely economic effects. It is a time-consuming and specialist approach, but is essentially a tailor-made version of the American MGM model.

13

Moxey (2006) adopted a similarly pragmatic approach when assessing the public benefits purchased by public support of an area of private land in a Scottish national park.

The costs of establishing and managing a designated site are rarely reported, even though this is an important factor in determining any net benefit. SNH (2005) estimated set up costs of £100k per year for a Biosphere Reserve in Scotland, with an additional £4-500k investment required to develop a quality mark. In the longer term the reserve would continue to require public support though the quality mark should be self-financing.

4.3 Assessing the relevance of governance, the policy community and stakeholder involvement on UNESCO designated areas - review of evidence Differing regional governance and local management systems are likely to influence the impacts of new UNESCO designated areas and there is considerable published literature on how this influence varies. The need for management systems effective enough to successfully link conservation and development is explicitly recognised in the Seville Strategy on Biosphere Reserves. This states that “the link between the conservation of biodiversity and the development needs of local communities are…now a key feature of the successful management of …protected areas”.

Policies in Europe are moving towards linking biodiversity protection with local economic gain, with recognition of the role of social cohesion in doing so. The origins of this approach lie in experience from overseas development projects, though the approach is now accepted globally (Pretty and Smith, 2003). Stoll-Kleemann (Stoll-Kleemann, 2001) describes this experience in Germany and underlines the complexities of the situation. She develops the concept of a “policy community” of agencies and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) which fails to capture the public imagination due partly to a stereotyped “social memory” of how these agencies have behaved in the past. She notes that even when this is acknowledged, the ideals of “inclusory participation”, proper consultation, and stakeholder power, may not always achieve the level of environmental protection required by some, as other interests may come to dominate.

Writing five years later (Stoll-Kleeman, 2005), Stoll-Kleemann alludes to the difficulty of economic “exploitation” of resources when the safe carrying capacity is unknown. The point that participation is not a panacea for defusing conflict and achieving equity is often cited: interest groups may manipulate the system for ends which are not desirable for either environmental protection or economic and social development (Pretty and Smith, 2003).

For example, before the Seville strategy a review of the impacts of Biosphere Reserve designation in the US (Solecki, 1994) concluded that a range of tensions can arise between interest groups in the same way as with other land use planning. In particular the shift in the distribution of costs and benefits can be inequitable, with the most politically powerful groups benefiting most. Where local authorities derive a significant share of their income from land taxes the changes resulting from Biosphere designations can reduce tax revenue and lead to the loss of public services, with poorer people suffering most. In that study the solution to all these issues was seen as being through an improved technocratic process, with more integration between environmental and development agencies.

14

Recognising these issues the Governance3 of Biodiversity (GoBi 2007) Research Project is working on the complex web of factors involved in successful management of protected areas. Their specific aim is to “disentangle some of these complexities by integrating ecological and socio-economic approaches that result in better governance of protected areas”. They are engaged in both quantitative and qualitative studies on thirteen sites worldwide, although none in Europe, and were scheduling a quantitative survey of all Biosphere Reserves during 2006. Their first discussion paper (Stoll-Kleemann 2006 Berlin) describes the various theoretical models (such as the OECD model (OECD, 2003)) used to formalise the relationship between man and the environment, and concentrates on environmental aspects.

Social analysis of a Swiss World Heritage Site (Wiesmann et al 2005) provides a practical example of both the role of participatory processes in developing site management objectives, and the variety of socio-economic outcomes sought by different stakeholder groups. Eight “orientation pathways” are used in the site plan, covering objectives including resource conservation, increased economic use, promotion and marketing, local consumption, etc. The analysis suggests that the high level of stakeholder participation was a direct result of the UNESCO designation. Case study 6 describes this in more detail.

The Rhoen region of Germany has been a particular focus of attention on social and economic benefits of a biosphere reserve. A variety of economic benefits has been reported (Fremuth, 2004). Many are based on tourism, branding, and local consumption networks. The impacts are not quantified in that study and there is no estimate of what would have happened in the region following re-unification in the absence of the reserve. However, the key role of the reserve appears to be the way it draws people together across local government boundaries and economic sectors. The focus it provides for public sector spending, such as EU LEADER funding, and the link between environment and economy also seem to be important. Case study 7 describes this in more detail.

This review makes it clear why UNESCO has recognised that governance is a critical element in biodiversity conservation, and for the Biosphere Reserve programme. A UNESCO technical note describes the need for participation and some mediation techniques available to achieve it (UNESCO, 2006d). More generally, a variety of approaches has been recommended for sustainability valuation and appraisal, many of them based on stakeholder participation (SDRN, 2007). We refer to this again when discussing methods for site evaluation and selection (section 8.2).

5 CRITERIA FOR CATEGORISING BENEFITS In the light of the policy objectives outlined in section 3 and the literature search (section 4) the research team identified a set of criteria for categorising benefits. They are listed in Table 3, below. The criteria were developed from the general set used by Hambrey (Hambrey, 2004) in a study of impacts arising from natural heritage activity and designations. They have been modified to reflect the objectives of UNESCO designations and the priorities attached to the full range of Scottish policies, as set out in section 3.2. The table is thus a synthesis of

3 UNDP defines governance as follows: “..the exercise of political, economic and administrative authority in the management of a country’s affairs at all levels. Governance comprises the complex mechanisms, processes and institutions through which citizens and groups articulate their interests, mediate their differences and exercise their legal rights and obligations. Good governance has many attributes. It is participatory, transparent and accountable. It is effective in making the best use of resources and is equitable. And it promotes the rule of law.” (UNDP 1997)

15

benefits defined from basic principles and from relevant policies. The match between these criteria and Scottish policies is illustrated in Table 12 on page 62

Table 3 Criteria used in this study to categorise benefits from UNESCO protected areas

Criteria Examples

Environment

Biodiversity Species and habitat condition

Landscape/greenspace Landscape protection

Ecosystem services Water quality, carbon storage

Economy

Employment and income Increase in ‘green jobs’

Branding of produce

Rural diversification including agriculture

Tourism value Business opportunity

e-business initiatives

Social

Social inclusion policy (narrow sense4)

Public participation Social inclusion Demographic trends/ public services/ infrastructure

Health and well-being Countryside recreation

Schools projects

Volunteering for the environment Education and training Community learning and development

(including community cohesion, linked to public participation)

6 EVIDENCE OF BENEFITS - KEY POINTS FROM THE CASE STUDIES AND LITERATURE The benefits highlighted in the literature are illustrated by the case studies in Appendix 1, page 1. They are based on published information about the site, and have been checked with someone from the site or locality, as far as possible. They reflect what may be achieved with each designation and highlight factors that improve or reduce the scale of benefits. They are not intended to be a full assessment of the case study sites. That would require primary research and was beyond the scope of this project.

6.1 Some snapshots The case studies illustrate that any of the categories of UNESCO site can potentially contribute to any of the eight broad criteria of benefit defined in this study. The extent to which sites do so, and the mix of benefits they achieve, is very variable. Partly this is a result of inherent characteristics of the site, locality, and community. Partly it is a result of how the site is administered and managed.

4 By “narrow sense” we mean groups excluded because of poverty, gender, ethnicity, health, disability etc.

16

When new sites are being considered both their inherent potential and the extent of the commitment to appropriate governance (including, but not only, funding) must be taken into account.

It can be dangerous to oversimplify, but some tools are needed to help people to think about a range of different issues and the possible trade-offs between them. The following diagrams are one way of visualising the extent to which each site meets the 8 criteria we have defined. A simple ranking including 0 (not applicable), and ranging from 1 (low contribution) to 3 (high contribution) describes how the site meets each criterion. The judgements are based on the research team’s view of the evidence presented in this report. We have only considered the current situation at each site, and have not taken account of plans for the future, or potential. As this was a desk study there may be inaccuracies and we use it here mainly to illustrate the approach.

Figure 1 Snapshots of the case studies

North Pennines AONB European Geopark

0

1

2

3Biodiversity

Landscape & greenspace

Ecosystem services

Employment andIncome

Business opportunities

Social Inclusion

Health and well-being

Education and training

Rhon Biosphere Reserve

0

1

2

3Biodiversity


Ecosystem services

Employment and Income


Social Inclusion



Giant’s Causeway and Causeway Coast World Heritage Site

0

1

2

3Biodiversity


Ecosystem services



Social Inclusion



Braunton Burrows Biosphere Reserve

0

1

2

3Biodiversity


Ecosystem services



Social Inclusion



Abberley and Malvern Hills Geopark

0

1

2

3Biodiversity


Ecosystem services



Social Inclusion



Entlebuch Biosphere Reserve

0

1

2

3Biodiversity


Ecosystem services

Employment and Income


Social Inclusion



West Norwegian Fjords - Geirangerfjord & Nærøyfjord - World Heritage Site

0

1

2

3Biodiversity


Ecosystem services



Social Inclusion



17

18

6.2 Environment The first point that is evident from the study is that in countries such as Scotland UNESCO designations have only a minor role in site protection. Where strong national (and in Europe, EU level) protective legislation already exists, with strong planning authorities to deliver it, UNESCO protection will add little. In contrast, countries with less well developed environmental policy and institutions are likely to find that UNESCO sites have an important protective role.

At the same time UNESCO sites anywhere can play an environmental role in a number of other ways. The most direct is through improved site management. The will, structures, and funding for sites can be enhanced through UNESCO status. This is apparent for all three types, and is particularly clear from the Entlebuch and Rhön BRs, and the West Norway Fjords WHS. It is not an inevitable benefit, however. The management history at Braunton Burrows BR and The Giant’s Causeway WHS illustrate that where circumstances are unfavourable UNESCO status will not necessarily provide the impetus to improve environmental conditions.

In almost all cases UNESCO sites raise awareness of environmental issues. All the case studies show moderate to strong performance in the education and training field, and the wider literature shows that an international accolade stimulates local interest and attracts people to the area. The benefits of this accrue to the site itself, where better understanding of the issues is likely to lead to better management, but also to the environment more widely. People whose understanding and commitment to the environment is increased because of UNESCO sites are likely to apply it in the rest of their lives, wherever they live.

6.3 Economy The evidence about economic benefits is mixed. In some cases there are strong economic gains from UNESCO sites, particularly in the studies of Entlebuch and Rhön BR. Here the designation appears to have generated significant additional benefits, and led to concerted marketing and processing initiatives. In other cases, such as the Giant’s Causeway the designation appears to add little. The benefits there are largely attributable to the nature of the site, not to how it is designated or managed.

There are two important ways in which designation can contribute economically. One arises from the publicity generated by a global accolade. This opens the door for marketing and brand development, built on strong public recognition. World Heritage Sites are best known for this, but Biosphere Reserves and Geoparks also offer good opportunities for branding.

The second arises from the potential to attract investment to UNESCO sites. It may come from central government, from other public sources, from non-governmental organisations, or even in some cases from the private sector. All the case studies show strong public investment. The Giant’s Causeway is largely supported by an NGO, and in Entlebuch there are examples of private companies supporting projects.

The scale of economic impacts is likely to be very local however. The policy analysis in section 7 highlights the difficulty of attributing national economic policy benefits to UNESCO sites. Local people and agencies may feel differently, as many of the case studies show.

The final point about economic benefits concerns the net benefit. Some costs and disbenefits arise from designation, though there is little quantified evidence of disbenefits. There is more evidence about costs. They are incurred through

19

basic administration of the site as well as through investment in the development opportunities it affords. Overall the costs can be seen as an investment to deliver the full range of benefits, and a judgement must be made about whether this is good value for money. More complex economic effects can arise in relation to surrounding areas, as described in section 3.1 (page 6).

6.4 Social In their current form all the designations emphasise that social processes are essential for good management and effective benefits. The evidence suggests that this is true, and that in most cases the sites contribute to social development in one form or another. Education is the most common benefit as almost all sites have environment and heritage education programmes. Health and well-being is also well represented, often because of the recreational opportunities provided. Social inclusion benefits are normal too, though this category is quite complex and requires more analysis.

In our categorisation of benefits we use terms for both broad and narrow social inclusion. The latter describes activities that allow specific excluded minorities to play a stronger role in society through work, recreation, and other activities. UNESCO sites often have programmes or initiatives to encourage this type of social inclusion, for instance through training and education programmes or accessible design of the site. All the case studies show some benefits in this regard.

Our broader definition of social inclusion has two main components. The first deals with the extent to which the whole “community” is involved in decisions about the designation. Is it only the usual interest groups that are involved, how much say do local people have, are people consulted once plans are near final, or are people invited to contribute to plans from the start, for instance? This is a question of governance: the rights and responsibilities of people affected by and interested in the designated site.

The second component covers issues of local community sustainability. It includes demographic issues, including whether the population is declining. It also includes the question of public services such as public transport, health care, as well as retail and other private sector services. In many rural areas these issues are becoming more difficult, perhaps because of population decline, or because of changing social mix. UNESCO sites may be able to improve community sustainability because they generate more demand for services, or because they reverse population decline.

The benefits that sites deliver in terms of these broader social inclusion definitions appear to be more variable than with the narrower definition. It is possible for a site to have virtually no impact on governance, and to operate only within the established local processes. It is also possible for the designation to contribute little to community sustainability, beyond what would happen anyway without UNESCO involvement.

In other cases, and the Entlebuch case study provides the best example, the designation can animate a new collective approach to local development. This is led from the grass-roots by a range of community interests, with the designation providing a framework for them to operate and interact. This is the governance benefit that arises from our social inclusion category.

An almost inevitable result of this will be improved community sustainability. The “social capital” of the area will increase. Through a variety of mechanisms this is likely to lead to associated improvements in public services as well as in the strength of the local economy and thus private service provision.

20

UNESCO sites appear to offer opportunities to deliver strong social inclusion benefits, for excluded groups as well as to entire communities through governance and community sustainability. In most cases these are additional benefits that would not arise without the designation. In a few cases, such as the W Norway Fjords, the governance tradition already favours community participation. Here the designation harmonises with existing social capacity to deliver a full range of benefits. Where the capacity and governance does not already exist UNESCO sites can play a key role in creating them. Whether or not this happens depends on how the designation process is handled from the top, and how the communities act.

6.5 Comparison of designations The UNESCO designations share some characteristics, but are also quite different from one another in certain respects. Is it possible to identify their strengths and weakness from the point of view of the benefits they produce?

One of their most obvious similarities is their approach to social inclusion in both broad and narrow senses. The UNESCO guidance encourages strong public participation and inclusion for all three categories of site. Any of the designations should therefore be able to deliver strong social benefits. This report shows examples of all three types doing so. The other obvious similarity concerns the public profile of global designations and its value for marketing and branding. We have shown that all three types of site can utilise this and that it is often a driving force for designation in the first place.

Amongst the differences is the explicit emphasis on tourism. Geoparks focus on it, whilst WHS and BRs make less explicit mention of it. BR however emphasise sustainable economic development and as their environmental assets are strong some element of tourism is almost inevitable. WHS encourage education, and the requirement for universal value inevitably implies exceptional heritage characteristics. So tourism is normal at all but the most inaccessible WHS. In practice the role of tourism does not seem to differ greatly between the designations.

Wider business opportunities do seem to vary. BRs are much more concerned with a diverse range of sustainable economic activities, often linked to their natural resources. Geoparks largely focus on tourism alone, whereas WHS may or may not have a role in business development. The type of designation does not preclude a range of business opportunities being developed, but it does seem to favour different mixes of development.

From the environmental point of view there would not at first sight appear to be differences. All three types of site are based on strong protection, and in the countries we have focused on this arises from existing national legislation. In practice though the additional value of UNESCO designations does seem to vary.

In the case of Geoparks there would not seem to be much emphasis on protection, except through controls on sustainable resource use. In the case of BRs the distinction between core protected areas and buffer and co-operation zones provides additional protective mechanisms. WHS are perhaps the most strongly protected as they have the highest public profile. The scope for UNESCO to remove sites from the WHS list if their condition deteriorates is a powerful political tool to influence protection.

Environmental benefits are not limited to site protection, however. Biological heritage resources almost invariably require active management, whether to continue traditional practices or to adapt to external trends. Here too the sites offer different potential though none of them preclude active management. BRs

21

place emphasis on research to improve scientific and practical understanding, as well as on primary land (or sea) management. So BR designation is the most obvious way of delivering the full range of environmental benefits. As we have explained WHS has a strong protective role, and this includes management of the site. The designation is not so explicit about the incentives needed to achieve it (the carrot), but the stick of delisting is ever present and should encourage active management. Geoparks are not based on biological resources so they differ markedly in this respect. They have limited need for active management and are not designed to deliver it.

Finally, the link between environmental and social benefits must be highlighted. All the designations are designed to play an educational role and we have demonstrated that they do so. This is an important contribution to achieving environmental benefits. Education is likely to result in better understanding of environmental issues, greater commitment to maintaining environmental quality, and a positive attitude to the link between environment, society and the economy. As a result it should ultimately lead to greater support, locally and more widely, for sustainable site management. Direct environmental benefits will arise and all three types of UNESCO site appear to contribute.

7 ESTIMATING THE IMPACTS OF NEW SITES IN SCOTLAND – METHODOLOGY This section brings together the evidence presented in the literature review and case studies and identifies the likely benefits of new sites in Scotland. It then proposes how benefits could be predicted, and which types of benefit should be considered during the site selection process. Finally it identifies the data sources that could be used in practice in Scotland.

Estimating likely impacts at new sites is closely related to evaluation of existing sites, for two reasons:

Estimates of future impacts will influence site management objectives and targets. Progress in achieving these must be evaluated, so the same factors are likely to be measured again.

Both initial impact assessment and monitoring are likely to be constrained by data availability. This is likely to lead to the same indicators being chosen in both cases.

For these reasons we discuss both evaluation of past impacts and prediction of future impacts in the following.

The report highlights some differences between the benefits that can be expected from different types of UNESCO designation. There are more similarities than dissimilarities though, so much of this section deals with the types as a group. The recommendations in section 8 are more specific and where necessary make different proposals for different designations.

Section 4.2.1 outlined sources of formal government guidance on evaluating impacts and benefits. In all cases this emphasises the need to assess whether, given particular circumstances, an intervention is likely to work, for whom, and why? This entails consideration of objectives, alternatives (counter-factuals, additionality and opportunity costs) and baselines and monitoring. In addition the advice recognises that a balance must be struck between the costs of assessment and the value of the intervention. This does not excuse the absence of assessment, but does allow for the use of more rapid, often qualitative, appraisal methods to supplement incomplete quantitative data. Hence this section ranges quite widely across various aspects of impact assessment.

22

7.1 The policy based approach What benefits might UNESCO sites bring for Scottish policies? The following results are based on the judgement of the research team and only broad conclusions should be drawn from this analysis.

In the light of the literature review and case studies the research team compared the Scottish and UNESCO policy lists set out in sections 3.2.2 and 3.2.3 respectively. Each combination was compared in a matrix, and scored from 0-35. The results are summarised in the table below. The extent to which each Scottish policy is likely to benefit from all UNESCO objectives is shown, as well as the break down by each type of designation.

For example, WHS objectives concern universal value, site integrity, and site protection. These were allocated scores of 2, 3, and 1 respectively for their potential to contribute to the Scottish biodiversity policy objective of integration and landscape scale actions. The total WHS score for this Scottish policy objective was thus 6.

5 Zero = no significant interaction, 1-3 = low-high positive interaction

23

Table 4 Likely contribution of UNESCO sites to selected Scottish Policies

Scottish Policy Policy priority/ measure / indicator

All

type

s

WH

S

BR

Geo

park

Scotland's biodiversity Integration and landscape scale activity (various) 30 6 16 8

Scotland's biodiversity Sustainable use (various) 25 2 18 5

Rural Scotland

Scotland's natural and cultural heritage must be allowed to flourish in all its diversity. We will encourage local and regional influences to play their part .. 22 9 11 2

European Landscape Convention Protection (various) 19 9 4 6 Cross Policy Community/ demography (various) 15 1 10 4 Scotland's biodiversity Biodiversity (various) 14 9 5 0 Tourism Framework for change Sustainable tourism (various) 14 3 3 8 Tourism Framework for change Tourism quality (various) 13 3 2 8 Scotland's biodiversity Protection (various) 12 9 3 0 Cross Policy Education training (various) 10 1 7 2 Tourism Framework for change Value of tourism revenue 10 2 1 7 Tourism Framework for change Number of visitors 10 2 1 7 Cross Policy Climate change (various) 9 5 2 2

Rural Scotland

We will improve access to services essential to our life and work, and ensure that quality of life will depend on what you need, not where you are. 9 1 4 4

Scotland's biodiversity Species protection (various) 9 9 0 0 A Forward Strategy for Scottish Agriculture Visits to the countryside 8 2 1 5 Choosing our Future Ecosystem Health (various) 7 2 4 1 A Forward Strategy for Scottish Agriculture

Business development/ diversification (various) 7 0 3 4

Cross Policy Un/employment (various) 2 0 2 0 Smart Successful Scotland proportion of employers exporting 1 0 0 1

Smart Successful Scotland Gross Domestic Product per head of population 0 0 0 0

Smart Successful Scotland high growth firms (business starts) 0 0 0 0 Smart Successful Scotland percentage of businesses trading online 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 246 75 97 74

See text above for explanation. Rows are ranked by the “All types” category. Only the most relevant Scottish policies are included.

The results indicate that UNESCO sites are likely to make a strong contribution to environmental policies. They should also match up well with Scottish policies for tourism, and with various community development and human resources policy

24

objectives. Wider rural and agriculture policies should also benefit. The expected fit with economic policy is not apparent though.

The most obvious reason for this is that many economic objectives are stated in quite high level terms, from a national level. UNESCO sites’ impacts are mainly local (results of quality branding, for example) so they are not likely to register at the higher level. This illustrates a difficulty of using national policies and indicators with local initiatives. Local agencies’ and communities’ perceptions of economic opportunities, based on a wider consideration of likely benefits, may be more appropriate in this case. However, the existence of several UNESCO designated areas in one country or region may have a beneficial effect on the regional economy, because tourists are attracted to the combination of sites.

There are some obvious differences in the scores assigned to different types of UNESCO designation. Although interpretation of this type of analysis should not be taken too far, it does indicate that careful thought should be given to the match between a designation and the objectives for a site or locality.

7.2 Wider impact assessment The literature review and case studies reported above offer some insights into the nature of UNESCO designations and the associated impacts, and the preceding section indicates how this is relevant to current Scottish policies. Taking a wider view of likely impacts in Scotland, the level of detail in the literature is insufficient to support detailed quantitative estimates. It is, nonetheless, possible to draw some conclusions regarding types and measurement of impact, and criteria that might be used to select sites for designation.

We have described the potential impacts in three categories, environmental, economic and social – as summarised in Table 3. These categories suggest how sites might be selected for designation and also how impacts might be evaluated. In both cases the work is shaped by data availability, and by their interpretation in a scientific and political context. This is partly because there is often insufficient funding for monitoring. In addition there is often controversy about cause-and-effect, either because the information is poor or because local actors have different attitudes to the issues.

Potential direct environmental impacts appear to be relatively modest, with UNESCO designations offering no additional protection beyond that offered by domestic regulatory controls. However, the award of a UNESCO designation offers two possible indirect routes to enhanced environmental performance. First, designation raises the possibility of enhanced funding. If used appropriately, such additional funding may contribute to environmental goals. Second, UNESCO designation requires formal preparation of management plans and community participation in site governance. Coupled with the potentially bad publicity that results from losing the accolade through failure to meet UNESCO criteria, UNESCO designation may stimulate better environmental management.

Potential economic impacts fall into two categories.

First, from an international perspective, if the designation does protect and/or enhance natural and cultural heritage, this may represent significant indirect use and non-use values. In other words, non-visitors and non-residents may still derive economic value from a site through, for example, ecosystem services and retention of culturally-significant activities or communities. Such public goods are not valued through the market, but do have an economic value – albeit one that may be difficult to quantify.

Second, from a more local perspective, designation may have a more readily observable economic impact through direct use values expressed by

25

visitors and residents. This may arise directly from the leverage of additional public funding to support local activities. It may also arise from entrepreneurs’ responses to enhanced visitor numbers and business opportunities. The former may arise simply as a result of the designation acting as a form of “quality assurance”, raising the profile of the site and signalling its international significance. These gains may then be amplified by local firms tailoring their market offerings to add value and better reflect the qualities implied by the designation. Local branding of food and drink, or through improved visitor facilities, are examples. Such responses may be reflected in local employment and income levels, both directly through front-line firms and indirectly through the multiplier effect on other firms, households and public service providers.

Potential social impacts link to the environmental and economic impacts. For example, enhanced local employment and income levels may contribute to poverty-alleviation and social inclusion within the local community. Equally, UNESCO requirements for community participation in governance may improve participatory aspects of social inclusion. For both residents and visitors, improved environmental conditions, and/or facilities to enhance the enjoyment and understanding of the environment, may contribute to both health and well-being and to educational levels. Examples include the provision of infrastructure such as easy-access paths or interpretative material, and the provision of interactive services such as guided walks or advisory staff.

7.3 Local variation in impacts The potential benefit outcomes listed above are plausible, and indeed are all cited in the literature, but their realisation for any particular designated site may not be guaranteed – as is apparent from the case studies. Designation of a site is an external force, but it may be neither necessary nor sufficient to generate desired local outcomes: outcomes might occur without the designation, but equally might not occur with the designation. So the designation does not itself cause or guarantee benefits. This is not to deny potential impacts, but rather to emphasise that they are to a large extent contingent upon other internal, site-specific, conditions. These can be highly variable and are of two types.

7.3.1 Environmental conditions The sensitivity of natural resources to environmental change, such as climate change and other human intervention, varies greatly. Some sites and some features are highly susceptible to change and require careful management to avoid over-exploitation and damage. Other sites and other features are more robust. This has implications for the degree to which UNESCO designations can be used to valorise6 natural assets and encourage local development without degrading the assets themselves: fragile sites may have limited potential for generating local economic benefits through either tourism or other added-value activities. Equally, robust sites may not need UNESCO protection.

Given the typically dominant role of tourism in generating local economic effects, the attractiveness of sites to visitors in terms of their natural characteristics and location can greatly influence economic and social impacts. Remote sites lacking in charismatic flora and fauna or spectacular landscapes or geological formations may struggle to attract interest, even with a UNESCO designation.

6 valorise: to derive direct economic value from (for instance through tourism)

26

7.3.2 Governance conditions Any site or area may be overseen by a variety of government bodies, each with their own remit and responsibilities. Local authorities, central government, and agencies are the main types in Scotland. Despite a raft of exhortations and initiatives to promote “joined-up government” across these different facets of the State, effective horizontal and vertical co-ordination is not always achieved. If a designation spans several administrative jurisdictions it may facilitate horizontal working between neighbouring authorities by providing a forum and a focus for interaction. Equally, it may serve to facilitate vertical co-ordination across tiers of government, although the danger of confused responsibilities and communications also needs to be considered..

“Hard” institutional structures delineated by administrative boundaries and bureaucratic responsibilities interact with “soft” aspects of community cohesion and capacity. This is visible when communities self-organise in order, for example, to access funding streams or exploit collective marketing opportunities associated with a designation. It is also shown by the degree of participation of the community in the process of designation and subsequent management. As with “joined-up government”, a designation may facilitate community cohesion and engagement by providing a forum for co-operation and participation.

However, despite its potential to act as a catalyst for co-ordination and co-operation, the likelihood of a designation achieving this kind of “success” and delivering the desired benefits is at least partly determined by the willingness and ability of government bodies and citizens to respond to the opportunities offered. Unfortunately this capacity appears to be somewhat variable. Some administrative authorities are better at co-operating than others, and territorial disputes over roles and responsibilities can arise. Both hinder spatial and hierarchical co-ordination and coherence. Equally, local communities vary greatly in their capacity for self-organisation. Their ability to respond to business opportunities and to engage with government and NGOS varies, reflecting variation in skills, confidence and levels of trust.

7.4 Other considerations for site selection The range of potential impacts and their dependence upon site-specific conditions raise a number of issues regarding site selection. Perhaps most obviously, since UNESCO has its own set of criteria for site designations, there is little point in nominating a site that fails to meet these. Hence, for example, WHS nominations need to display “outstanding universal value”. However, if one or more sites within Scotland meet these eligibility criteria, other criteria should be considered before nominations are proposed.

7.4.1 Making a difference, and probability of success UNESCO sites are by definition exceptional in some way, so how much difference will the UNESCO designation itself make? This is a crucial issue when deciding whether policies or programmes, and their associated costs, are required. Here we use the term additionality to refer to the issue.

Given the eligibility criteria, it is likely that candidate sites within Scotland will already be covered, wholly or partially, by domestic environmental designations such as NNRs or SSSIs. Hence, as noted above, the potential environmental additionality stems from indirect improvements in site management arising from additional funding and improved governance arrangements. Equally, economic and social benefits arise from induced responses from within the business and wider community. However, the potential to realise benefits varies across sites according to their environmental characteristics and to hard and soft institutional

27

factors. Intrinsic biological and geophysical attributes may underpin site designation, yet the opportunity for a designation to make a meaningful difference may also be reduced by them. They may impose constraints on local development and/or be of limited commercial (tourism) appeal, for example. In such cases, the likelihood of success may be small unless efforts are made to overcome natural limitations through support for infrastructure and services that protect fragile resources whilst encouraging economic development. The alternative is to select more naturally-endowed sites with a higher likelihood of success and a lower resource requirement.

Similarly, variation in local capacity for governance and self-organisation poses a trade-off in choosing sites for designation. An area already characterised by co-operative working between government bodies and a high level of community involvement and cohesion will probably be well-placed to realise the potential benefits of designation. However, the additionality achieved may be relatively low since the existing local governance and management arrangements might well deliver similar benefits even in the absence of the designation. Hence the probability of “success” may be high, but the potential gains may be low. Conversely, other sites lacking in institutional and community capacity may have a much lower likelihood of success. Yet, if the designation did stimulate greater engagement and co-ordination, the additional benefits would be more significant. A spectrum of risk tradeoffs will exist, but these two extremes illustrate an uncomfortable aspect of rural development identified previously in the literature (see for example McNutt, 1992; Midmore, 1998; Terluin, 2003). Namely, rural interventions can often benefit those already advantaged and able to make investments rather than those in most need. Overcoming this bias requires additional effort to support communities with a lower propensity and capacity for self-organisation and an acceptance of greater risk of policy failure, which can be expensive and difficult to defend7.

Hence a key question for site selection is the degree of additionality sought and the degree of risk acceptable in achieving the additionality.

7.4.2 Costs Despite the potential benefits outlined above, nomination of an eligible site must consider benefits net of any costs. That is, although designation is intended to achieve positive outcomes, the act of designation itself costs money and the additional regulatory requirements typically impose costs upon various parties. Such costs fall into two main categories.

First, preparatory costs. Designation of a site will normally be preceded by a possibly lengthy process to consider the pros and cons of designation, to canvass opinion, and then to actually achieve designation. Much of this cost may be borne by the public sector, but private stakeholders will contribute to the consultation stages.

Second, compliance costs. Whereas preparatory costs may be viewed as a one-off, once in place the designation will incur on-going compliance costs. These will be borne by both public and private sectors, in the form of effort and resource deployment to adhere to, monitor and (if necessary) enforce regulatory requirements, as well as to respond to business opportunities. This is an important point, since the costs of reconfiguring a local economy to take advantage of particular funding streams and/or market openings are not necessarily outweighed by the gains.

7 Experience with “capacity building” programmes such as LEADER and SEERAD’s “Rural Voice: Action Research Competition” provide anecdotal evidence of some of the difficulties.

28

To further complicate matters, costs may not simply be realised explicitly as cash expenses: they also arise as opportunities forgone. That is, the deployment of resources (land, labour, capital, management) for the designation process and then compliance means their diversion from other uses, representing an opportunity cost. For example income, jobs, community involvement, the time of public sector staff, or public expenditure, could all have been put to another purpose. Identifying and valuing the opportunity foregone may be difficult since it requires consideration of the counterfactual situation – what would have happened in the absence of the designation? Even if the aggregate benefits do outweigh aggregate costs, it is necessary to consider their distribution across different groups. That is, designations can impose costs on one group within a community, for example landowners, whilst conveying benefits to another, for example tourism operators. The two do not necessarily overlap.

7.5 Indicators available in Scotland Any indicator is inevitably a compromise between scientific purity, data availability, practical relevance and (political) acceptability. Hence, whilst scientific understanding may provide insights into what should be measured, when, where and how, this may be amended by what is practically possible within the resources available for monitoring and the perceived relevance to decision makers. In some respects there is a wealth of data and knowledge available, though the lack of time-series information at the local level is an important limitation. Not all the data are easily understood, however, and indicators are chosen to be relevant, and accepted by, decision makers and stakeholders. Information is in effect elevated to the status of an indicator by its users. In the light of these issues the practicability of the indicator categories suggested in Table 3 (page 15) must be reconsidered. The following sections do so in the light of data availability and their interpretation.

7.5.1 Environmental Biodiversity, the natural variety of organisms, is viewed scientifically as an indicator of ecosystem health and resilience and may be measured via several established approaches and indices. National interest in biodiversity, and international regulatory requirements (notably the Convention on Biological Diversity), have led to extensive monitoring. Consequently, information on biodiversity is relatively easily available, both at a national and a local scale. As UNESCO designations tend to coincide spatially with domestic environmental designations, Site Conditioning Monitoring (SNH, 2007a) may supplement sources such as, for example, Local Biodiversity Action Plans (JNCC 2007) or aggregate data on habitats and species (Scottish Executive, 2007a ). Landscape is less amenable to quantification. A national comparative survey does exist however (SNH, 2002) and it includes tables identifying importance and value of the landscape, as well as pressures and trends. This provides comparative baseline information (although somewhat out of date), but is not likely to be repeated sufficiently often to generate monitoring information. The same approach could be adopted to commission site specific monitoring information. The scale is at the regional level, defined in natural heritage terms, but this is geographically small enough to be relevant to site selection.

Ecosystem services is a catch-all term encompassing a range of inter-related mechanisms by which natural capital generates benefits for people. Such benefits are usually difficult to quantify because many are intangible and subject to scientific uncertainty. In addition, they are relatively invisible to the public. Their effects are often distributed thinly: with many beneficiaries, and across

29

space and time. For example public awareness of ecosystem contributions to air and water quality, to erosion and flooding control, or to food-web resilience, is typically low. Such benefits are not traded in a market and may not be noticed until they start to deteriorate. Some aspects of ecosystem services are monitored and reported routinely at a national level, with some spatial disaggregation possible, for example river water and air quality (Scottish Executive, 2007b ). Equally, for areas and sites already under an environmental designation, Site Condition Monitoring may generate relevant data routinely.

7.5.2 Economic Economic indicators are relatively well-established, although not necessarily available at either the locality or time required for evaluation of individual sites. Employment levels, and associated measures of economic (in)activity are available at a relatively fine spatial resolution from various official sources, including Scottish Neighbourhood Statistics (Scottish Executive, 2007c ) and the Multiple Index of Deprivation (Scottish Executive, 2007d). However, the nature of employment is not recorded/reported at the same level of detail, and surveys such as the Scottish Production Database (Scottish Executive, 2007e) or Input-Output tables (Scottish Executive, 2007f ) must be used instead. Neither can provide a local-level profile so a local survey may be required.

Similarly, income levels are not recorded intensively and whilst aggregate and average figures may be derived from sources such as the Scottish Household Survey (Scottish Executive, 2007g) or the Family Resources Survey (HM Department of Work and Pensions, 2007), robust profiling at a local-level is not generally possible without some local survey effort. However, low-income profiling is possible through Neighbourhood Statistics and the Multiple Index of Deprivation domains relating to the uptake of welfare benefits.

Business opportunities are reflected in the stock of firms and the rate of startups and closures. Various routine data collection exercises seek to measure these, although none are ideal (see Dodds & Briggs 2000). The most commonly used source is the DTI’s Inter-Departmental Business Register (IDBR) (National Statistics, 2007a) which is based on VAT registrations and can be disaggregated to the local level. Whilst robust, this does ignore businesses operating below the VAT-threshold and therefore underestimates the number of businesses operating in an area, which can be a problem with tourism. Again, bespoke local surveys could provide a more accurate picture – including more subjective insights into expansion plans and possible dependency upon/response to a designation.

7.5.3 Social Social inclusion means individuals’ opportunity to choose to participate fully in society. Examples include participation in the democratic and legal systems, in the housing and labour markets, in public services, and in family and friend networks. Measurement of social inclusion may be achieved objectively through, for example, membership of bodies such as Trade Unions or Pressure Groups and Sports or Hobby Clubs, or through recorded levels of (un)employment, welfare benefit uptake and accommodation conditions. Equally, inclusion may be measured more subjectively, for example through qualitative surveys of attitudes and experiences regarding feelings such as loneliness, fear and aspirations. Some objective measures are available through, for example, Neighbourhood Statistics and the Multiple Index of Deprivation. However, others – such as membership of Clubs – and the more subjective aspects can really only be addressed through bespoke surveys.

30

Health and well-being, or rather ill-health and unwell-being, are recorded and reported nationally on a routine basis and selected facets are reported at a disaggregated level through Community Profiles (SPHO, 2007), Neighbourhood Statistics and the Multiple Index of Deprivation. Indeed there are strong links to social inclusion in terms of access to services supporting health and well-being and indicators overlap between the two. However, as with social inclusion, more subjective aspects such as the motivations of people in seeking health and well-being benefits from particular activities/pastimes, and how such benefits are felt, are generally not recorded so well. Whilst some aspects may be picked-up by national sample exercises such as the Scottish Recreation Survey (SNH, 2007b) or the Tourism Attitudes Survey (VisitScotland, 2007a), it seems likely that more specific survey effort may be required locally.

Formal education and training opportunities, and attainment outcomes, are recorded and reported at a national level (Scottish Executive, 2005b). Some local disaggregation is possible through Neighbourhood Statistics and the Multiple Index of Deprivation. However, less formal education and training activities and events - which might be associated with interpretative material produced because of a UNESCO a designation - are not recorded routinely. Hence, again, local survey effort may be required to document both the nature and number of activities and their translation into attainment in terms of knowledge, understanding and appreciation.

7.5.4 Indicators - Summary Indicators are a useful tool to assist in both site selection and evaluation of impacts. However, the site-specific nature of attributes and impacts means that national monitoring sources may be insufficient to portray local circumstances adequately. Additionality and likelihood of impact depend on governance and participation arrangements that are best measured qualitatively, so local survey efforts may be inescapable. In the case of evaluation this is certainly true, not least since some UNESCO objectives are couched in terms of participation and community involvement. Any local monitoring needs to establish a baseline against which subsequent performance can be compared.

For site selection, local surveys will probably be disproportionately expensive. So the monitoring data available would have to provide a basis. It should be supplemented with subjective insights gleaned from public bodies and NGOs regarding, in particular, local capacity to engage with and benefit from designation. That is, bodies such as Communities Scotland, Community Councils, Local Economic Fora, Enterprise Companies, Local Authorities and the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations will have prior experience of attempting to support local communities and may be able to comment on the likelihood and magnitude of impacts. Whilst such bodies may have their own agendas, informal consultation in the spirit of joined-up government and guided by some of the observations above should provide a useful input to the designation process.

8 RECOMMENDATIONS This section proposes how decisions about new UNESCO sites should be made in Scotland. First, the evidence that should inform the decision is outlined. Second, the rules for deciding what priority should be assigned to a possible site are described. This process could lead to any of the UNESCO designations being pursued, or none. The recommendations are not a rigid prescription for the process. It should be adapted in the light of the candidate sites, the data availability for those localities, and the views of local stakeholders.

31

8.1 Indicator data The first issue concerns the suitability of the site in environmental terms. This is a pre-requisite for designation and should provide an initial filter for site selection. The analysis presented here suggests three further considerations for evaluating the potential impacts of designation. They should be used to prioritise possible sites, and are as follows:

Potential - First, the existing economic structure of an area may be used as a guide to current dependency on particular sectors and to potential business opportunities.

Need - Second, the social structure of an area in terms of demographics and labour market participation may be used as a guide to development needs.

Capacity - Third, the level of local capacity for engagement and cohesion may be used to gauge the likelihood of an area or site responding to the opportunities presented by designation.

8.1.1 Environmental conditions [Pre-requisite]

Sufficient secondary environmental data should be available to avoid any requirement for new surveys or evaluation. All the environmental data quoted here are relevant to all three types of designation, as all of them would have to be of high environmental quality to qualify. The emphasis would vary though and in particular Geoparks should be assessed mainly on their earth science heritage resources. This would be a minor consideration in BRs, where the biodiversity and landscape resources should be central. World Heritage Sites should be assessed across all fields, though some emphasis must be given to the features that are of universal value. The key sources are as follows:

Other protected areas. Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) holds GIS based data on the boundaries and purpose of sites designated for biodiversity and landscape under national and international legislation. Listed historic sites and monuments are also relevant from a wider landscape point of view, and Historic Scotland holds data about them.

Protected area status. SNH data on site condition (including trends) of SSSIs is available from routine monitoring. Poor status should not necessarily be seen as an impediment to designation – it may be a development opportunity.

Ecosystem quality. River quality information held by the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) is the most comprehensive dataset available. It can also be taken as an indicator of general environmental quality. The SNH Natural Heritage Futures documents (SNH, 2007c) describe 21 zonal types in Scotland and are a good indication of natural heritage quality in a locality.

8.1.2 Socio-economic data For socio-economic data, overlaps exist between all the three perspectives of potential, need, and capacity, and information to colour them may be derived from a mix of primary and secondary data sources. The former may take the form of specially commissioned quantitative surveys and/or qualitative investigations that provide insights into the more subjective aspects of designation. Whilst such approaches undoubtedly provide richer local detail, they can be expensive and time-consuming. Hence it is prudent to also consider the availability of existing, secondary, data.

32

In this context, information on selected economic and social attributes is available from a number of census-type sources, supplemented by national surveys. These are collated conveniently by the Scottish Executive through its Neighbourhood Statistics initiative (SNS) (Scottish Executive, 2007c), although some additional data are held in other databases. The information may be viewed (and downloaded) at various levels of spatial resolution, ranging from Local Authorities down to electoral wards, and most are also available as a time-series. However, not all data are available at all levels of spatial or temporal resolution and the reliability of extrapolation or interpolation for a particular site will be variable. Nevertheless, the information is probably the best available. Within the welter of indicators offered through the composite databases, the attributes described in the following sections may be particularly useful in characterising an area from the three perspectives.

The potential, need and capacity of an area and its communities are all important factors influencing the benefits individual designations may offer. On the other hand, there are not likely to be significant differences between the three types of designation in the role of economic sectors and communities. For these reasons a single approach should be taken to assessing the socio-economic benefits of all three types of possible UNESCO site.

8.1.3 Economic structure [Potential] Employees in industry groups (under the SNS Business domain). Although

this neglects the self-employed, and therefore under-represents certain sectors, it does give an indication of the relative importance of different sectors in terms of paid employment. Tourism is a diffuse industry, not specifically identified as a group in the statistics, so some care is needed in drawing conclusions about it.

Number of business units (under the SNS Business domain). This supplements employee figures by providing an estimate of the number of firms in manufacturing, construction and services, to give a guide to the relative importance of different sectors. More detailed information may be obtained direct from the Scottish Executive’s Corporate Sector Statistics (Scottish Executive, 2007h), the Scottish Annual Business Statistics (Scottish Executive, 2007i, and National Statistics, 2007b) and, for tourism-specific data, VisitScotland (VisitScotland, 2007b). However, since all measures are based on VAT registrations, the figures underestimate total business numbers. This is another problem with small tourism businesses, which tend to be particularly underestimated. Moreover, the spatial resolution is not greater than Local Authorities or Local Enterprise Company areas.

Economic activity rates and unemployment rates (under the SNS Economic Activity domain). This provides a guide to participation in the labour market by different groups.

Earnings (under the SNS Economic Activity domain). This provides an estimate of average earnings, as a guide to the absolute and relative income position of an area. However, it is based on surveys for which the degree of spatial disaggregation is limited.

Training and qualifications (under the SNS Education, Skills and Training domain). This offers a guide to the skill-level of workforce, and the extent of on-the-job training.

33

8.1.4 Social Structure [Need] Income deprivation and employment deprivation (under the SNS Economic

Activity domain). This supplements the earnings and economic activity data (and is more robust in terms of coverage) to reveal the prevalence of very low incomes and exclusion from the labour market.

Comparative illness (under the SNS Economic Activity domain). Based on the uptake of various welfare benefits, this offers a guide to both the degree of social and health exclusion.

Child, working and pension populations (under the SNS Population domain). These provide a guide to the demographic structure of an area, revealing dependency ratios and likely demands for public services.

Household spaces (under the SNS Housing domain). This reports the type and value of dwellings in an area, but perhaps more interestingly the proportion used for holiday homes rather than permanent residents, and the availability of social housing.

Public services. The SNS Access to Services domain includes drive-times to schools, hospitals, Post Offices and petrol stations. These also appear in the Multiple Index of Deprivation, and provide an indication of geographic isolation in terms of access to key services. The urban-rural classification could also be used as a cruder measure.

8.1.5 Community [capacity] Charity membership and electoral turnout (under SNS Community Well-

Being/Social Environment domain). These provide a partial, and crude, measure of community participation in voluntary organisations and democratic processes.

The issue of community capacity is, however, quite specific to the context of a UNESCO site: a community and its local agencies may have considerable capacity for some types of development, but not this one. So it will be necessary to evaluate the local conditions through a study in the locality. A possible site would in any case require full participation from communities and agencies so the evaluation does not amount to a heavy administrative burden, particularly once the opportunity cost of selecting an inappropriate site is considered. Although various methods could be used (see UNESCO, 2006d), the stakeholder decision/dialogue analysis method would seem to be most appropriate in the first place. It is described as follows (SDRN, 2007):

The combined use of group deliberation techniques and (a qualitative form of) multicriteria analysis to aid decision-making about policy options. Stakeholder decision analysis was developed to address complex issues, characterised by uncertainty. It highlights the framing of problem, scoping options, eliciting criteria and making judgements through facilitated deliberation (Burgess, 2000). Data are collected during stakeholder workshops. This method is most suitable for the appraisal of policies, programmes or projects where it is important to work first on a common problem understanding, and for which a rough impact assessment is sufficient as input in the decision process.

It has the advantage that it not only tests the local capacity, but is also informed by information about likely impacts from indicator data. The extent to which a community is likely to wish to support a UNESCO site, and the likelihood of success, will be evident if this approach is used as a planning tool. It could of course only be done in a short-list of locations, and these should be chosen using secondary data on the social, economic and environmental perspectives.

34

8.2 Criteria for site selection in Scotland This section draws on the report’s findings to make recommendations about how future UNESCO sites should be selected in Scotland. It takes into account

UNESCO objectives Scottish policy objectives other stakeholders perceptions of benefits benefits at national level benefits at local level additional benefits from UNESCO designation pre-requisites for success

As with the analysis of impacts and indicators, the recommendations are based on the principles of potential, need and capacity. They assume that best practice governance processes (outlined here in section 4.3 and case studies 2, 6 and 7) will be followed, and that the core funding necessary for operation will be provided. Some of the recommendations apply to all three designations (ALL), others are designation specific (WHS, BR, GEO).

8.2.1 Environmental criteria

Mandatory – The site must: meet UNESCO criteria for the designation (ALL) be of universal value (WHS) have very strong geological/geomorphological qualities (GEO) have strong biodiversity qualities and require active management to

maintain them (BR) have sufficient site protection under national legislation to meet the

requirements of the UNESCO designation (ALL) have public appeal and the potential to attract additional funding for

conservation and education (ALL)

Other criteria to use for prioritisation - does the area: Offer sustainable development opportunities based on its natural resources

(ALL)? Offer strong environmental educational opportunities (ALL)?

8.2.2 Economic criteria (potential)

Mandatory – The economy of the area must: Offer strong tourism potential (GEO)

Other criteria to use for prioritisation - does the area: Have a significant proportion of natural resource based activity (BR)? Have potential for reserve related development to contribute to national

economic objectives (WHS particularly)? Have strong potential for reserve related development to improve the local

economy (ALL)? Have potential to capitalise on the designation through branding and

marketing (ALL)? Have potential to develop public goods services such as recreation

provision and environmental management (BR)?

35

8.2.3 Social criteria (need)

Criteria to use for prioritisation - does the area: Have relatively low rates of employment and income (ALL)? Show adverse demographic trends in total population and/or age profile

(ALL)? Have relatively low levels of skills and training (ALL)? Have high and unmet demand for social housing (ALL)? Have poor infrastructure and services (ALL)?

8.2.4 Governance (capacity)

Mandatory – A significant proportion of the local communities and agencies must: Have a track record that shows willingness to collaborate (ALL) Show enthusiasm for the designation in their area (ALL) Show willingness to participate in its delivery (ALL)

Other criteria to use for prioritisation: Are there embryonic or existing trade groups in sectors likely to benefit from

the designation (ALL)? Do agencies should have existing partnership projects (ALL)? Do geographical communities have active intra-communal structures, and

wider networks or show a demand for them (ALL)? Are communities of interest part of cross-sectoral networks or be willing to

establish them(ALL)? Do communities have experience of winning and managing external funding

(ALL)? Does the Community Planning process include all agencies and reach

down to community level (ALL)?

8.2.5 Final selection In practice the selection criteria should be tested at each potential site, using the indicators set out in section 8.1. Sites that are likely to benefit most will score well across the four sets of criteria, meeting all mandatory and many of the priority criteria. A short-listing process will be the most efficient way of considering a range of possible sites using some of the simpler secondary impact indicators, though these must address all the mandatory criteria. A small short list should be examined across the full set of criteria, including by public participation.

Decision makers should carefully balance the potential, need and capacity of competing candidate sites. It is tempting to take a safe option, where success is more or less guaranteed, defined by the “opportunity” criteria. This neglects the question of whether the designation, and the effort and cost that go with it, will add anything additional. It is harder to favour a higher risk option, defined by the “need” criteria. But here the designation is likely to make more of a difference. As a result it is likely to deliver greater value from public money, and from private investment of community resources. So potential risks and benefits must be carefully balanced if new UNESCO sites are to be of most value.

36

9 REFERENCES Atlantic Consultants, 2003. Cornish mining world heritage site bid. Economic Impact Assessment. June 2003, Atlantic Consultants for Cornwall Enterprise. http://www.cornish-mining.org.uk/pdf/Cornwall_west_Devon_Mining_Landscape_WHS_EIA.pdf, accessed 15/1/07

Cattaneo, A, Hellerstein, D, Nickerson, C, Myers, C, 2006. Balancing the multiple objectives of conservation programs. USDA Economic Research Service. Economic Research Report No 19. http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/ERR19/ERR19.pdf accessed 15/1/07

Council of Europe, 2000. European Landscape Convention, http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/176.htm accessed 18/12/06

Dodds, C. & Briggs, J. 2000. Selected Issues in Scottish Economic Development - Section D Corporate Sector Statistics for Scotland: Business Start-Ups and Failures. Scottish Economic Report: January 2000, Scottish Executive. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library2/doc10/ser2-19.asp accessed 27/2/07

European Commision, 2007. Impact assessment. European Commission, Brussels. http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/key_en.htm accessed 27/2/07

European Geoparks Network, 2007. European Geoparks. http://www.europeangeoparks.org/isite/home/1%2C1%2C0.asp accessed 15/1/07

Fremuth, W, 2004. The Rhoen Region: A model of sustainable development at the former border between East and West Germany, in The Role of Biodiversity in the Transition to Rural Sustainability, ed. S. Light, pp 199-211, IOS Press.

GoBi 2007, Research Group GoBi, Humboldt University of Berlin www.biodiversitygovernance.de accessed 25/1/2007

Gregory, A, 2002. Economic Impact Assessment – Florida State Park System. Department of Environmental Protection, Florida http://www.dca.state.fl.us/fdcp/dcp/wekiva/wekivatf/November02/DEPFPSEconomicImpact%202001-2002.pdf

Hambrey et al 2004. Framework for measuring social, economic and environmental impacts of SNH activity and land designations. SNH contract AB(04NC07)0405110. SNH Inverness.

HM Treasury, 2007. Green Book, HM Treasury, London. http://greenbook.treasury.gov.uk/ accessed 27/2/07

HM Communities and Local Government, 2007. Assessing the impact of spatial interventions, HM Government, London. http://www.communities.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1128861 accessed 27/2/07

HM Department of Work and Pensions 2007. Family Resources Survey. HM Government, London. http://www.dwp.gov.uk/asd/frs/ accessed 27/2/07

Hockings, M, Stolton, S, Leverington, F, Dudley N, and Courrau J 2006. Evaluating Effectiveness; A framework for assessing management effectiveness of protected areas, 2nd ed. 2006, WCPA Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series No 14. IUCN, Cambridge. http://www.enhancingheritage.net/docs/WCPA_Revised_Framework_2006_v1.pdf accessed 15/1/07

IUCN, 1998. Economic Values of Protected Areas – Guidelines for Protected Area Managers. WCPA/IUCN 1998 Second in a series of Best Practice

37

Guidelines produced in partnership with the Environmental Planning Research Unit, Dept of City and Regional Planning, Cardiff University. http://www.iucn.org/bookstore/HTML-books/BP2-Economic_values_of_protected_areas/cover.html

JNCC 2007. Local Biodiversity Action Plans in Scotland, Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborogh. http://gateway.snh.gov.uk/portal/page?_pageid=53,854538&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL accessed 27/2/07

Kim, SS., Wong, KHF., Cho, M., 2007. Assessing the economic value of a world heritage site and willingness-to-pay determinants: A case of Changdeok Palace, Tourism Management 28, 1, 317-322

Lass, W, and Reusswig, F, (eds) 2002. Social Monitoring: Meaning and Methods for an Integrated Management in Biosphere Reserves. Report of an International Workshop. Rome, 2-3 September 2001. Biosphere Reserve Integrated Monitoring (BRIM) Series No. 1. UNESCO, Paris. http://unesdoc.UNESCO.org/images/0012/001287/128732e.pdf accessed 15/1/07

Lu, YH, Fu, BJ, Chen, LD, Zu, FY, Qi, X., 2006a. The effectiveness of incentives in protected area management: An empirical analysis. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 13, 5, 409-417

Lu, YH, Fu, BJ, Chen, LD, Quyang, ZY, Zu, FY, 2006. Resolving the conflicts between biodiversity conservation and socioeconomic development in China: Fuzzy clustering approach. Biodiversity and Conservation, 15, 8, 2813-2827

McNutt, P. 1992. A note on club theory as applied to community and rural development, Community Development Journal, 27, 75-80

Melling, M, and Graham, L., 2000. A2 Output, Employment and Income Multipliers, Scotland 1996. Scottish Economic Statistics 2000, Scottish Executive, Edinburgh

Midmore, P. 1998. Rural policy reform and local development programmes: appropriate evaluation procedures, Journal of Agricultural Economics, 49/3, 409-426.

Moxey, A. 1999. Cross-cutting issues in developing agri-environmental indicators, 113-130 in OECD (1999). Environmental Indicators for Agriculture. Volume 2: Issues & Design. OECD, Paris.

Moxey, A. 2006, Review of public benefits purchased by the public sector, Cairngorms National Park Authority. Cairngorms National Park Authority, in press

National Statistics 2007a. Interdepartmental Business Register. National Statistics, UK. http://www.statistics.gov.uk/idbr/idbr.asp accessed 27/2/07

National Statistics 2007b. Annual Business Inquiry. National Statistics, UK. http://www.statistics.gov.uk/abi/abi_analyses.asp

OECD, 2003. Environmental Indicators – Development measurement and use. OECD, Paris, http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/7/47/24993546.pdf accessed 15/1/07

Pretty, J, and Smith, D, 2003. Social Capital in Biodiversity Conservation and Management, Conservation Biology 18 (3), 631-638.

Scottish Executive, 2000, Rural Scotland: A New Approach. Scottish Executive, Edinburgh. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library2/doc15/rsna-00.asp accessed 18/12/06

38

Scottish Executive, 2001, A Forward Strategy for Scottish Agriculture. Scottish Executive, Edinburgh. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library3/agri/fssa.pdf accessed 18/12/06

Scottish Executive, 2004, A Smart, Successful Scotland: Strategic direction to the Enterprise Networks and an enterprise strategy for Scotland. Scottish Executive, Edinburgh. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2004/11/20246/46555 accessed 18/12/06

Scottish Executive, 2004b, Scotland's Biodiversity: It's in Your Hands - A strategy for the conservation and enhancement of biodiversity in Scotland. Scottish Executive, Edinburgh. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2004/05/19366/37239 accessed 18/12/06

Scottish Executive 2004c. An economic assessment of the costs and benefits of Natura 2000 sites in Scotland. Scottish Executive, Edinburgh.

Scottish Executive, 2005a, Choosing our future: Scotland's sustainable development strategy Scottish Executive, Edinburgh. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2005/12/1493902/39032 accessed 18/12/06

Scottish Executive 2005b Education and Training in Scotland National Dossier 2005. Scottish Executive, Edinburgh. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2005/06/13113114/31182

Scottish Executive, 2006, Scottish Tourism: The Next Decade - A Tourism Framework for Change, Scottish Executive, Edinburgh. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2006/03/03145848/0 accessed 18/12/06 accessed 18/12/06

Scottish Executive 2007a. Scottish Environmental Statistics Online – Biodiversity, Scottish Executive, Edinburgh. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/Browse/Environment/seso/Q/TID/17 accessed 27/2/07

Scottish Executive 2007b. Scottish Environmental Statistics Online, Scottish Executive, Edinburgh. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/Browse/Environment/seso accessed 27/2/07

Scottish Executive 2007c. Scottish Neighbourhood Statistics, Scottish Executive, Edinburgh. http://www.sns.gov.uk/default.asp

Scottish Executive 2007d Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation – Overview. Scottish Executive, Edinburgh. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/SIMD/Overview accessed 27/2/07

Scottish Executive 2007e. Scottish Annual Business Statistics 2004 – Scotland Table. Scottish Executive, Edinburgh http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/16170/4442 accessed 27/2/07

accessed 27/2/07Scottish Executive 2007f. Input-Output Tables for Scotland. Scottish Executive, Edinburgh. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/14713/484 accessed 27/2/07

Scottish Executive 2007g. Scottish Household Survey. Scottish Executive, Edinburgh. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/16002 accessed 27/2/07

39

Scottish Executive 2007h. Scottish Corporate Sector Statistics 2005 & 2006. Scottish Executive Edinburgh. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/18389/13042 accessed 27/2/07

Scottish Executive 2007i. Scottish Annual Business Statistics 2004. Scottish Executive Edinburgh. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/16170/4363 accessed 27/2/07

SPHO 2007. Profiles. Scottish Public Health Observatory collaboration, Edinburgh. http://www.scotpho.org.uk/web/site/home/Comparativehealth/Profiles/profiles_intro.asp

SDRN 2007. Emerging methods for sustainability evaluation and appraisal. SDRN Briefing 4, SDRN, London. http://www.sd-research.org.uk/documents/BriefingProofFINAL.pdf accessed 15/2/07

SNH 2002. Natural Heritage Zones: a National Assessment of Scotland’s Landscapes. Scottish Natural Heritage, Inverness. http://www.snh.org.uk/futures/Data/pdfdocs/LANDSCAPES.pdf accessed 15/2/07

SNH 2005. Galloway Biosphere Reserve. Scottish Natural Heritage, Inverness.

SNH 2007a. Sitelink, Scottish Natural Heritage, Inverness. http://gateway.snh.gov.uk/portal/page?_pageid=53,854538&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL accessed 27/2/07

SNH 2007b. Scottish Recreation Survey: annual summary report 2004/05. Scottish Natural Heritage, Inverness. http://www.snh.org.uk/publications/on-line/commissionedreport/F02AA614_3.asp accessed 27/2/07

SNH 2007c. Natural Heritage Futures - An overview. Scottish Natural Heritage, Inverness. http://www.snh.org.uk/futures/Data/index.htm accessed 26/2/2007

Solecki, W, 1994. Putting the Biosphere Reserve concept into practice: some evidence of impacts in rural communities in the United States, Environmental Conservation, 21, 3, 242-247

Stoll-Kleemann, S. 2001. Reconciling opposition to protected areas management in Europe; the German experience. Environment, June 1 2001. http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-75917477.html

Stoll-Kleeman, S. 2005 Voices for biodiversity management in the 21st century. Environment. Dec 1 2005. http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-140145754.html

Stoll-Kleemann, S. Bender, S, Berghöfer, A, Bertzky, M, Fritz-Vietta, N, Schliep, R, and Thierfelder, B, 2006. Linking governance and management perspectives with conservation success in protected areas and biosphere reserves. Perspectives on biodiversity governance and management 01 Berlin June 06. GoBi Research group. http://www.biodiversitygovernance.de/files/_publications_files/GoBi_discussionpaper01.pdf accessed 16/1/07

Stynes, D and Propst D, 2001. Money Generation Model – Version 2. Michigan State University. http://web4.canr.msu.edu/mgm2/default.htm accessed 15/1/07

Terluin, T. 2003. Differences in economic development in rural regions of advanced countries: an overview and critical analysis of theories, Journal of Rural Studies, 19, 327-344.

The Economist, 2006. Protecting precious places, The Economist, December 23 2006, London

40

UNDP 1997. Governance for sustainable human development - A UNDP policy document. United Nations Development Programme, New York. http://www.pogar.org/publications/other/undp/governance/undppolicydoc97-e.pdf accessed 16/2/07 UNESCO, 1972, Convention concerning the protection of the world cultural and natural heritage, adopted by the General Conference at its seventeenth session, Paris, 16 November 1972, WHC-2001/WS/2 http://whc.UNESCO.org/en/conventiontext accessed 27/12/07

UNESCO, 1995, The Seville Strategy For Biosphere Reserves, UNESCO, Paris http://www.UNESCO.org/mab/BRs/pdf/Strategy.pdf , accessed 28/12/2006

UNESCO, 2001, Seville+5, MAB report series No. 69, UNESCO, Paris, http://unesdoc.UNESCO.org/images/0012/001236/123605m.pdf accessed 28/12/2006

UNESCO, 2005, Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention, Intergovernmental Committee For The Protection Of The World Cultural And Natural Heritage, UNESCO, Paris http://whc.UNESCO.org/en/guidelines accessed 27/12/2006

UNESCO, 2006, Guidelines and Criteria for National Geoparks seeking UNESCO's assistance to join the Global Geoparks Network, UNESCO, Paris http://www.UNESCO.org/science/earth/geoparks/2005guidelinesfinal030406.pdf accessed 28/12/2006

UNESCO, 2006b, Earth Sciences. UNESCO, Paris http://www.UNESCO.org/science/earth/geoparks.shtml accessed 28/12/2006

UNESCO, 2006c, Applicant's self-evaluation and progress evaluation forms for National Geoparks seeking assistance of UNESCO to become member of the Global Network of National Geoparks UNESCO, Paris http://www.worldgeopark.org/wwwroot/newsletter/GGNselfevaluationDocument060406.pdf accessed 28/12/06

UNESCO, 2006d, Biodiversity and Stakeholders – concertation itineraries, Biosphere Reserves Technical Notes 2006-1, UNESCO, Paris. http://unesdoc.UNESCO.org/images/0014/001465/146566e.pdf accessed 15/1/07

UNESCO, 2006e. World Heritage News and Events, July 16 2006 UNESCO, Paris http://whc.UNESCO.org/en/news/269 accessed 15/1/07

UNESCO 2007a. Enhancing Our Heritage – Monitoring and Managing for Success in World Natural Heritage Sites http://www.enhancingheritage.net/ Accessed 15/1/07.

2007b, Biosphere reserve integrated monitoring (BRIM): Observing global biodiversity changes. UNESCO, Paris. http://www.UNESCO.org/mab/BRs/BRIM.shtml accessed 15/1/07

UNESCO 2007c, People Biodiversity and Ecology. UNESCO, Paris http://www.UNESCO.org/mab/BRs/Qe.shtml accessed 15/1/07

UNESCO 2007d, World Heritage List. UNESCO, Paris http://whc.UNESCO.org/en/list/ accessed 15/1/07

UNESCO 2007e. The World Network of Biosphere Reserves UNESCO, Paris http://www.UNESCO.org/mab/wnbrs.shtml accessed 15/1/07

41

VisitScotland 2007. Visitor Attitudes Survey. VisitScotland, Edinburgh. http://www.scotexchange.net/research_and_statistics/leisure_visitors/visitor_attitudes-mainpage.htm accessed 27/2/07

VisitScotland 2007b. Regional Facts and Figures. VisitScotland, Edinburgh http://www.visitscotland.org/research_and_statistics/regional_facts___figures.htm accessed 27/2/07

Wiesmann, U, Liechti, K., Rist, S., 2005. Between conservation and development - Concretizing the first World Natural Heritage Site in the Alps through participatory processes. Mountain Research And Development 25 (2): 128-138

World Geoparks Network, 2007. Global Geopark News. http://www.worldgeopark.org/wwwroot/index1.html accessed 15/1/07

Xun, Z, and Milly, W., 2002, National geoparks initiated in China: Putting geoscience in the service of society, Episodes 25, 1, 33-37

Xun, Z. and Ting, Z. 2003, The socio-economic benefits of establishing National Geoparks in China, Episodes 26, 4, 302-309

Social, economic and environmental benefits of World Heritage Sites, Biosphere Reserves, and

Geoparks

SNH contract No. 18998

Report Appendices

September 3, 2007

Prepared by Richard Robinson, Sue Evans, John Hambrey, and Andrew Moxey

Hambrey Consulting

Hambrey Consulting, Crancil Brae, Strathpeffer, Ross-shire IV14 9AW Tel/fax 01997 420086; Email [email protected];

www.hambreyconsulting.co.uk

10 APPENDIX 1 CASE STUDIES

11 Case Study 1 Giant’s Causeway and Causeway Coast World Heritage Site ...........2 12 Case Study 2 West Norwegian Fjords - Geirangerfjord & Nærøyfjord - World

Heritage Site ..............................................................................................................9 13 Case Study 3 North Pennines AONB European Geopark ......................................16 14 Case Study 4 Abberley and Malvern Hills Geopark ................................................25 15 Case Study 5 Braunton Burrows Biosphere Reserve .............................................31 16 Case Study 6 Entlebuch Biosphere Reserve ..........................................................40 17 Case Study 7 Rhön Biosphere Reserve .................................................................47

1

11 CASE STUDY 1 GIANT’S CAUSEWAY AND CAUSEWAY COAST WORLD HERITAGE SITE This case study is intended to provide a short introduction to the site, its benefits, how it operates. It also describes how such a site would contribute to policy objectives if it were located in Scotland.

© CAIN (cain.ulst.ac.uk)

11.1 Summary This spectacular, iconic place pulls millions of pounds a year into the economy of Northern Ireland. The visitor pressure in peak times can be massive, with an estimated 600 people arriving per hour8 and a total of half a million per year. Thanks to the National Trust, who maintain, at a loss, 15km of footpaths, the environmental impact is limited. Visitor facilities are very limited, the council visitor centre that burnt down six years ago still not having been replaced. The UNESCO inscription did prompt the writing of a comprehensive management plan9, submitted in January 2005. Two key features, the appointment of a co-ordinator to implement the Management Plan and the building of a new visitor centre, have yet to become a reality.

11.2 Geography; Natural, human and economic The Giant’s Causeway is a mass of tightly packed hexagonal basalt columns the tops of which form stepping stones that lead from almost the foot of the cliffs into the sea. Some of the columns tower 10m out of the sea. This spectacular volcanic phenomenon 10 was “discovered” in the seventeenth century and

8 Giant’s Causeway visitor facilities. Interpretation concept development proposal. Land Design Studio May 2006 http://www.nitb.com/attachment.aspx?id=455 9 Giant’s Causeway and Causeway Coast World Heritage Site Final Draft Management Plan DETI Environment and Heritage Service, National Trust, Moyle District Council. January 2005 http://www.ehsni.gov.uk/whs_final_draft_man_plan.pdf 10 The columns are thought to date from igneous activity 60 million years ago, but for the non-geologist, the legend of the causeway sounds almost as likely and makes a great story. Various versions of the legend involve local hero and small giant Finn MaCool , a larger Scottish giant

2

became known as the eighth wonder of the world. The Giant’s Causeway is Northern Ireland’s most popular tourist attraction. Entry is free.

The WHS extends out to sea, but the land-based part is almost exactly co-located with the existing NNR. The site includes 5km of coastline and lies within the Causeway Coast AONB. There are various other protective designations, listed in appendix 1.8.4. The RSPB consider this an area of regional importance within the UK, with over fifty resident and thirty migrant species of birds.

The site itself is uninhabited except for hotel staff in the Causeway Hotel, which is near the temporary visitor centre and the National Trust shop and tearoom. There are small settlements inland. In the local (Moyle) district council area there are 12,000 people over the age of 16 and a relatively high working age employment rate11 .

11.3 Management/governance The 70ha of land is largely owned by the National Trust, which has also bought the Causeway Hotel, which is within the World Heritage Site. Moyle District Council owns the temporary visitor centre and the land it is on, and also the car park. There is currently no overall site manager or direct community involvement. The National Trust, through their regional property manager and conservation manager, manage the shop and tea-room, the environmental requirements of the NNR/SAC, and the maintenance of the footpaths. This is done at a financial cost to the charity. The district council collect the car-parking fees and invest these in tourist facilities in the wider area. A design for a new visitor centre has been chosen after an international competition, but work has not yet commenced. This is being driven by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment and fully involves other stakeholders including the Northern Ireland Tourist Board, Moyle District Council, Environment and Heritage Service, and the National Trust. The WHS Management Plan (Jan 2005) proposes a governance structure (see section 11.7.2) involving the appointment of a WHS co-ordinator, a WHS management group and a local community advisory forum.

11.4 Local benefits

11.4.1 Environmental The ASSSI agreements and the Special Area of Conservation objectives provide statutory environmental protection for the land-side of the site, regardless of the WHS status. The WHS Management plan highlights the need for more analysis and protection of sub-tidal habitats and species. The entire WHS Management Plan would confer environmental benefits if implemented, particularly regarding landscape and the management of visitor pressure.

11.4.2 Social Social gains from the site are largely those derived indirectly from the boost the tourist revenues give to the general national economy, and therefore depend on treasury social spending priorities and their effects locally. Net direct social gains are limited locally. Although free access to such an iconic site is of cultural value the traffic congestion that results from the visitors is unwelcome. The hotel and

(who lost) and possibly a woman as well. The definitive answer is on http://www.giantscausewayofficialguide.com/once01.htm 11 76.8% as opposed to a national average of 67.5%. Economic activity rate in the area 62.5% as opposed to a national average of 58.8%. Source: Labour force survey 2004 Local areas database. DETI Northern Ireland http://www.detini.gov.uk/cgi-bin/get_az?openbus=99&let=G

3

the National Trust shop and tea-room provide some local employment, but the lack of a permanent visitor centre limits both employment and educational opportunities in the local community. The Management Plan also considers that “lack of skills and training may limit distribution of WHS benefits amongst the local communities”. There is currently minimal local involvement in the management of the site, so essentially no opportunity at present for increasing community “capacity” through involvement in governance.

11.4.3 Economic Economic gains from the site are significant in terms of revenue to the national economy. The Tourism Master Plan considers that there is huge potential for tourism in Northern Ireland and has a vision of maximising this and spreading the benefits to the local economy. The Giant’s Causeway is seen as a “strength” in the tourism infrastructure but “unfulfilled” in terms of visitor experience12.

WHS designation could assist in that it has inspired the drafting of a Management Plan, but this does need actually carrying out to realise more of the benefits.

11.5 Wider benefits/policy and strategy fit

11.5.1 With Scottish policy themes Giant’s Causeway WHS has an actual impact on the key Scottish policy themes of education and training and landscape protection. Tourism quality, community activity, landscape protection and policy integration are all addressed by the WHS Management Plan but have not yet become a reality. Policy integration is not obvious, although there are many relevant planning papers (see appendix 1.8.6) Draft planning guidelines dating from May 2005 recommend a development-free zone for some 4km around the site. Green tourism, climate change and ecosystem health are not so readily addressed on this site, although the Management Plans include consideration of how to reduce private cars.

11.5.2 With UN World Heritage Site Objectives The Giant’s Causeway WHS is clearly of outstanding universal value and the essential elements of the geology are likely to remain so. The largest threat in this sense is from climate change, as rising sea levels drown the basalt and increasingly fierce storms batter the coastline. Site integrity and protection is more of a problem in that the necessary visitor facilities are not yet of a quality fitting for the grandeur of the geology nor the cultural importance of the site. However, although the facilities should be better, visitor research indicates that the site still offers a good experience.

11.6 Key lessons and hopes for the site WHS designation has inspired the Management Plan, which is a useful document in that it proposes a more inclusive method of governance and the appointment of a site co-ordinator. In environmental/biodiversity terms, it seems that site protection is satisfactory and that WHS designation has made little difference. WHS designation does have the potential to increase both social and economic benefits arising from the site but only if the management plan is fully implemented. WHS designation has not been able to over-ride existing barriers of culture and governance. Worldwide publicity is seen as a useful tool, particularly in increasing site awareness in the field of education and science. Also, because

12 Causeway coast and glens tourism master plan 2004-1013 DETI 2004 http://www.detini.gov.uk/cgi-bin/downutildoc?id=475 and executive summary http://www.detini.gov.uk/cgi-bin/moreutil?utilid=294&site=12&util=2&fold=&parent

4

WHS site insciption is an International accolade that can be withdrawn it does carry a certain influence with national governments.

5

Tabl

e 5

Su

mm

ary

- Gia

nt’s

Cau

sew

ay a

nd C

ause

way

Coa

st W

orld

Her

itage

Site

W

orld

Her

itage

Site

in

itiat

ives

C

urre

nt s

ituat

ion

Scor

e (0

-3)13

Pote

ntia

l for

WH

S de

sign

atio

n to

brin

g be

nefit

.

Lim

itatio

ns

Bio

dive

rsity

Im

prov

e pr

otec

tion

belo

w

high

-tide

mar

k.

AS

SI

Man

agem

ent P

lan

and

SA

C p

rote

ctio

n 2

Cou

ld in

spire

pro

tect

ion

belo

w h

igh

tide

mar

k.

Lac

k of

sui

tabl

e st

atut

ory

legi

slat

ion

Land

scap

e &

gr

een

spac

e Im

prov

e vi

sito

r fac

ilitie

s P

oor v

isito

r fac

ilitie

s.

2 U

NE

SCO

pre

ssur

e co

uld

spee

d-up

bui

ldin

g th

e vi

sito

r cen

tre

Loca

l gov

erna

nce

issu

es

Eco

syst

em

serv

ices

N

o pa

rticu

lar i

nitia

tives

N

/A

0 N

/A

Sm

all a

rea.

Clim

ate

chan

ge.

Em

ploy

men

t and

In

com

e M

ore

incl

usiv

e pr

opos

ed

man

agem

ent s

yste

m c

ould

sp

read

ben

efits

.

Littl

e co

mm

unity

in

volv

emen

t in

or

empl

oym

ent o

n si

te.

Low

B&

B oc

cupa

ncy

rate

s

1

New

man

agem

ent s

truct

ure

coul

d in

spire

com

mun

ity

invo

lvem

ent.

Upt

ake

by lo

cal

com

mun

ity

Busi

ness

op

portu

nitie

s P

ropo

sed

man

agem

ent

syst

em w

ould

invo

lve

loca

l bu

sine

sses

.

Littl

e co

mm

unity

in

volv

emen

t in

or

empl

oym

ent o

n si

te.

Low

B&

B oc

cupa

ncy

rate

s

1

New

man

agem

ent s

truct

ure

coul

d in

spire

bus

ines

s in

volv

emen

t.

Upt

ake

by lo

cal

com

mun

ity

Soc

ial I

nclu

sion

M

ore

incl

usiv

e m

anag

emen

t sy

stem

cou

ld im

prov

e co

mm

unity

cap

acity

.

Littl

e co

mm

unity

in

volv

emen

t. 1

Goo

d op

portu

nity

to

impr

ove

soci

al c

ohes

ion.

Po

ssib

ly c

ompl

ex lo

cal

pow

er is

sues

.

Hea

lth a

nd w

ell-

bein

g N

othi

ng s

peci

fic

Doe

s pr

ovid

e fre

e ex

erci

se

and

a br

acin

g ou

tdoo

r ex

perie

nce

out o

f sea

son.

1

Pro

pose

d ne

w fo

otpa

th in

M

anag

emen

t pla

n co

uld

enco

urag

e lo

nger

wal

ks.

Nee

ds a

car

to g

et th

ere

easi

ly.

Edu

catio

n an

d tra

inin

g N

othi

ng s

peci

fic

Man

y sc

hool

vis

its; a

lread

y a

popu

lar e

duca

tiona

l trip

. 2

Enc

oura

gem

ent f

or n

ew

visi

tor c

entre

cou

ld h

aste

n im

prov

ed e

duca

tiona

l fa

cilit

ies.

Saf

ety,

num

bers

, tim

e an

d re

sour

ces

Nat

iona

l Tr

ust c

an c

omm

it.

13 S

ee s

ectio

n 6.

1 6

11.7 Annex

11.7.1 Relevant designations, policies, plans and programmes North Antrim Coast Special Area of Conservation (SAC); Giant’s Causeway National Nature Reserve (NNR); Causeway Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB); Giant’s Causeway and Dunseverick Area of Special Scientific Interest

(ASSI); Antrim Coast, Glens and Rathlin Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA); The Girona Historic Wreck Site (HWS). World Heritage Site Planning Policy Statement 2 (PPS2): Planning and Nature Conservation

(1997); Planning Policy Statement 6 (PPS6): Planning, Archaeology and the Built

Heritage (1999); Northern Ireland Tourist Board: Strategic Framework for Action 2004-2007 Giant’s Causeway NNR Management Plan Visitor Servicing Strategy for Northern Ireland (2004) and the supporting

manual; Northern Ireland Landscape Character Assessment (2000) and supporting

detailed assessments of Moyle and Coleraine Council areas; The North East Area Plan 2002 (to be succeeded by the Northern Area

Plan 2016); Regional Development Strategy 2025 (RDS) (2001); Causeway Coast AONB Management Plan (2003); Causeway Coast and Glens Tourism Master Plan 2004-2013 (2004); Draft northern area plan 2005 Antrim Coast, Glens and Rathlin Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA)

management agreements; North Antrim Coast SAC Draft Conservation Objectives 2003; The Giant’s Causeway NNR Draft Management Plan (2001); and National Trust Property Management Plan.

7

11.7.2 Proposed Management Structure

source: Giant’s Causeway and Causeway Coast World Heritage Site Final Draft Management Plan DETI Environment and Heritage Service, National Trust, Moyle District Council. January 2005

11.7.3 Additional References 2nd Causeway Coast Master Plan Forum 29th March 2006, Northern Ireland Tourist Board. http://www.nitb.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=1300

UNESCO World Heritage site website at: http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/369

Environment and Heritage Service Northern Ireland at http://www.ehsni.gov.uk/natural/designated/WHS.shtml

National Trust site at: http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/main/w-vh/w-visits/w-findaplace/w-giantscauseway/

Northern Ireland Tourist Board http://www.discovernorthernireland.com/causeway.aspx

http://www.geographia.com/northern-ireland/ukiant01.htm

Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, mew Visitor Centre

http://www.detini.gov.uk/cgi-bin/get_builder_page?page=1759&site=12&parent=173

11.7.4 Acknowledgements We are grateful to for Graham Thompson , Property Manager, National Trust, his help and advice

8

12 CASE STUDY 2 WEST NORWEGIAN FJORDS - GEIRANGERFJORD & NÆRØYFJORD - WORLD HERITAGE SITE This case study is intended to provide a short introduction to the site, its benefits, how it operates. It also describes how such a site would contribute to policy objectives if it were located in Scotland.

Rowing-boat in Geiranger ©Terje Rakke/Nordic Life/Fjord Norway

12.1 Summary This is a classic example of the Norwegian fjords, in pristine condition. The landscape and biodiversity are stunning, with small traditional communities and a sparse population. Tourism is key to the local economy, but traditional agriculture is in decline despite its environmental role. Most tourists visit on cruise ships, and less than half stay overnight. World Heritage status is very recent and has been enthusiastically supported by local people and agencies. They hope it will stem the outflow of population and regenerate the communities and economy. Strong local participation in the management of the site is assured.

12.2 Geography; Natural, human and economic Norway is the home of the fjord landscape, where long and narrow steep sided valleys have been created by glaciers during the ice ages. This site was designated in 200514 and contains two classic fjords that are among the least affected by modern human activity. It is composed of two unconnected tributary fjords, 60 and 100km inland of the open sea, and has a total area of about 123,000ha. The site ranges from sea level to 1,850m. There are relatively slight differences between the two areas, one being more alpine and the other more rounded, but to the casual observer they appear similar, and they are similar in area and population15.

Within the massive landscape a tradition of human presence is evident, particularly agriculture on cliff ledges, and villages with traditional wooden buildings. Tourism began here in the 19th century and is now the dominant

14 The West Norwegian Fjords, Norwegian Nomination, 2004, UNESCO World Heritage List, http://www.verdensarv.com/filer/546.pdf 15 World Heritage Nomination – IUCN Technical Evaluation Geirangerfjord & Nærøyfjord (Norway) Id N° 1195, http://whc.unesco.org/archive/advisory_body_evaluation/1195.pdf

9

economic activity, with 0.5 million visits every year. Only 40% stay the night in the area, and the remainder mainly visit on cruise ships or by bus. Other adjacent areas have been developed for hydro-electricity so its absence here is one of the reasons for WHS designation. The current social issues are loss of farming, growth of tourism, and loss of population to rural and urban centres, particularly young people and families. The communities here are small villages of up to about 200 people, of which there are 5 in the Geirangerfjord.

12.3 Management/governance Norway has a parallel system of national and local government, with the County Governor responsible for the delivery of national functions, an elected County authority dealing with regional functions in the same area, and elected authorities at municipal level. All these authorities have planning and management responsibilities that effect aspects of the site and its protection and development. The County has overall responsibility for the WHS.

The application for WHS status was developed over 10 years with the full participation of local authorities, including the local municipalities at village level. Working groups included many representatives from the villages, and the process generated a high level of enthusiasm for WHS status. Once it had been achieved a year-long process of planning and involvement began, which was a big celebration with a visit by the Queen. Everyone, from young to old, was involved in these community events and lasted for 4 days in each area (Geirangerfjord and Nærøyfjord area).

Now the system is in place the aim is to maintain a high level of community participation. The key person on the ground is the site co-ordinator, and she liaises between the managing authority and the communities. The communities have already expressed a wish to take over the management of the site from the county in the course of time.

12.4 Local benefits

12.4.1 Environmental A range of national and local designations and plans exists to protect the environment of the site. A more pressing issue is the decline in agriculture, as land is abandoned and farmers move into more profitable and comfortable occupations. There are plans to develop an incentive scheme for farming as part of the WHS management. The plans for WHS status influenced local attitudes to a hydro-electricity proposal, which was not supported by the communities and is now awaiting a final decision.

12.4.2 Social The process of developing the WHS proposal generated a high level of community activity and strong support locally. To some extent this reflected the economic role of tourism, but it went beyond this. WHS status has given these remote communities increased status and a higher profile, and has contributed to their sense of local pride. This is an important contribution to reversing the demographic decline locally. It should encourage economically and socially active people to stay in the area or to move to it.

10

12.4.3 Economic The economic driver of the local economy is tourism and the WHS assists this considerably. Inscription itself generated world wide publicity. As a WHS the area now regularly features in global assessments and reports16. This is a valuable source of free publicity and marketing. The integrated approach to site management and tourism should also allow positive links to be made between traditional farming and food and tourism. This should broaden the range of beneficiaries from tand increase the quality of the tourism experience.

ourism,


12.5.1 With Scottish policy themes The objectives and plans for the site fit well with Scottish policy on tourism, particularly for increased revenue, quality, and green tourism. There is also a good fit with the policies for biodiversity, and landscape. It is less clear how economic policies fit, though GDP will benefit from higher value tourism. Unemployment is not an issue in this area, so the benefits of a stronger economy are most likely to be seen in demographic terms. This fits mostly closely with the Scottish rural development policies for services, young people, and cultural heritage. Many of the sustainable policy objectives fit with this case study, including marine and river quality. Some of the Scottish climate change objectives might be in conflict with the increase in tourism and the restriction on renewable energy development.

Cruiseship in Geiranger © Per Eide

12.5.2 With UNESCO World Heritage Site Objectives Such a recently inscribed site must fit well with UNESCO objectives. It is too early to judge the extent to which the practical achievements will match the ambitions, but the level of statutory site protection is already very good, there are plans to improve positive incentives for land and tourism management, and the level of community participation in the site can already be seen to be very high. This suggests that UNESCO objectives will be met successfully in all respects.

12.6 Key lessons and hopes for the site17 We hope the WHS will increase the active population in the small villages

within and surrounding the WHS.

16 e.g. http://www.nationalgeographic.com/traveler/features/whsrated0611/whsrated_europe.html 17 Based on information from Katrin Blomvik, WHS project officer

11

We hope to take good care of our important heritage and that we will be able to meet higher demands from visitors to our area.

We hope to keep our pride in the exceptional beautiful fjord landscape and in our natural and cultural heritage.

We hope the WHS will encourage young people to see greater opportunities in their local communities including settling down and creating a way of living for the future.

We hope that our traditional agriculture will have better opportunities in the future, so that it is possible for future generations to keep the cultural landscape in shape.

12

Tabl

e 6

Su

mm

ary

- Wes

t Nor

weg

ian

Fjor

ds -

Gei

rang

erfjo

rd &

Næ

røyf

jord

- W

orld

Her

itage

Site

C

urre

nt s

ituat

ion

WH

S in

itiat

ives

Sc

ore

(0-3

)18Po

tent

ial f

or W

HS

desi

gnat

ion

to

brin

g be

nefit

. Li

mita

tions

Bio

dive

rsity

Pro

tect

ion

thro

ugh

natio

nal l

egis

latio

n an

d lo

cal p

lans

Agr

icul

tura

l inc

entiv

e sc

hem

e pl

anne

d 2

Incr

ease

d fo

cus

on re

sear

ch a

nd

unde

rsta

ndin

g of

tren

ds

Clim

ate

chan

ge im

pact

s m

ay b

e se

vere

Land

scap

e &

gr

eens

pace

P

rote

ctio

n th

roug

h na

tiona

l leg

isla

tion

and

loca

l pla

ns

Pre

serv

atio

n of

cul

tura

l he

ritag

e. M

ilitar

y tra

inin

g pr

opos

al c

ance

lled.

3

Wid

er p

ublic

aw

aren

ess

of v

alue

be

caus

e of

WH

S s

tatu

s C

ultu

ral c

hang

e is

to s

ome

exte

nt

inev

itabl

e. P

ress

ure

for q

uarr

ying

m

ay c

ontin

ue.

Eco

syst

em s

ervi

ces

Nat

ural

wat

erco

urse

s pr

otec

ted

by p

lann

ing

Non

e fo

rese

en n

eces

sary

in

IUC

N a

sses

smen

t 2

Sco

pe to

tack

le m

arin

e ec

osys

tem

is

sues

C

ontro

l of c

ruis

e sh

ips’

en

viro

nmen

tal i

mpa

ct m

ay b

e di

fficu

lt

Em

ploy

men

t and

In

com

e H

igh

depe

nden

cy o

n to

uris

m, l

ow a

gric

ultu

ral

inco

mes

Tour

ist i

nfor

mat

ion

cent

re

plan

ned

3

Sco

pe to

impr

ove

inco

mes

in tr

aditi

onal

se

ctor

s by

link

ing

to to

uris

m (e

sp.

agric

ultu

re)

Agr

icul

tura

l con

ditio

ns a

re

mar

gina

l. L

ifest

yle

expe

ctat

ions

m

ay m

ake

it di

fficu

lt to

reta

in

farm

ers.

Busi

ness

op

portu

nitie

s 60

% o

f tot

al a

re d

ay

visi

tors

onl

y G

reat

er v

alue

from

tour

ists

3

Hig

her v

alue

tour

ism

, bet

ter m

arke

ting.

H

eavy

relia

nce

on o

ne v

olat

ile

sect

or:

vuln

erab

le to

trav

el c

rises

Soc

ial I

nclu

sion

D

eclin

e, p

artic

ular

ly

youn

g pe

ople

and

fa

mili

es

Obj

ectiv

e of

reta

inin

g ac

tive

popu

latio

n 3

Stre

ngth

en c

omm

unity

stru

ctur

e an

d pr

ide.

M

aint

aini

ng s

uffic

ient

mod

ern

serv

ices

Hea

lth a

nd w

ell-

bein

g W

ide

rang

e of

act

iviti

es

avai

labl

e M

arke

ting

incl

udes

act

ivity

to

uris

m

3 B

ette

r fac

ilitie

s fo

r tou

rists

, whi

ch w

ill b

e av

aila

ble

to lo

cals

S

ocia

lly e

xclu

ded

grou

ps u

nlik

ely

to b

e ab

le to

affo

rd to

vis

it ar

ea

Edu

catio

n an

d tra

inin

g H

igh

leve

l of

parti

cipa

tion

and

enth

usia

sm a

t villa

ge

leve

l.

Com

mun

ity a

ctiv

ity a

nd

parti

cipa

tion,

incl

udin

g sc

hool

s 3

Ent

husi

asm

alre

ady

evid

ent.

Sco

pe fo

r m

unic

ipal

ities

to ta

ke m

ore

dire

ct c

ontro

l in

the

futu

re.

Sm

all p

opul

atio

n pu

ts h

eavy

bu

rden

on

volu

ntee

rs’ t

ime

18 S

ee s

ectio

n 6.

1 13

12.7 Annex

12.7.1 Maps19

Geirangerfjord [See reference for copyright and permission]

Nærøyfjord [See reference for copyright and permission]

19 © The West Norwegian Fjords, Norwegian Directorates for Nature Management and Cultural Heritage (2006),

14

12.7.2 Acknowledgements We are grateful to Katrin Blomviq for her help and advice

15

13 CASE STUDY 3 NORTH PENNINES AONB EUROPEAN GEOPARK This case study is intended to provide a short introduction to the site, its benefits, how it operates. It also describes how such a site would contribute to policy objectives if it were located in Scotland.

http://www.eccp.org.uk/i

mages/great-days-out/First%20rock%20club%20lft.pdf © North Pennines AONB. .

13.1 Summary This is an extensive area of high, wild moorland crossing Cumbria, County Durham and Northumberland, which achieved European Geopark status in 2003 and is a founder member of the UNESCO Global Geopark Network. It is coincident with the North Pennines Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which was designated in 1988, and also includes a Biosphere Reserve. The designation is overseen by the North Pennines AONB Partnership of some 30 organisations, including nine local authorities. Work is carried out by the fourteen-strong AONB Staff Unit. There is a detailed and ambitious management plan, with aims and objectives linked to the many policies involved. The most obvious manifestations of the European Geopark status are the educational, interpretation and geotourism aspects. The designation appears to be most useful for adding value to funding bids and promoting the area to a wider audience, thereby contributing in overall terms to the work of the AONB partnership. .

13.2 Geography; Natural, human and economic This is Britain’s first European Geopark, designated in June 2003, and is also a member of the UNESCO Global Geopark network. In June 2006 this status was re-validated for another three years after a UNESCO assessment. The Geopark boundary is exactly the same as that of the North Pennines Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) (see Map appendix 1.8.1 and explanation of AONB in appendix 1.8.3). Over one-third of this area is designated SSSI, as would be expected with nationally significant areas of upland heath, meadows and blanket bog and most of England’s black grouse. There are two National Nature Reserves within the Geopark boundary; Moor House and Upper Teesdale, and Derwent Gorge and Muggleswick Woods. It is a relatively wild area in regional

16

terms. At 2000 square kilometres it is the second largest AONB in England and Wales.

Geologically the area is important because of the diversity of the rocks and the associated history of mining for lead, iron and zinc ore and building stone. Geology here is strongly linked to the social and economic history. Since the demise of the mining industry the local population has fallen to about 12,000, half that of the 1860s when the lead mines were at their busiest.

There are no major towns within the area, although there are a few villages such as Alston and Allendale. This probably reflects the planning decisions that defined the AONB boundary Employment opportunities are limited, house prices are rising and there are poor links with local services. The nearest towns of any size are Haltwhistle, Barnard Castle and Hexham, relatively prosperous market towns outwith the designated area.

13.3 Management/governance The Geopark designation does not supplant or supersede the AONB status and the same management is needed in each case. Local management is by North Pennines AONB Partnership Staff Unit on behalf of the North Pennines AONB Partnership, which is made up of about thirty local organisations, including nine local authorities and various other “stakeholder” groups. A full list is given in section 13.7.3. The Partnership has produced a Management Plan 2004-2009 20 and Annual Reports 21. The Management Plan states that there will be annual “implementation monitoring” to assess the 37 detailed objectives.

The AONB Staff Unit has a very wide remit and carries out the work with fourteen staff. It must act as advocate, catalyst or executive for each of the Management Plan objectives. The Unit is supported by a Geopark Advisory Group and hosted by Durham County Council. The Staff Unit worked with local organisations from across the North Pennines to develop the area's first geology festival (and two more since). It uses the Geopark status to assist in raising funding and boosting the profile of the North Pennines.

The main avenues for community involvement in the Geopark/AONB other than the formal committee situation seem to be through educational activities and the administration of the various grants schemes. The Sustainable Development Fund and the Small Grants Scheme are both administered through the Staff Unit and fund projects suggested by local sports clubs and parish councils, community based groups, parish councils, conservation bodies and small businesses.

13.4 Local benefits

13.4.1 Environmental The partnership has produced a Geodiversity Audit and Action Plan 22 in conjunction with British Geological Survey. This is the first Geodiversity Action Plan (GAP) for a UK protected landscape. As well as being the first comprehensive audit of the geology of the North Pennines AONB, it sets out a framework for action for the conservation and interpretation of many of the area's key sites and features of geological interest.

20 North Pennines AONB Management Plan 2004-09. the North Pennines AONB Partnership http://www.northpennines.org.uk/index.cfm?articleid=4369 21 Annual Report 2005-6 North Pennines AONB Partnership. http://www.northpennines.org.uk/index.cfm?articleid=9424 22 Geodiversity Audit and Action Plan 2004-2009. The North Pennine AONB Partnership/British Geological Survey. http://www.northpennines.org.uk/index.cfm?articleid=5137

17

Geopark Network member organisations are not allowed to be involved in the sale or unregulated collection of geological materials and this proviso would apply to all members of the AONB Partnership. It is too early to say whether or not the Geopark status in itself will contribute to the environmental interest as it is so closely linked to the AONB designation. The environmental benefits may depend on the nature of the extra projects and initiatives that proceed because of extra funding secured by the Geopark status.

13.4.2 Social Most of the social effects of the designation are likely to come from educational, interpretation and geotourism programmes. Direct community involvement in planning the Geopark is limited tthe consultation part of the participation spectrum

o

23. It seems unlikely that community “capacity” is being significantly expanded by the present management structure. However, initiatives such as the Rockworks project and the Teeside Time Trail project effectively link the social and economic history of the area with the geology, perhaps creating even more of a sense of place for the local community. This theme is continued with financial support for community projects such as the provision of stone benches and local social enterprise based on earth heritage, all of which contribute to the local environment and community identity. Educational activities such as the three children’s Rock Clubs are deliberately inclusive, with a £1 joining fee, free thereafter.

Junior hard-hats © East Cumbria Countryside Project

©P

East Cumbria Countrysideroject

© East Cumbria CountrysideProject

13.4.3 Economic The Partnership is using Geopark status to pull in outside funding for sustainable development, which will have multiplier effects in the local economy. For example the Staff Unit has secured £150,000 for an EC funded project looking at sustainable geotourism in the area and £600,000 for an ambitious programme of education, interpretation and geotourism work. There will be some positive effects on the local economy from such projects directly, for even if the posts they create are not permanent some of the money will be spent locally. Four recent festivals based in the AONB were estimated to have generated input to the local economy (the latest supporting over £30,000 of overnight spend)24. In general the greatest economic impact is likely to come from multiplier effects of visitor spending, though no estimates of this are available.

Perhaps the biggest potential for direct long-term economic effects comes from the various grants schemes, the largest of which has not been running for long enough to assess its impact. The key scheme is the Sustainable Development Fund, which has only been available here since AONB Partnerships were given access to it by DEFRA for the first time in June 2005. At a little over £100,000 pa for a wide range of interesting projects it would be valuable to follow the results.

23 See Moseley 2003, p137, for example 24 Based on participants’ survey by self completion questionnaire, Park Manager pers. comm..

18

As ever, it is almost impossible to predict which of the projects would have proceeded anyway without the grant funding, though the speed of activity has almost certainly increased.

There is some encouragement for local produce. The Staff Unit has a system whereby local attractions and accommodation providers may, with approval, use the European Geopark logo to promote their business as being in a Geopark.


13.5.1 With Scottish policy themes It is too early to see to what extent the Geopark designation is achieving the Scottish policy objectives that coincide with the Geopark objectives. Certainly the various initiatives described show potential in terms of education, business development and tourism quality. They may have a positive impact in terms of employment in the area, but they may also increase housing demand and therefore price in the same way as National Parks. The AONB Partnership is heavily involved in planning and building design within the AONB, which fits with aspects of sustainable development policies. The question of how they fit with economic development or changing demography is more problematic. Biodiversity and landscape protection is not directly affected by the designation but rather relies on the established NNR/SSSI system for protection and monitoring. The sustainable development fund is certainly aiming to reduce net carbon emissions. Community capacity and demography are not directly addressed through the Geopark at present.

13.5.2 With UN Geopark Objectives UNESCO has a relatively short list of objectives for Geoparks, and the North Pennines meets them all to some extent. It already provides management and protection through the existing statutory SSSI system and the AONB designation itself. There is a great deal of education work happening and geotourism is being encouraged. The UNESCO ideal of a sustainable regional economy is perhaps rather ambitious given the Geopark’s wider regional economic context. At the same time the grant system, and a range of conservation, education, interpretation and community development programmes and projects, is encouraging some local businesses to improve their sustainability credentials. The area has too few people and insufficient large settlements to consider sustainability in isolation; so the surrounding market towns must be seen as part of the system even though they are outside the Geopark. The AONB Staff Unit’s response is to treat the boundary as somewhat fluid in all matters apart from land-use planning.

13.6 Key lessons and hopes for the site The Geopark Manager comments:

“The AONB Partnership Staff Unit is an active member of the European Geopark Network and the North Pennines is at the forefront of this still relatively young global movement. Work on geological interpretation, education resource material, trails and festivals, as well as training events for land managers and the wider public, is backed up by research into participant satisfaction and economic impact. Examples of where the work is delivering wider benefits include the Wheels to the Wild Cycle Trail, where a geology and landscape theme for the trail guide is just one aspect of the project; money raised ostensibly for ‘rocks’ has also been used in this project to create cycle-tourism friendly infrastructure at 14 B&Bs and attractions en route and buy two disabled people’s adapted bikes for

19

local hire. A marketing campaign in Cycling magazine (plus promotion in the AONB team’s own publications) backs up the work and links to the promotional work of tourism bodies, turning this from a guidebook printing project into a genuine geotourism initiative. From geology festivals to educational resource packs and from publications to conservation measures, the Geopark status is proving a valuable string to the AONB partnership’s bow. It may not be for everyone, but in a former mining area where the community understands that rocks are important, it is well received and appreciated (perhaps more so than the AONB designation, given that it comes with few restrictions and caveats).”

20

21

21

A

ON

B/G

eopa

rk in

itiat

ives

C

urre

nt s

ituat

ion

Scor

e

(0-3

)25Po

tent

ial f

or G

eopa

rk

desi

gnat

ion

to b

ring

bene

fit.

Lim

itatio

ns

Bio

dive

rsity

P

eats

cape

s pr

ojec

t. H

ay m

eado

ws

proj

ect.

Livi

ng N

orth

Pen

nine

s H

LF L

ands

cape

P

artn

ersh

ip a

mon

gst o

ther

s

Pro

ject

s de

liver

ing

cons

erva

tion

bene

fit

acro

ss a

rang

e of

hab

itats

2

Fun

ding

for w

ider

AO

NB

in

itiat

ives

, Adv

ice

from

G

eodi

vers

ity O

ffice

r.

Land

owne

r will

ingn

ess

to

parti

cipa

te, f

undi

ng, t

eam

and

pa

rtner

cap

acity

Land

scap

e &

gr

een

spac

e C

onsu

lted

on p

lann

ing

appl

icat

ions

. B

uild

ing

desi

gn g

uida

nce.

V

ery

muc

h go

vern

ed b

y ex

istin

g A

ON

B p

lann

ing

regu

latio

ns

2 N

one

as n

ot a

regu

lato

ry

stat

us.

C

ould

stil

l be

a co

nflic

t bet

wee

n pe

rcei

ved

land

scap

e va

lue

and

sust

aina

ble

deve

lopm

ent.

Eco

syst

em

serv

ices

A

ON

B in

itiat

ives

in ri

ver a

nd w

oodl

and

man

agem

ent,

peat

land

man

agem

ent

Fund

ing

secu

red

for

seve

ral m

ajor

pro

ject

s 1

Fun

ding

for A

ON

B in

itiat

ives

. P

ossi

ble

prot

ectiv

e ef

fect

. C

limat

e ch

ange

. V

isito

r pre

ssur

e O

ther

age

ncie

s.

Em

ploy

men

t and

In

com

e A

ON

B tr

aini

ng in

itiat

ives

for t

ouris

t se

rvic

e pr

ovid

ers.

Gra

nt p

rovi

sion

O

ngoi

ng.

2 F

undi

ng fo

r AO

NB

initi

ativ

es.

Goo

d po

tent

ial,

depe

ndin

g on

bu

sine

ss ta

ke- u

p.

Com

petin

g at

tract

ions

in o

ther

ar

eas.

Vis

itor a

ccom

mod

atio

n in

th

e lo

cal a

rea?

Busi

ness

op

portu

nitie

s W

ider

AO

NB

team

initi

ativ

es +

Geo

logy

Fe

stiv

als

/ oth

er e

vent

s O

ngoi

ng. L

ooki

ng g

ood.

2

Fun

ding

for A

ON

B in

itiat

ives

. G

ood

pote

ntia

l, de

pend

ing

on

busi

ness

take

-up.

Pla

nnin

g pe

rmis

sion

. A

vaila

bilit

y of

loca

l en

trepr

eneu

rs.

Soci

al In

clus

ion

Roc

k D

etec

tives

chi

ldre

n’s

club

s.

Tees

ide

Tim

e Tr

ail,

train

ing

even

ts,

gran

t sch

emes

Ong

oing

. Lo

oks

succ

essf

ul, a

lthou

gh

curre

ntly

mai

nly

limite

d to

ch

ildre

n.

1

Fun

ding

for A

ON

B in

itiat

ives

. G

eolo

gica

l the

me

for c

lubs

. Em

phas

is o

n ch

ildre

n’s

educ

atio

n m

ay p

ut o

ff se

rious

co

mm

unity

inpu

t.

Hea

lth a

nd w

ell-

bein

g Te

esid

e Ti

me

Trai

l, ot

her t

rails

and

ev

ents

G

eopa

rk d

esig

natio

n m

ay

be h

avin

g so

me

dire

ct

effe

ct.

2 F

undi

ng fo

r AO

NB

/GP

in

itiat

ives

S

ocia

l atti

tude

s

Edu

catio

n an

d tra

inin

g W

ider

AO

NB

initi

ativ

es, R

ock

Boxe

s an

d re

sour

ce m

ater

ial,

Tees

ide

Tim

eTra

il, R

ock

Det

ectiv

es C

lubs

.

Geo

park

des

igna

tion

prob

ably

hav

ing

a la

stin

g in

fluen

ce.

2 F

undi

ng fo

r AO

NB

/GP

in

itiat

ives

. G

ood

pote

ntia

l N

eed

to in

volv

e al

l sec

tors

of

soci

ety,

all

age

grou

ps.

Tabl

e 7

Su

mm

ary

- Nor

th P

enni

nes

Geo

park

25

See

sec

tion

6.1

13.7 Annex

13.7.1 Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty There are 37 AONBs in England, covering 15% of the land area, and a further 4 in Wales. They range in size from the Isles of Scilly (16 km2) to the Cotswolds (2038 km2). AONBs have their roots in the same legislation that brought about the National Parks – the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, which has been consolidated by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.

The primary purpose of AONB designation is to conserve and enhance natural beauty. In pursuing the primary purpose account should be taken of the needs of agriculture, forestry, other rural industries and of the economic and social needs of local communities. Particular regard should be paid to promoting sustainable forms of social and economic development that in themselves conserve and enhance the environment (CCP 356).

Recreation is not an objective of designation, but the demand for recreation should be met so far as this is consistent with the conservation of natural beauty and the needs of agriculture, forestry and other uses.

In June 2000 Nick Raynsford MP confirmed in a response to a Parliamentary Question that the Government accept that the landscape qualities of National Parks and AONBs are equivalent, and so the level of protection given to both types of area by the land use planning system should also be equivalent. This will eventually be clarified in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 7 (Sustainable Development in Rural Areas), which supercedes the Planning Policy Guidance.

Source: Geodiversity Audit and Action Plan 2004-09. The North Pennine AONB Partnership/British Geological Survey.

22 22

13.7.2 Indicators26

13.7.3 Members of the North Pennines AONB (& Geopark) Partnership The Partnership currently comprises the following organisations:

Carlisle City Council Cumbria County Council Derwentside District Council Durham County Council Eden District Council Northumberland County Council Teesdale District Council Tynedale District Council Wear Valley District Council Natural England CPRE

26 North Pennines AONB Management Plan 2004-9 AONB Partnerships

23 23

Durham Rural Community Council (& feedback to Durham Assoc Local Councils) East Cumbria Countryside Project English Heritage English Nature Forestry Commission Moorland Association (& feedback to Moorland Gamekeepers Assoc and Game Conservancy Trust) National Farmers Union (& feedback to CLA) North Pennines Heritage Trust North Pennines LEADER+ Programme Northumberland Assoc Local Councils ONE NorthEast The Three Area Tourism Partnerships RSPB Voluntary Action Cumbria (& feedback to Cumbria Assoc Local Councils) Chair of Access & Recreation Working Group (non-voting member) Chair of Historic Environment Working Group (non-voting member) Chair of Land Management Working Group (non-voting member) Chair of Sustainable Tourism Working Group (non-voting member)

Chair of Geopark Advisory Group 2 Open Seats

Source, web January 2006 http://www.northpennines.org.uk/index.cfm?articleid=261

13.7.4 AdditionalReferences http://www.northpennines.org.uk/

Moseley, M, 2003. Rural Development – principles and practice, Sage, London.

13.7.5 Acknowledgements We are grateful to the following for their help and advice:

Chris Woodley-Stewart North Pennines AONB Officer ands Geopark Manager North Pennines AONB Partnership Weardale Business Centre The Old Co-op Building 1 Martin Street Stanhope DL13 2UY County Durham England UK

Dr Elizabeth Pickett, Geodiversity Officer North Pennines AONB Partnership.

Marilyn Leech East Cumbria Countryside Project

24 24

14 CASE STUDY 4 ABBERLEY AND MALVERN HILLS GEOPARK This case study is intended to provide a short introduction to the site, its benefits, how it operates. It also describes how such a site would contribute to policy objectives if it were located in Scotland.

Geopark Boundary http://www.geopark.org.uk/_attachments/1716023/AMH_GeoparkMap.pdf

© Abberley and Malvern Hills Geopark.

14.1 Summary Abberley and Malvern Hills was designated European Geopark in 2003 and joined the Global Network in 2004. The Geopark, which covers 1,250 square kilometres, includes many protected geological sites and an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The Geopark is run from the University of Worcester, with a Geopark Partnership Management Scheme, a broad-based Community Liaison Group and a Community Liaison Officer. There is a wide range of educational activities from family fun days to geology evening classes, run by the university and by various local heritage and geological groups.

14.2 Geography; Natural, human and economic This is a scenic area of rolling hills including parts of Gloucestershire, Worcestershire, Herefordshire and Shropshire. The Malvern hills run north-south through the area, a hogsback ridge of Precambrian rocks over 700 million years old, the most ancient in England. To the west is limestone and sandstone forming rolling hills and dales, to the east fertile arable land. The Geopark includes an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), thirteen geological SSSIs and more than 100 Regionally Important Sites for Geology and Geomorphology.

25 25

Landscape and social history are here entwined; this is the quintessentially English landscape that inspired Elgar and Thomas Hardy. There is a mining heritage based on the Wyre Forest coalfield, where the forest remains one of the most important areas of semi-natural ancient woodland in England. Archaeological remains such as the Bronze Age stone ditch that runs most of the length of the hills provide further resources.

Traditionally this is an agricultural area with orchards and hop-yards, but although land-based industries may be at the heart of rural society they are not central to the economy. The area really relies on the larger surrounding towns such as Worcester, with a population of about 94,000. There is a thriving (Malvern) mineral water business. Section 14.6.2 below shows how the economy of the surrounding counties of Herefordshire and Worcestershire are increasingly dominated by service industries. Relative to the regional average the rural areas have lower unemployment, higher business start-up rates and levels of self-employment, and similar, if not broader, diversity of economic activity and employment 27. Growth potential in the rural areas is considered low, and pockets of deprivation are reported in the West Midlands as a whole, although it is unlikely that these are in the Geopark area.

14.3 Management/governance A Geopark Partnership Management Team meet regularly to ensure that the “conservation, tourism and educational aims of the Geopark are met28. This team consists of representatives from:

Abberley Hills Preservation Society Natural England The Forestry Commission Gloucester Geology Trust Herefordshire and Worcestershire Earth Heritage Trust Shropshire Geological Society University of Worcester

There is also a Geopark Liaison Group (see appendix 1.8.3 for full list) comprising various interested local bodies including District and Local Councils and local wildlife trusts. The Director of the Geopark is based at the University of Worcester. A Community Liaison Programme has been in place since 2005, led by a Community Liaison Officer, also based at the University of Worcester. Park governance does not yet appear to directly involve those members of the local community who are not in a formal group.

14.4 Local benefits

14.4.1 Environmental Theoretically Geopark status does not confer any extra environmental protection over and above that which is already implied by existing designations. SSSIs should if necessary be subject to a management agreement with Natural England, who will also oversee NNRs and Local Nature Reserves in the area. Special Wildlife Sites are looked after by the four county wildlife trusts and archaeological sites recorded and protected by the four county archaeology departments. In practice, the extra publicity given to the geological interest of the area will assist in raising public awareness of local environmental issues in general.

27 Rural Renaissance Framework. Advantage West Midlands 2006. http://www.advantagewm.co.uk/downloads/rural-renaissance-action-plan-2006.pdf http://www.advantagewm.co.uk/downloads/rural-renaissance-framework.pdf 28 Geopark Website http://www.geopark.org.uk/

26 26

14.4.2 Social Geopark publicity is very inclusive. The website promotes the area as having something for all to enjoy: locals, visitors, old, young. The educational programme is very wide-ranging, from pure fun to serious geological evening classes. The schools programme is comprehensive

14.4.3 Economic The Geopark has only been designated for three years, and the Community Liaison programme for less than that, so it is early to judge. It is unlikely that the statistics will ever be sufficient to allow a view to be formed on the additional effect of the Geopark in the local economy. Even so, experience dictates that effective publicity given to good trails and fun days out will increase the number of visitors to the area, boosting local retail and catering businesses. The mutually beneficial link with the Severn Valley Railway is useful as this is a great attraction which steams through a good cross-section of interesting geology.


14.5.1 With Scottish policy themes Abberley and Malvern Hills Geopark has a direct impact on the key Scottish policy theme of education and training, and has the potential to have a positive effect on GDP per head and business development. On biodiversity, landscape protection, community activity, green tourism, ecosystem health, climate change and policy integration the impact of the UNESCO designation is less clear-cut. The park is not actually attempting to address this wide range of policy objectives.

14.5.2 With UNESCO Geopark Objectives The first UNESCO objective of management and protection is met through existing designations, to which the Geopark tag adds weight but no extra statutory protection. The educational objective is well met, and attributable directly to Geopark status. Geotourism is being encouraged through the educational provision. The scope for Geopark status to be significant in encouraging a sustainable regional economy is extremely ambitious. To examine this objective sensibly one would need to consider the surrounding large towns as part of the functioning hinterland of the park.

27 27

Tab

le 8

Su

mm

ary

- Abb

erle

y an

d M

alve

rn H

ills G

eopa

rk

G

eopa

rk in

itiat

ives

C

urre

nt s

ituat

ion

Scor

e29Po

tent

ial f

or G

eopa

rk

desi

gnat

ion

to b

ring

bene

fit.

Lim

itatio

ns

Bio

dive

rsity

N

o sp

ecifi

c G

eopa

rk in

itiat

ive

know

n G

eodi

vers

ity s

trate

gy e

xist

s.

Sta

tuto

ry p

rote

ctio

n fo

r G

eolo

gica

l SS

SI’s

. 2

Goo

d, c

ould

rais

e aw

aren

ess

N

atur

e of

site

m

anag

emen

t ag

reem

ents

Land

scap

e &

gr

een

spac

e N

o sp

ecifi

c G

eopa

rk in

itiat

ive

know

n

Pro

vide

d by

AO

NB

/ Mal

vern

H

ills C

onse

rvat

ors/

Pla

nnin

g sy

stem

and

oth

ers

2 G

ood,

cou

ld ra

ise

awar

enes

s H

ousi

ng p

ress

ure.

P

lann

ing

deci

sion

s

Eco

syst

em

serv

ices

N

o sp

ecifi

c G

eopa

rk in

itiat

ive

know

n.

Und

er E

A c

ontro

l?

0 U

nkno

wn

Clim

ate

chan

gech

alle

nges

ahe

ad.

Em

ploy

men

t and

In

com

e So

me

Geo

park

web

link

s to

loca

l to

uris

t ser

vice

s H

igh

leve

l of s

elf-

empl

oym

ent/s

mal

l bus

ines

ses,

lo

w w

ages

. N

ot a

gro

wth

are

a.

2 G

ood.

Tou

rism

a k

ey d

river

in

rura

l eco

nom

y. G

eopa

rk

activ

ities

cou

ld b

e an

attr

actio

n.

Bus

ines

s up

take

. S

kills

Busi

ness

op

portu

nitie

s So

me

Geo

park

web

link

s to

loca

l to

uris

t ser

vice

s H

igh

leve

l of s

elf-

empl

oym

ent/s

mal

l bus

ines

ses,

lo

w w

ages

. Not

a g

row

th a

rea.

2

Goo

d. T

ouris

m s

een

as a

key

dr

iver

in ru

ral e

cono

my.

G

eopa

rk a

ctiv

ities

cou

ld b

e an

at

tract

ion.

Cou

ld a

ssis

t Sev

ern

Val

ley

Rai

lway

Leve

l of i

nnov

atio

n

Soc

ial I

nclu

sion

H

ealth

and

edu

catio

n pr

ogra

mm

es

Geo

park

Com

mun

ity L

iais

on

offic

er. A

rtist

in R

esid

ence

. N

ewsl

ette

r.

Mix

ture

of l

ocal

vis

itors

and

to

uris

ts.

Man

y fre

e op

portu

nitie

s. P

ark

gove

rnan

ce n

ot fu

lly in

clus

ive

(exc

ept a

genc

ies/

NG

Os)

2

Wid

e-ra

ngin

g ac

cess

ible

ed

ucat

ion

and

activ

ity

prog

ram

me

coul

d br

ing

in m

ore

dive

rse

visi

tors

Goo

d po

tent

ial

for u

rban

are

as to

ben

efit

Fund

ing

for

educ

atio

nal v

isits

an

d st

aff.

Vis

itor

Cen

tre fa

cilit

ies?

P

ublic

tran

spor

t

Hea

lth a

nd w

ell-

bein

g W

yre

Fore

st H

ealth

wal

ks.

all

year

, fre

e. O

ther

trai

ls a

nd g

uide

d w

alks

.

Vis

itor n

umbe

rs u

nkno

wn.

G

eopa

rk W

ay p

ropo

sed.

3

Goo

d po

tent

ial.

Par

k ac

cess

ible

from

larg

e to

wns

ne

arby

and

from

Birm

ingh

am

Vis

itor p

ress

ure?

C

ar p

arki

ng?

Tra

il m

aint

enan

ce?

Edu

catio

n an

d tra

inin

g S

choo

ls, R

ock

and

Foss

il R

oad

show

s, C

raft

Cou

rses

, Wild

life

Focu

s E

vent

s, T

eam

Cha

lleng

e E

vent

s, S

peci

al N

eeds

, CPD

, ev

enin

g cl

asse

s

Stro

ng in

clus

ive

educ

atio

nal

prog

ram

me

on a

wid

e ra

nge

of

leve

ls: f

rom

cou

rses

for t

he

amat

eur t

o R

evol

ting

Rom

an

pot-m

akin

g da

ys.

3

Exc

elle

nt.

Stro

ng s

uppo

rt fro

m

know

ledg

eabl

e lo

cal h

erita

ge

and

geol

ogic

al s

ocie

ties

and

prof

essi

onal

geo

logi

cal s

uppo

rt fro

m U

nive

rsity

of W

orce

ster

Fund

ing?

29 S

ee s

ectio

n 6.

1 28

28

14.6 Annex

14.6.1 Members of AONB Group Gloucestershire County Council Herefordshire Council Worcester County Council Wychavon District Council Bridgnorth District Council Forest of Dean District Council Malvern Hills District Council Tewkesbury Borough Council Worcester City Council Bromesberrow Estate Christopher Lyons Estate Huntley Estates Madresfield Estate and CLA Malvern Hills Conservators National Trust Woodland Trust Countryside Agency Advantage West Midlands Rural Development Services, DEFRA Herefordshire Nature Trust Shropshire Wildlife Trust Worcestershire Wildlife Trust Go West Teme Valley Project Worcestershire County Museum Bewdley Museum Kidderminster College Severn Valley Railway Malvern Hills AONB

14.6.2 Worcester economy

Chart of trend of regional gross value added of Worcestershire at current basic prices

Year Regional Gross Value Added[3]

Agriculture[4] Industry[5] Services[6]

1995 5,047 225 1,623 3,200

2000 6,679 159 2,002 4,518

2003 7,514 182 1,952 5,380

Published (pp.240-253) by Office for National Statistics with figures in millions of British Pounds Sterling.

29 29

14.6.3 Herefordshire Economy

Chart of trend of regional gross value added of Herefordshire at current basic prices

Year Regional Gross Value Added[2]

Agriculture[3] Industry[4] Services[5]

1995 1,622 218 567 836

2000 1,885 155 643 1,087

2003 2,216 185 708 1,323

Published (pp.240-253) by Office for National Statistics with figures in millions of British Pounds Sterling.

14.6.4 Additional References UNESCO Geopark website http://www.europeangeoparks.org/isite/geopark/39,1,0.asp?mu=1&cmu=6&thID=0

Geopark Community Newsletter http://www.geopark.org.uk/_attachments/1716088/GeoparkNewsletterSpr06.pdf

14.6.5 Acknowledgements We are grateful to the following for their help and advice:

Dr Cheryl Jones : Director Abberley & Malvern Hills Geopark Department of Applied Sciences, Geography & Archaeology University of Worcester : Henwick Grove : Worcester WR2 6AJ

Rona Davis : Community Liaison Officer c/o The Geological Records Centre University of Worcester: Henwick Grove : Worcester WR2 6AJ

30 30

15 CASE STUDY 5 BRAUNTON BURROWS BIOSPHERE RESERVE This case study is intended to provide a short introduction to the site, its benefits, how it operates. It also describes how such a site would contribute to policy objectives if it were located in Scotland.

15.1 Summary This is the UK’s first “new-style” Biosphere Reserve; 9,700 ha of dunes, mudflats, fields, woods and over 150,000 people. The core area, a large dune system much used by local people for recreation, has an SSSI designation and is run under a management agreement with a private owner and the MoD. The management structure includes the local community and business leaders and there is strong leadership and good links with local schools and colleges. A new Biosphere Reserve Strategy is under development and will be rolled out in April/May 2007. The tourist industry is important to the economy of the area and the BR label could assist with marketing. Some sixty local businesses use the Biosphere Reserve label on their wthere is a link with green business mentors Envision, and with one hundred businessethe North Devon Food Group. The good community involvement and business inclusion needs time and support to achieve the critical mass needed to translate the visionof the North Devon Biosphere into measurablsocial and economic benefits.

Dune system © Copyright Richard Johns and licensed

for reuse under this Creative Commons Licence

ebsites,

s in

e

15.2 Geography; Natural, human and economic This Biosphere Reserve covers part of the northern half of Devon, in the South-West of England, and has a long area of scenic coastline and attractive countryside. Braunton Burrows is the central core; an active sand dune system of international importance, an SSSI and a Special Area of Conservation under the EU Habitats Directive. In 199830 this amounted to the whole of the Biosphere Reserve. Restructuring since then has kept this as the core area and expanded the whole reserve. The buffer zone is 3,120ha of mainly grassland and encompasses a large section of the estuary of the rivers Taw and Torridge. The habitats in both the core and buffer areas are dependent on the water level and there are obvious benefits to controlling it over the whole area through a single system. This approach unifies management in the core and buffer zones.

The buffer zone also contains one of the only two surviving Mediaeval Open Strip field systems in the UK and is therefore of historical significance. The transition area is large, with a fuzzy boundary. It extends out to sea round Lundy Island, and inland to encompass the towns of Oakhampton, Barnstaple and Bideford. The whole Reserve extends to about 3,600 sq km. Approximately 440 people live in the buffer zone and more than 150,000 in the transitional area. Agriculture and

Coastal landscape © Copyright Noel Jenkins and licensed

for reuse under this Creative Commons Licence

30 Price et al 1999. Review of the UK Biosphere Reserves. Report to DETR. HMSO London.

31 31

forestry dominate the traditional culture of the area, and, like South West Scotland, small dairy farms used to predominate .Geographically remote, in English terms, from regional commercial centres, the area has relatively low wages and a shortage of affordable housing, partly due to second home ownership. There is a relatively low level of car ownership and this, combined with poor public transport, causes problems of rural isolation for some people, with limited access to leisure and cultural opportunities. One in eight people are carers. Nearly one-quarter of the self-employed work in agriculture or related services, where wages are historically low31. Tourism is an important part of the local economy. At least one local business group (North Devon economic partnership) feel that the Biosphere Reserve idea could work as a catalyst to encourage economic development32.

15.3 Management/governance Reserve management is co-ordinated by North Devon Coast and Countryside Service (NDCCS), which has a very wide mandate (see section 15.7.3). This compact organisation covers both environment and development issues and co-ordinates the management of the reserve. The administrative authority for the whole area is Devon County Council, who part-fund NDCCS. The core dune system of some 1,333 ha is owned and managed by Christie Devon Estates and the MoD, working within a management agreement supported by Natural England. The buffer and transition zones are owned and managed by many private individuals. The Biosphere Reserve management structure is designed to make it possible to act with local people, and particularly to make use of the various groups and partnerships already working within the region, as follows:

31 North Devon First; A community strategy for the future of North Devon. North Devon District Council and Devon district Council on behalf of the North Devon community Alliance, July 2002 http://www.northdevon.gov.uk/ndfirst.pdf 32 “2020 vision” A Strategy for Sustainable Economic Regeneration in North West Devon. NW Devon Economic Partnership May 2004, prepared by WSP Environmental Ltd.

32 32

Facilitation Group Members of community groups

Members of institutions and agencies represented on the Board

Specialists co-opted as required Task Groups formed as required

Consultative forum and framework

Pre-existing groups, alliances and partnerships within the area e.g. sustainable energy groups, agriculture groups, conservation groups,

tourism associations, community planning alliances.

Biosphere Reserve Management Board Landowners

Business stakeholders Local Authority Cultural Sector

Scientific and academic community National/regional funding agencies Social and educational community

As we write (January 2007) a new Biosphere Reserve Strategy is being written, and a Biosphere Reserve Partnership is being set up, involving many of the organisations and individuals previously consulted but in a more inclusive structure (See appendix 1.8.5). There is ongoing consultation and community work with the North Devon Alliance, which is the umbrella group for community alliances in North Devon.

15.4 Local benefits

15.4.1 Environmental The Biosphere Reserve designation may well benefit the environment in the buffer and transition zone, and perhaps further afield than that, largely because of the environmental education and research that can be attributed to the reserve organisation. The core SSSI - the sand dunes themselves - are deteriorating. An English Nature habitat survey33 carried out in October and November 2006 found that of the eight areas that make up the SSSI all but one were in unfavourable condition. Over half the SSSI area was classified as “unfavourable, declining” and only 30% met the Public Service Agreement target of favourable or

33http://www.englishnature.org.uk/special/sssi/reportAction.cfm?report=sdrt18&category=S&reference=1000023

33 33

recovering34. This situation is in the process of being rectified through discussions between Natural England, Christie Estates and the MoD.

15.4.2 Social Much work has been done already in terms of involving members of the local community in reserve management. The scope of future community participation will depend very much on the nature of the new Biosphere Reserve Partnership.

In terms of health and well-being the core areas of the reserve, the fine beach and the dunes, are a much-loved dog-walking, kite-flying, Sunday family outing destination. English access laws are less liberal than Scottish so the BR designation and the sense of “ownership” it confers assist in preserving the access rights here. The presence of the BR designation does increase the profile of NDCCS, and this may assist their efforts to promote outdoor activities in the wider area.

North Devon College are developing foundation degrees including a module on sustainable development based on the reserve, which they also use as a study site. A local school consortium has just succeeded in a bid for £130K to develop a pack for education in the Biosphere Reserve.

15.4.3 Economic

The reserve is involved with the UNESCO “Quality Economies” initiative and stakeholders are aware of the proposed BR trademark label35. NDCCS have used reserve events and their dedicated website to publicise the work of EnVision, a local partnership consultancy service who offer discounted environmental auditing to save waste, energy and money. The Green Tourism scheme is a 3-level approach for developing sustainability accreditation and will be a fundamental part of the BR Business Partner scheme. A great number of initiatives and strategies have been undertaken by NDCCS.


15.5.1 With Scottish policy themes Braunton Burrows BR has direct impact on the key Scottish policy themes of education and training, community activity, green tourism, ecosystem health and policy integration. On biodiversity and landscape protection the impact of the UNESCO designation is less clear-cut. The vision of this BR does include initiatives that could have a positive effect on GDP per head, business development, climate change and tourism quality.

15.5.2 With UNESCO BR Objectives Braunton Burrows is particularly well-integrated into the regional planning system, including the economic development reports and community initiatives, all key BR objectives. It is difficult to assess how harmonised the core, buffer and transition areas are, although there is clearly a close relationship between the core and

34 There is a Public Service Agreement (PSA) target to have 95% of SSSI area in favourable or recovering condition by 2010. Source; English Nature website, Jan 07. 35 A workshop on “Quality Economies” was held on the reserve May 2006, at which Peter Dogse, Programme Specialist, Division of Ecological and Earth Sciences, UNESCO gave a presentation. This is available as a PowerPoint presentation from the website www.northdevonbiosphere.org.uk .

34 34

buffer zones in environmental terms. The new strategy and partnership for the BR fit tightly with UNESCO objectives.

15.6 Key lessons and hopes for the site Key hopes for the site are set out in the draft strategic plan (not yet ratified). They are:

To reverse the decline in biodiversity. To conserve our best landscapes and enhance the other areas where it is

compatible with sustainable development To use our resources wisely To develop and strengthen a robust economy that enhances the

environment To reduce poverty and inequality in North Devon To have a safe strong and healthy community in North Devon by To be a community of learning for the wider world

35 35

Tabl

e 9

Su

mm

ary

Brau

nton

Bur

row

s Bi

osph

ere

Res

erve

B

raun

ton

Bur

row

s B

R

initi

ativ

es –

hug

e ra

ft of

in

itiat

ives

, see

sep

arat

e do

cum

ent

Cur

rent

situ

atio

n Sc

ore36

Pote

ntia

l for

BR

de

sign

atio

n to

brin

g be

nefit

.

Lim

itatio

ns

Bio

dive

rsity

C

oast

al a

nd fl

oodp

lain

gr

azin

g m

arsh

pro

ject

. S

altm

arsh

cre

atio

n G

ener

al h

abita

t man

agem

ent

SS

SI i

s de

terio

ratin

g. W

ider

co

untry

side

may

be

bene

fitin

g fro

m B

R

initi

ativ

es.

1

Wid

er c

ount

rysi

de li

kely

to

bene

fit fr

om B

R’s

in

volv

emen

t in

loca

l pl

anni

ng.

Clim

ate

and

sea

leve

l cha

nge

Man

agem

ent a

gree

men

ts?

Hou

sing

dem

and?

R

oad

build

ing?

Land

scap

e &

gr

eens

pace

A

rt in

the

land

scap

e co

mm

unity

pro

ject

. G

ood.

Stro

ng lo

cal f

eel t

hat

the

land

scap

e is

impo

rtant

. 3

Goo

d.

Hou

sing

dem

and?

Eco

syst

em

serv

ices

“G

reen

ing”

adv

ice

on

web

site

, bus

ines

s su

ppor

t. E

nVis

ion

doin

g w

ell,

supp

orte

d by

BR

. 3

Ver

y go

od.

N

eeds

wid

er b

usin

ess

supp

ort

Clim

ate

chan

ge?.

Em

ploy

men

t and

In

com

e In

dire

ct v

ia b

usin

ess

partn

ersh

ip s

chem

e.

Effe

ct o

f BR

will

be fa

irly

mar

gina

l at p

rese

nt.

2 G

ood,

dep

endi

ng o

n bu

sine

ss ta

ke-u

p.

Bus

ines

s ta

ke-u

p. D

iffic

ult

trans

port.

L

ow w

ages

.

Busi

ness

op

portu

nitie

s In

dire

ct v

ia b

usin

ess

partn

ersh

ip s

chem

e.

Effe

ct o

f BR

will

be fa

irly

mar

gina

l at p

rese

nt.

3 G

ood,

dep

endi

ng o

n bu

sine

ss ta

ke-u

p an

d na

tiona

l tou

rism

beh

avio

ur.

Poo

r tra

nspo

rt lin

ks.

Pos

sibl

e sk

ill s

horta

ge. O

ver-

relia

nce

on

tour

ism

.

Soc

ial I

nclu

sion

B

iosp

here

Res

erve

P

artn

ersh

ip a

nd h

isto

ry o

f go

od c

omm

unity

invo

lvem

ent

Goo

d. L

imite

d nu

mbe

r of

peop

le in

volv

ed b

ut th

ere

will

alre

ady

be b

enef

its a

nd

som

e in

fluen

ce w

ithin

bu

sine

ss c

omm

unity

.

2

Goo

d.

Poo

r loc

al tr

ansp

ort t

o ge

t to

mee

tings

. N

orm

al d

iffic

ultie

s of

so

cial

incl

usio

n in

par

ticip

ator

y pr

oces

s.

Hea

lth a

nd w

ell-

bein

g E

stab

lishe

d re

crea

tion

area

. Lo

ng d

ista

nce

path

and

trai

ls.

BR

pro

babl

y ha

ving

a s

light

bu

t not

icea

ble

effe

ct.

3 G

ood.

Soc

iala

ttitu

des.

Edu

catio

n an

d tra

inin

g G

ood

links

with

loca

l sch

ools

an

d co

llege

s; s

trong

ou

treac

h pr

ogra

mm

e

BR

will

alre

ady

be

mem

orab

le to

stu

dent

s.

3 G

ood

Nee

d to

app

eal t

o al

l sec

tors

of

soci

ety.

36 S

ee s

ectio

n 6.

1 36

36

15.7 Annex

15.7.1 Map of Braunton Burrows

15.7.2 Aims of Braunton Burrows Biosphere Reserve The following list arises from the Biosphere Forum, a public consultation event held in Barnstaple in November 2006.

To reverse the decline in biodiversity To conserve our best landscapes and enhance the other areas where it is

compatible with sustainable development. To use our resources wisely. To develop and strengthen a robust economy that enhances the

environment. To reduce poverty and inequality in North Devon. To have a safe, strong and healthy community in North Devon. To have a population that is skilled in sustainable living and working and

makes informed choices about their future. To be a community of learning for the wider world.

15.7.3 Duties of North Devon Coast and Countryside Service Core functions

Provide a management/co-ordination function for the entire Biosphere Reserve

Managing the SW Coast Path Managing the Tarka Trail Provide a management unit for the North Devon AONB Provide estuary management advice and co-ordination

37 37

Provide a biodiversity and landscape technical and on the ground delivery service for the area

Provide a countryside access and environmental education/interpretation service for the area.

Provide support for strategic planning with issues related to the environment.

To find efficiency savings by working and co-ordinating activity with other partners.

38 38

15.7.4 Proposed Governance Structure (not yet ratified)

Biosphere Reserve Partnership - to support activities in the Biosphere Reserve. (Owns the strategy, coordinates effort, champions the principles of the Biosphere Reserve, links to UK MAB and beyond, supports and advises authorities and agencies, Meets 3 times per year

Local Strategic Partnerships

Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

Facilitation Group Filters and refers information to and from the Board, proposes papers and reports (made from officers and representatives on the Board, North Devon County Council and Countryside Service, and from Estuary Forum members as Founding Community Facilitators). Groups meet as necessary. Topic groups can be permanent or “task and finish”.

Consultative Framework/Forum Split by geography and theme, using existing groups and fora, such as Community Planning Alliances, Theme based interest groups such as Agricultural Forum, Biodiversity Forum, Coastal Group, Transport Groups, Tourism Associations. Will have an annual conference/workshop.

15.7.5 Acknowledgement We are grateful to Andy Bell, Biosphere Manager, for help with this case study.

39 39

16 CASE STUDY 6 ENTLEBUCH BIOSPHERE RESERVE This case study is intended to provide a short introduction to the site, its benefits, how it operates. It also describes how such a site would contribute to policy objectives if it were located in Scotland.

16.1 Summary This is Switzerland’s first Biosphere Reserve; 39,000 ha of mountain, moor, forest, alpine pastures and some 17,000 people in eight main settlements. The core is a mountain area protected by three local protective designations. The buffer area is moor, forest and pasture, and relatively large at 16,000 ha The reserve was set up after a positive vote by the local community and has continued the theme of strong community and business involvement.

This reserve works in social and economic terms because the residents are used to selling the area as a tourist destination. For many, their income relates directly to the number of visitors. They support the idea of the Echt Entlebuch brand, which has a good logo, and when visitors arrive they get a quality experience and good cooking.

The reserve also provides a forum for foresters and woodworkers to discuss and develop a sustainable traditional industry. The environmental issues may be those of determining the carrying capacity of the forest industries, managing any undue visitor pressure on the mountain areas and dealing with the unknown effects of global warming on the mountain environment.

This reserve has only been in place for five years and already its achievements seem to accord with almost all the Scottish policy priorities.

16.2 Geography; Natural, human and economic The Entlebuch Biosphere Reserve is a scenic mix of mountain, moorland, peat bog, forest and alpine pasture at the foot of the Alps in the central part of Switzerland. There are wild, inaccessible forested gorges with rare species such as lynx and eagle owl, and a big cave system. The reserve covers some 39,000 hectares and reaches an altitude of 2,350m. The core mountain area is covered by three protective designations; a cantonal Bog Conservation Decree, a Nature Protection Area and a hunting ban above 1700m. The buffer zone is mainly moor and forest and is partly covered by a protected landscape designation. The map at appendix 1.8.1 shows the designation boundaries.

There are some 17,000 people living in the area (2000), mainly in eight settlements. At one of them a cable-car ascends to a ski and hiking area. Agriculture, tourism and wood-based industries are significant. Detailed demographic or economic data for the area are not easily accessible, but as it is a popular holiday destination it is reasonable to assume that incomes can be variable, that there is a high percentage of self-employed people and that wages for the economically active in smaller villages will be on the low side.

40 40

16.3 Management/governance Under Swiss governance the protection of nature and the landscape remains in the hands of the cantons and the Biosphere designation makes no difference to this. From the beginning this reserve has involved local residents. Public meetings were initially held with the eight communities concerned, who approved the proposed reserve with a 94% majority. Appendix 1.8.3 gives further detail on the implementation of biosphere management. Governance is now through a system of regional management with public participation. Representatives of the different towns, and of various organisations, are elected to a steering committee by an assembly of delegates. There is also a co-ordination committee with various sub-groups to tackle particular issues.

The participatory structure is shown in the following diagram.

Figure 2 Entlebuch Biosphere Reserve governance37

© www.biosphaerenreservat-rhoen.de

The Regional Management Centre does the day-to-day organisation and runs a Biosphere Centre (see photograph) in conjunction with the Office of Forestry and the Agricultural Education and Advice Centre. It also runs training and work experience courses from this and other smaller regional offices, and works closely with other, similarly oriented institutions and regions inside and outside Switzerland 38 A Supporters club raises money for the reserve and does inventive publicity.

16.4 Local benefits

16.4.1 Environmental According to the official website, biodiversity on the reserve has stabilised with the population of endangered species increasing. Research is being carried out with

37 Presentation given by Engelbert Ruoss, Regional Management, Entlebuch, at a meeting to discuss the UN “Quality Economies” initiative, held at North Devon Coast and Countryside Centre, May 2006 38 www.bisphaere.ch

41 41

hunters and farmers and a doctoral thesis has been written on integrated monitoring 39. Traditional and sustainable uses of natural resources are on the increase.

16.4.2 Social There is reported to be an increased awareness of and identification with natural and cultural values. In 2005 the Biosphere Reserve School held 22 classes for a total of 740 children. Initiatives and awards in “gastro-tourism” (good cooking) involve a number of people in this labour-intensive industry. Similarly, encouraging tourists to stay in farm houses involves many more people in the hospitality industry who have to develop personal skills, and become more knowledgeable about the local area.

The following bar charts show how membership of producer and product groups increased sharply after the reserve was designated, showing an increased cohesion at least in business matters.

Figure 3 Product Labelling - Producers and Groups

16.4.3 Economic Specific information on visitor numbers, meals and overnight stays reveals a healthy increase since the reserve was designated. Unless there has been some marked improvement in transport links or other such material change over the same period of time it is reasonable to assume that the change can be partly attributed to the reserve initiatives.

Figure 4 Tourism statistics40

39 Scmid, A. PhD Thesis. Monitoring of sustainability in the regional development of the UNESCO Biosphere Reserve Entlebuch. Date unknown. 40 Presentation given by Engelbert Ruoss, Regional Management, Entlebuch, at a meeting to discuss the UN “Quality Economies” initiative, held at North Devon Coast and Countryside Centre, May 2006

42 42

There is well-directed promotion of tourism and marketing of regional produce using the BR “brand”, which should assist medium to long-term economic development.


16.5.1 With Scottish policy themes Entlebuch Biosphere Reserve, had it been Scottish, would be judged to have had an actual impact on the key Scottish policy themes of GDP/head, business development, employment, education and training, community activity, tourism quality, green tourism, ecosystem health and biodiversity. On climate change and landscape protection the impact of the UNESCO designation is less clear-cut, but it is possible that the encouragement of a sustainable wood industry could have a positive effect on both. It is not possible to fairly judge the level of integration into the regional planning system without in-depth study of the Swiss system. Even so, this reserve addresses almost all the Scottish policy priorities, and it has been in place for only five years.

16.5.2 With UN Biosphere Reserve objectives It is difficult to assess whether there has been any actual increase in “harmony” between the core, buffer and transition areas as a result of designation. There was a fair degree to start with, both through the obvious ecological links and through the reliance of the local people on their mountains as a tourist draw and as source of wood and grazing. Perhaps the links are more overt as a result of the reserve, and more children will be taught of them. There has been a study on integrated monitoring, and visitor numbers are locally recorded, a most useful and elsewhere under-rated exercise. The UNESCO objective of local involvement is achieved well. There is evidence of research involvement, although we cannot assess habitat monitoring in the same detail as is possible with UK sites. Similarly we cannot easily assess the level of integration with local planning. Generally, the UN objectives seem to have been met in a practical way.

16.5.3 Key lessons and hopes for the site This reserve works in social and economic terms because many of the residents work in the hospitality industry, they are used to selling the area as a tourist destination, and, for many, their income relates directly to the number of visitors. They know a good idea when they see one, they support the idea of the Echt Entlebuch brand, they got a good logo and they make sure that when visitors do get here they get a quality experience and good cooking. A good example for Scotland. The glorious scenery does the rest. The business leaders are clearly sharp, willing to take on a new concept and to make it happen. With this critical mass of business support turning into a swift increase in visitor numbers the success of the brand builds on itself. This illustrates the power of effective participation and innovation, combined.

The creation of the Reserve has coincided with an increase in “eco-tourism”. The well-educated and relatively affluent Swiss take local breaks in an accessible area (Lucerne, central Switzerland) with “green” credentials, little hotels with wood stoves, chalets for hire, great hiking, wooden crafts and good restaurants. It illustrates how determined people living in a beautiful area with great local food and a tradition of hospitality can seize the opportunity.

In environmental terms the issues will be those of determining the carrying capacity of the forest industries, managing any undue visitor pressure on the

43 43

mountain areas and dealing with the unknown effects of global warming on the mountain environment.

44 44

45

45

En

tlebu

ch B

R in

itiat

ives

C

urre

nt s

ituat

ion

Scor

e41Po

tent

ial f

or B

R

desi

gnat

ion

to b

ring

bene

fit.

Lim

itatio

ns

Bio

dive

rsity

In

volv

emen

t with

var

ious

UN

re

sear

ch p

rogr

ams.

Cor

e pr

otec

tion

unch

ange

d.

Bio

dive

rsity

sta

bilis

ed.

Pop

ulat

ion

of e

ndan

gere

d sp

ecie

s in

crea

sing

. 3

Dep

ends

on

natu

re o

f m

anag

emen

t -

unkn

own

Det

erm

inat

ion

of fo

rest

car

ryin

g ca

paci

ty fo

r mon

itore

d su

stai

nabi

lity.

Unk

now

n ef

fect

s of

cl

imat

e ch

ange

Land

scap

e &

gr

een

spac

e To

uris

m in

itiat

ives

incr

ease

ec

onom

ic d

epen

denc

e on

la

ndsc

ape.

Pos

sibl

y un

chan

ged.

2

Pos

sibl

e pr

otec

tive

effe

ct.

Dep

ende

nt o

n ca

nton

pla

nnin

g re

gula

tions

.

Dev

elop

men

t pre

ssur

e un

know

n.

Eco

syst

em

serv

ices

V

illag

es o

f Flu

ehli

and

Sue

renb

erg

look

ing

at

fore

st/e

nerg

y/w

ater

/tour

ists

.

Pos

sibl

y un

chan

ged

alth

ough

in

crea

sed

visi

tor n

umbe

rs m

ust

have

impa

ct.

3 P

ossi

ble

prot

ectiv

e ef

fect

. N

eeds

wid

e bu

sine

ss ta

ke-u

p.

Clim

ate

chan

ge.

Vis

itor p

ress

ure

Em

ploy

men

t and

In

com

e To

uris

m in

itiat

ives

S

usta

inab

le u

se o

f woo

d

proj

ect >

100

mem

bers

.

Incr

ease

in v

isito

r num

bers

and

sp

endi

ng w

ill im

prov

e bu

sine

ss

inco

mes

and

may

incr

ease

em

ploy

men

t.

3

Goo

d, d

epen

ding

on

busi

ness

take

-up

and

natio

nal t

ouris

m

beha

viou

r.

Com

petin

g at

tract

ions

in o

ther

ar

eas.

A

vaila

bilit

y of

ski

lled

loca

l sta

ff.

Busi

ness

op

portu

nitie

s Li

vely

sup

porte

rs c

lub

with

in

fluen

tial m

embe

rs.

Ent

lebu

ch “b

rand

”. G

astro

-to

uris

m.

Incr

ease

d by

rise

in v

isito

r nu

mbe

rs a

nd e

xpen

ditu

re.

3

Goo

d, d

epen

ding

on

busi

ness

take

-up

and

natio

nal t

ouris

m

beha

viou

r .

Dep

ends

on

busi

ness

take

-up,

le

ader

ship

and

the

avai

labi

lity

of

com

petin

g at

tract

ions

.

Soc

ial I

nclu

sion

E

lect

ed re

pres

enta

tives

from

al

l com

mun

ities

on

the

asse

mbl

y of

del

egat

es.

Goo

d, b

ut li

nk b

etw

een

stee

ring

com

mitt

ee a

nd re

gion

al

man

agem

ent n

ot k

now

n 3

Dep

ends

on

who

is

invo

lved

. Goo

d pr

ospe

cts.

Nee

d to

invo

lve

all s

ecto

rs o

f so

ciet

y.

Hea

lth a

nd w

ell-

bein

g W

alki

ng, c

yclin

g an

d ho

rse-

ridin

g tra

ils b

enef

it lo

cal

peop

le a

nd v

isito

rs.

BR

pro

babl

y ha

ving

a s

light

but

no

ticea

ble

effe

ct.

3 G

ood

Soc

iala

ttitu

des

Edu

catio

n an

d tra

inin

g S

choo

ls p

rogr

amm

e R

esea

rch

invo

lvem

ent

BR

con

cept

will

alre

ady

be

mem

orab

le to

stu

dent

s 3

Goo

d N

eed

to in

volv

e al

l sec

tors

of

soci

ety,

all

age

grou

ps.

Tabl

e 10

Su

mm

ary

- Ent

lebu

ch B

iosp

here

Res

erve

41

See

sec

tion

6.1

16.6 Annex

16.6.1 Implementation42

16.6.2 Acknowledgements We are grateful to Engelbert Ruoss, for help and advice.

Images are ©UNESCO Bioshere Entlebuch

42 Presentation given by Engelbert Ruoss, Regional Management, Entlebuch, at a meeting to discuss the UN “Quality Economies” initiative, held at North Devon Coast and Countryside Centre, May 2006

46 46

17 CASE STUDY 7 RHÖN BIOSPHERE RESERVE This case study is intended to provide a short introduction to the site, its benefits, how it operates, and how such a site would contribute to policy objectives if it were located in Scotland.

17.1 Summary Rhön Biosphere Reserve is huge. It covers 185,000 ha of largely man-made landscape, mostly grassland and forest. The small multiple core areas are being retained untouched to become rare “wilderness”, and there are strict development limitations on the large buffer zone. In the Rhön this is the most important zone for biodiversity conservation (grassland). Relatively sparsely populated, this is a cold, wet, open landscape, recovering from the blight of being a border zone before German re-unification. The management structure involves three separate federal states and what could be a confusing governance system, but somehow it works. The business partner scheme, area trademark and many training and marketing initiatives have combined to give an unpromising area hope and identity.

17.2 Geography; Natural, human and economic Rhön Biosphere reserve sits in the centre of Germany at the border triangle of three Federal States, Bavaria, Hesse and Thuringia. Covering some 185,000 hectares, and with a population of 136,000, it has a population density far below the national average. It is traditionally a poor area, remote from large conurbations, and a source of emigration. Settlement is mainly in small villages. The economy is centred around small businesses (and the service industries), based on agriculture, tourism, light industry, construction and forestry. Thuringia used to be in East Germany and carries the legacy of large collective farms, now owned by private consortia. By contrast, in Bavaria over half the farms are less than ten hectares. Farming is fairly extensive but there is a livestock and dairy industry, which offers the potential of adding value fairly easily, and there are orchards.

The landscape is largely pasture and meadow with low hills and about one-third woodland, remnants of the ancient beech forests that used to cover the area (see map Appendix 1.8.1). There are some steeper, almost mountainous areas with interesting plant communities. The old border area is interesting because most people were thoroughly excluded from it for some time. The twenty-nine core areas are valued remnants of wilderness in a varied but largely man-made landscape. The sheer size of the area and the varied elevation means that there are over 100 breeding bird species, many of which are protected at the national and EU-wide level. The soil is poor and the climate cold and wet, but the air is clean and there is a sense of space.

17.3 Management/governance Designated as a trans-boundary BR immediately after the reunification of Germany, this is a bold attempt at planning a large area from three different federal states (Länder). Although Bavaria, Hesse and Thuringia speak the same language, they are thoroughly independent. None may govern in another Länder, so there are three Biosphere Reserve Departments, one in each state. Each state has a different administrative hierarchy to feed into the trilateral framework of the

47 47

Management Framework Plan 43, which is co-ordinated by a small but clearly effective working group.

The management framework plan was written in 1991 and is currently under review, but provided a bold vision of wide-ranging tourism development and land-use planning, with many local forums and workshops leading to a harmonized regional management plan. Interdisciplinary research is co-ordinated across Länder boundaries.

As part of the review of the Management Plan, various workshops and studies have been undertaken to examine the way forward for the area. In the context of an EU research project, the working group subjected themselves to a complex SWOT analysis in 2003 44 (see appendix 1.8.4), which concluded that the factors which could best be locally influenced, and which would have a positive effect were:

Tourism Regional identity The Biosphere Reserve itself Product marketing.

17.4 Local benefits

17.4.1 Environmental The immediate environmental benefit of Biosphere Reserve status in 1991 was the protection of biodiversity and habitat in 29 core areas, which together form some 3% of the reserve. The aim is to leave these areas untouched, to revert to or remain near-wilderness, a rare thing in Germany. Some 37% of the reserve is also designated as buffer zone, and is sensitive, low disturbance habitat. Part of this is called buffer zone A and is protected as nature reserves. The buffer zone is not intended for settlement or commercial development. The remaining 60% of the area, the transition zone, is earmarked for environmentally compatible, sustainable development. In this way the area has avoided the piecemeal and unconsidered development that might have followed re-unification.

Perhaps the biggest threat to the historic cultural landscape is from agricultural structural change. Various Natura 2000 schemes in the wider countryside attempt to address this, partly by land purchase. Biosphere grants for conservation and landscape maintenance attempt to counter the natural temptation to turn small farms to fallowand/or forest when agricultural returns are poor.

There are fifty environmental monitoring programmes in place with over 800 sites. Much of this is part of a systematic national monitoring scheme using a fixed grid system. This programme is decentralised and mostly run by various Länder agencies.

43 Framework Management Plan for the Rhon Biosphere Reserve. (English Language Summary). Editors: State Ministry of Development and Environmental affairs of Bavaria, the Ministry of development, Settlement, Agriculture, forestry and nature Conservation of Hesse and the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Conservation and Environmental Affairs of Thuringia. !995. http://www.biosphaerenreservat-rhoen.de/dokumente/rahmenkonzept_englisch.pdf 44 Iron Curtain project Ref: QLK5-2001-01401 Reference Area 2 Germany – Biosphere Reserve Rhon – Institute for Geography – Geoinformatics Friedrich-Schiller-Universitat Jena (UNIJENA) 25 Feb 2004.http://www.geogr.uni-jena.de/fileadmin/Geoinformatik/c1stbe/ironcurtain/Publikationen/ra2_www.pdf

48 48

17.4.2 Social The social upheaval of re-unification had a major effect on families and communities in the area. The direct effects of the reserve are likely to have been minor in comparison, but the various educational projects, grants schemes and general community involvement will have been all the more welcome for coming at such a time. There is evidence that “the combination of innovative concepts based on the ecological and economic values of the region have remarkably improved the socio-economic conditions of the entire region” 45.

17.4.3 Economic The reserve’s aim is to maintain a multi-faceted local economy based on linking agriculture, crafts and tourism, but not to pursue grand projects. Various training initiatives encourage small businesses and there is a quality-controlled business partners scheme allowing use of the trademark “die Rhön einfach erhebend” sign. This roughly translates as “Rhön is simply getting better (and feeling great and proud)”. There are more than 100 business partners comprising agricultural businesses, breweries, restaurants, butcheries, distilleries and other crafts. Local fairs showcase products, and there is a published guide to local events. It is difficult to tell exactly what the effect is, partly because tourist visit statistics only include properties with more than eight beds, missing out the farm bed & breakfast sector that the reserve is trying to encourage.


17.5.1 With Scottish policy themes Rhön BR would seem to have an impact on the key Scottish policy themes of biodiversity, landscape protection, GDP per head, community activity, policy integration, ecosystem health and business development. On green tourism and climate change the impact of the UNESCO designation is less clear-cut.

17.5.2 With UNESCO Biosphere Reserve Objectives Rhön BR is well-integrated into the regional planning system, and considering the potential complications of the trilateral governance has achieved a great deal. Environmental monitoring seems comprehensive and organised, research and education are well catered for and there is a range of training programmes. Community involvement should be better within the revised framework plan. The zoning system reflects the multi functional purpose of UNESCO biosphere reserves. As the Rhön is not a wilderness area but a man made landscape the different zones are intertwined. Core areas are targeted to conserve undisturbed natural processes. The surrounding vast buffer zones in the Rhön have, in addition, their own protection goals as cultural landscape of high biodiversity. Most of the land is privately owned and managed. The transition zone is where people live and where the farms, settlements and the entire infrastructure are located.

Key lessons and hopes for the site

Dr Doris Pekorny, a member of the BR working group, writing in 2001 46, came to the conclusion that the following factors were needed for success [adapted]:

45 Fremuth, W, 2002. The Rhoen Region, a model for sustainable development at the former border between East and West Germany. NATO advanced research workshop on the role of biodiversity conservation in the transition to rural sustainability. 46 Pekorny, D., 2002. Processing and marketing of local products, A mechanism to fund environmentally friendly land use. Rhon BR/UNESCO. Published in: Birgit Heinze, Gernot Bäurle

49 49

Multilateral partnerships between and within the administration, private sector, research sector and municipalities.

Local people with courage, vision and enthusiasm. A platform (e.g. regional fairs/farmers markets) to draw attention to the

region. Moral support from the Biosphere Reserve administration, and interest from

elsewhere to encourage local pride.

At this point (March 2007) she adds:

“A recent trilateral research project47 has found out that the Rhön biosphere reserve partner enterprises have economically benefited from the biosphere reserve idea and philosophy as well as from the networking. 206 new work places (part time, full time) have directly been created which can be regarded as success considering the average unemployment rate of approximately 9.5%. According to the enterprises, 2/3rds of the created jobs are intended to be long term employment.”

& Gisela Stolpe (Eds.). 2001. Financial Instruments for Nature Conservation in Central and Eastern Europe. Proceedings of a seminar held at the International Academy for Nature Conservation Isle of Vilm, Germany, 27 May . 31 May 2001. BfN-Skripten 50. German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation. Bonn, 2001. pp 149-156. http://www.unesco.org/mab/BRs/q_e/case_studies/Germany.pdf 47 Sabine Nattermann (2007): Nachhaltiges Wirtschaften im Biosphärenreservat Rhön. Evaluierung der wirtschaftlichen Impulse und Auswirkungen auf den Arbeitsmarkt. Diplomarbeit Universität Tübingen und Universität Hohenheim

50 50

Tabl

e 11

Su

mm

ary

- Rhö

n Bi

osph

ere

Res

erve

B

R in

itiat

ives

C

urre

nt s

ituat

ion

Scor

e48Po

tent

ial f

or B

R

desi

gnat

ion

to b

ring

bene

fit.

Lim

itatio

ns

Bio

dive

rsity

P

rote

ctio

n fo

r cor

e an

d pa

rt of

the

buffe

r zon

e.

Ong

oing

m

onito

ring.

B

elie

ved

posi

tive

impa

ct

3

Goo

d

C

limat

ech

ange

Land

scap

e &

gr

een

spac

e P

resu

mpt

ion

agai

nst

deve

lopm

ent i

n al

l but

the

(larg

e) tr

ansi

tion

zone

.

Sym

path

etic

de

velo

pmen

t, th

ough

t giv

en to

bu

ildin

g st

yles

.

3

Goo

d N

atio

nal r

equi

rem

ents

,

Eco

syst

em

serv

ices

D

evel

opm

ent g

uide

lines

sh

ould

pro

vide

pro

tect

ion.

B

elie

ved

satis

fact

ory

2 G

ood

Clim

ate

chan

ge.

Larg

e fa

rms

oper

atin

g ou

twith

BR

gui

delin

es.

Em

ploy

men

t and

In

com

e B

usin

ess

oppo

rtuni

ty

initi

ativ

es a

s be

low

. R

epor

ted

impr

oved

3

Goo

d M

igra

tion.

Lev

el o

f tra

inin

g.

Busi

ness

op

portu

nitie

s B

usin

ess

Par

tner

s .fo

od

proc

essi

ng, s

mal

l bus

ines

s tra

inin

g, R

hön

shee

p pr

ojec

t, m

arke

ting/

trade

mar

k, a

pple

pr

omot

ion,

loca

l fai

rs, h

untin

g pr

ojec

t,.na

ture

gui

de tr

aini

ng

Bel

ieve

d im

prov

ed

3

Goo

d E

xter

nal i

nflu

ence

s on

the

tour

ist

mar

ket.

Soc

ial I

nclu

sion

Tr

aini

ng o

ppor

tuni

ties.

U

nkno

wn

2 M

anag

emen

t pla

n pr

opos

als

for m

ore

com

mun

ity in

volv

emen

t.

Atti

tude

s, p

over

ty, d

emog

raph

y.

Hea

lth a

nd w

ell-

bein

g C

ycle

rout

es

Unk

now

n 2

Goo

d

Atti

tude

s.

Edu

catio

n an

d tra

inin

g V

isito

r cen

tres,

Lo

cal s

choo

l vis

its

Res

earc

h

Goo

d. S

trong

on

rese

arch

and

ed

ucat

ion.

3

Goo

dN

one

48 S

ee s

ectio

n 6.

1 51

51

17.6 Annex

17.6.1 Result of SWOT analysis July 16 2003 The elements of the SWOT analysis were collected during a workshop with the working group and positioned in a plane defined by four half-axes (S, W, O, T). The stronger the element was perceived within one category the farther away from the axes’ origin it is located. The position inside the quadrants reflects the perception of the factor as e.g. strength and opportunity at the same time.

Figure 5 SWOT Analysis of RA2, dotted lines indicate equal position of factors

© IRON CURTAIN Consortium

In the following session the members of the working group were asked to rate the direct influence of each SWOT element on each of the others in the following scale (see figure 2.2): 0 no influence at all, 1 slight influence, 2 strong influence, 3 very strong influence. The aim of this procedure is to reduce the complexity of the underlying system and to sort which of the elements are very sensible to change and which of them influence the system as a whole. The approach was developed by Vester (2002, see also http://www.frederic-vester.de). The result was then analysed and some adjustments were made ending up with 21 elements or factors. All factors are complex systems themselves that can be categorized in one of four groups:

Source: Iron curtain Project reference QLK5-2001-01401

17.6.2 Additional References UNESCO MAB Biosphere Reserve directory - Rhön http://www2.unesco.org/mab/br/brdir/directory/biores.asp?code=GER+09&mode=all

52 52

17.6.3 Acknowledgements We are grateful to Dr Doris Pokorny for help and advice.

53 53

18 APPENDIX 2 – POLICIES IN DETAIL

18.1 Scottish policy measures and indicators The most relevant measures and indicators for the purposes of this study are shown here, together with those that were excluded from consideration.

A Framework for Economic Development in Scotland, as implemented through Smart Successful Scotland49

Included:

Gross Domestic Product per head of population CO2 emissions high growth firms (business starts) percentage of businesses trading online productivity levels in Scottish industry proportion of employers exporting net migration as a percentage of the population proportion of the working age population in employment proportion of 16-19 year olds who are not in education, employment or

training reducing the gap in unemployment between the worst 10% of areas and the

Scottish average proportion of those in employment undertaking training

Excluded:

business research and development as a proportion of GDP productivity levels in Scottish industry cost and coverage of broadband

Scottish Tourism: The Next Decade - A Tourism Framework for Change50

Included:

Value of tourism revenue Number of visitors Number of visitors who were very satisfied Number of visitors whose expectations were exceeded ...All agencies involved in the development of people and skills will report a

year-on-year improvement in staff satisfaction (working towards 80% by 2015) and customer satisfaction (working towards 90% by 2015), resulting in year-on-year improvement in productivity.

The Scottish Executive to provide over 16,500 social rented homes and nearly 5,000 low-cost homes over the period 2005-06 to 2007-08.

Visitor propensity to return to Scotland and to recommend Scotland as a great destination will increase. TIG, ASVA, Enterprise Agencies, VisitScotland and culture and heritage organisations will provide qualitative feedback on product development.

The Area Tourism Partnerships will report back on establishment of Product Development Networks. Number of visitors will increase. Product Development Networks and EventScotland will provide qualitative feedback.

Scottish Tourism Forum will provide evidence that all tourism businesses are using e-technology effectively by 2007. STF will provide qualitative feedback on progress each year thereafter.

49 Scottish Executive, 2004 50 Scottish Executive, 2006

55 55

Number of visitors who come to Scotland as a direct result of marketing will increase. VisitScotland will report on Return on Investment and visitscotland.com will report on conversion rates. The Scottish Tourism Forum and culture and heritage organisations will report back on where their customers heard about them - from customer feedback.

Membership of Green Tourism Business Scheme will increase year on year.

Establishment of Sustainable Tourism Partnership. and qualitative feedback on its work.

Excluded:

The Scottish Executive and VisitScotland will provide qualitative feedback on development of National Box Office.

Our National Transport Strategy will be completed in 2006, and will set the context for the Strategic Projects Review which is to follow. The research project will be completed by spring 2006.

The Scottish Executive and VisitScotland will provide qualitative feedback on development of National Box Office.

Our National Transport Strategy will be completed in 2006, and will set the context for the Strategic Projects Review which is to follow. The research project will be completed by spring 2006.

Choosing our future: Scotland's sustainable development strategy51

Included:

Economic opportunity: 16-19 year olds who are not in education, training or employment

Economic opportunity: People of working age in employment Community: (a) Neighbourhood satisfaction (b) volunteering Households: (a) Childhood poverty: children in low income Biodiversity : composite indicator of bird populations Marine: Fish stocks which are within safe biological limits River Quality : Kilometres of river identified as "poor" or "seriously polluted" Climate Change: Greenhouse gas emissions: total and net Sustainable Energy: Electricity generated from renewable Sustainable Energy: carbon emission indicator Transport: Total vehicle kilometres Learning: Eco-schools uptake and number with Green Flag Economy: Economic output: GDP per head Demography: Age profile of population

Excluded:

[Crime: Recorded crimes for (a) vehicles (b) domestic housebreaking (c) violence (d) anti-social behaviour]

[households (b) homeless households] [Waste: Municipal waste arisings (a) total and (b) recycled /composted] [Health Inequality: Life expectancy (by area) men/ women] [Air Quality: Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs)] [Social justice: new indicator being developed to support UK Framework] [Environmental Equality: new indicator being developed to support UK

Framework] [Well-being: well being measures will be developed in support of UK

framework...]

51 Scottish Executive, 2005a

56 56

A Forward Strategy for Scottish Agriculture52

Included:

Total factor productivity in agriculture Net valued added at factor cost for agriculture % of inputs sourced from Scottish agriculture % of farms with veterinary approved health plans % of farms involved in farm business reviews Rate of new entrants to farming. Rate of business start ups in food industry % of farms engaged in on-farm and off-farm diversification % of total income derived from diversification Change in population very accessible rural, remote rural, very remote rural

areas Output of greenhouse gases from Scottish agriculture/ adaptation to climate

change Biodiversity action plan species and habitats Farmland bird population Water bodies at risk of failing to achieve good water status as a result of

agricultural activity Volume of fertilisers used Visits to the countryside

Excluded:

Research and Development in food manufacturing

Rural Scotland - a new approach53

Included:

...We will support employers and communities to stimulate local and national economic success.

We will invest in our young people by bringing childcare, education, training and employment opportunities to where they live and work.

We will improve access to services essential to our life and work, and ensure that quality of life will depend on what you need, not where you are.

Scotland's natural and cultural heritage must be allowed to flourish in all its diversity. We will encourage local and regional influences to play their part ..

No measures excluded

Scotland's Biodiversity: It's in Your Hands - A strategy for the conservation and enhancement of biodiversity in Scotland54

Included:

Deliver the actions and outcomes identified in the UK species and habitat action plans relevant to Scotland

Strengthen and further develop monitoring of habitats and species to ensure that progress against UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UKBAP) targets and other indicators can be measured

Encourage the Local Biodiversity Action Plan network and ensure it has adequate resources to support the delivery of national objectives and to facilitate action by local people

52 Scottish Executive, 2001 53 Scottish Executive, 2000 54 Scottish Executive, 2004b

57 57

Improve the co-ordination and management of the Local Biodiversity Action Plan network - between Local Biodiversity Action Plans and with national level Biodiversity Action Plans

Develop at local level further actions for biodiversity conservation and enhancement that take full account of climatic, economic and land-use change

Manage the Natura 2000, Ramsar, SSSI, and National Nature Reserve site network to protect and where appropriate enhance conservation interests

Manage National Parks to protect and where appropriate enhance conservation interests

Manage existing and develop new local nature reserves and wildlife sites to protect and where appropriate enhance conservation interests

Facilitate action by local people to identify and protect important species and habitats

Implement our commitments to marine protected areas under international commitments

Minimise the detrimental impacts of non-native invasive species Strengthen the role of the Local Biodiversity Action Plan network in

engaging a wider range of people in biodiversity conservation, and in exploring innovative ways of promoting interest in biodiversity

Ensure that people, enterprises, and government at all levels understand the values of biodiversity, and how their actions affect biodiversity

Review and where necessary enhance the place of biodiversity in formal education

Encourage and facilitate first hand learning about biodiversity in the natural environment

Encourage ownership, responsibility and best practice in relation to biodiversity on the part of individual, enterprises and government

Facilitate incorporation of biodiversity in corporate responsibility initiatives, codes of conduct and other market-led mechanisms

Promote sustainable tourism and sustainable use of biodiversity resources Facilitate enjoyment and appreciation of biodiversity, and its links to healthy

living Coordinate and support the provision of access to, and understanding of,

natural habitats in deprived communities Encourage active community involvement in biodiversity conservation and

enhancement through volunteering and enjoyment of wildlife and green space

Encourage biodiversity conservation as a key element in community planning

Facilitate identification and recognition of local wildlife sites and local nature reserves and their use to stimulate local awareness, engagement in conservation and education

Adjust and apply measures under the Common Agricultural Policy and the Common Fisheries Policy to reinforce landscape and ecosystem level planning and support appropriate conservation management

Provide incentives to create and link habitats and conserve/create important underpinning landscape features in all open spaces

Co-ordinate policies and actions relating to forestry, farming, transport and infrastructure, and urban spatial planning to maximise habitat linkage and minimise further fragmentation

Enhance biodiversity in all transport corridors, and public and private greenspace through public and private sector initiatives

58 58

Develop guidance in relation to maximising biodiversity in all open spaces, and in relation to landscape and ecosystem level planning and management by responsible authorities

Improve the management of marine resources, seascapes and ecosystems to take full account of the interactions between species - commercial and non-commercial

Further reduce chemical pollution from all activities on land and sea Minimise the risk of farmed organisms adversely affecting wild organisms,

directly or indirectly, through conditions and protocols, and through spatial zoning where appropriate

Develop cost effective indicators relating to landscape scale biodiversity and habitat linkage, ecosystem health, genetic diversity and structural diversity

Increase integration between policies, programmes, actions and incentives across government to deliver coherent policy and incentives which enhance biodiversity

Improve decision making procedures in government and business planning to address multiple sustainable development objectives (e.g. through strategic environmental assessment); to assess and communicate the implications of alternative actions/objectives; and to ensure that biodiversity values and opportunities are taken fully and efficiently into account

Establish the organisations and partnerships needed to co-ordinate and drive the complex processes needed to achieve all the strategy objectives

Strengthen existing incentives and develop new ones to extend the range and scope of environment friendly agriculture and land management, forestry, fishing and tourism

Further develop cross-compliance - making biodiversity protection and enhancement a condition for grant or subsidy - and explore its use to effect best practice in other publicly funded activities

Include standards relating to biodiversity in the development of river catchment plans under the Water Framework Directive (Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003) and in other environmental management plans

Excluded:

All public bodies should take account of, and further biodiversity conservation and enhancement in all their functions and activities

Establish clear priorities and milestones in the implementation plans to guide progress and achievement

Develop reporting protocols and guidelines which include reference to biodiversity for government departments, agencies, local government, and business

Develop existing biological indicators as part of a comprehensive and cost-effective suite of indicators for social engagement; effective biodiversity management; landscape scale biodiversity; ecosystem health; and genetic diversity

Use the strategy itself as a management tool to ensure effective delivery of biodiversity gains

59 59

European Landscape Convention55

Included:

to increase awareness … of the value of landscapes, their role and changes to them.

to promote training … landscape appraisal and operations…. policy, protection, management and planning, … school and university courses

to identify its own landscapes throughout its territory; to analyse their characteristics and the forces and pressures transforming

them; exchange of experience and methodology, at European level define landscape quality objectives introduce instruments aimed at protecting, managing and/or planning the

landscape. Nothing excluded

18.2 UNESCO objectives and measures

World Heritage Sites Outstanding universal value – traditional land/sea use – superlative natural phenomenon or beauty – example of a major stage in the earth's history – example of ecological and biological process – significant for conservation of biological diversity Integrity Protection

Biosphere Reserves Integrate biosphere reserves into [biodiversity] conservation planning Secure the support and involvement of local people – fully involve [stakeholders] in planning and decision-making regarding the

management and use of the reserve. – Identify and address factors that lead to environmental degradation and

unsustainable use – Evaluate the natural products and services of the reserve, and use these

to promote … opportunities for local people. – Develop incentives for the conservation and sustainable use of natural

resources.. – Ensure that the benefits derived from the use of natural resources are

equitably shared with the stakeholders Ensure better harmonization and interaction among the different biosphere

reserve zones – Develop institutional mechanisms to manage…the biosphere

reserve's…activities – Establish a local consultative framework including the full range of

interests (e.g. agriculture, forestry, fisheries, tourism..) Integrate biosphere reserves into regional planning – …examine socio-economic and environmental problems of the region,

and sustainable utilization of biological resources Improve knowledge of the interactions between humans and the biosphere – Use biosphere reserves for basic and applied research..

55 Council of Europe, 2000

60 60

– Develop data system for research and monitoring results of reserve management

Improve monitoring activities – Use the reserve for … scientific purposes and as the basis for sound site

management. – Use the reserve as an experimental area for monitoring biodiversity,

sustainability (including indicators) and quality of life of its inhabitants Improve education, public awareness and involvement – Encourage involvement of local communities, school children and other

stakeholders – Produce visitors' information – Promote the… education of school children and other groups Improve training for specialists and managers – Use the reserve for on-site training – Encourage training and employment of local people and other

stakeholders – Encourage training programmes for local communities and other local

agents Integrate the functions of biosphere reserves – Identify and map the different zones – Prepare a management plan – …re-plan the buffer and transition zones, according to sustainable

development criteria. – establish institutional mechanisms to manage… the reserve's

programmes – Ensure that the local community participate in the planning and

management – Encourage private sector initiatives

Geoparks Management and protection Information and education – Education and publications – Research Geotourism – Tourism evaluation – Tourist facilities and activities – Facilitate access to the site and within it – Provide information/ interpretation and promotion Sustainable Regional Economy – Promoting food, craft and tourism products – Links with and between businesses

61 61

18.3 Benefits criteria and Scottish policies Table 12 Benefits criteria used in this report compared with Scottish policies

Criteria defined in this report

Scottish Policies

Sm

art S

ucce

ssfu

l S

cotla

nd

Tour

ism

Fra

mew

ork

for

Cha

nge

Sco

tland

's s

usta

inab

le

deve

lopm

ent s

trate

gy

Forw

ard

Stra

tegy

for

Sco

ttish

Agr

icul

ture

Rur

al S

cotla

nd -

a ne

w

appr

oach

Sco

tland

's B

iodi

vers

ity

Eur

opea

n La

ndsc

ape

Con

vent

ion

Biodiversity Landscape/greenspace Ecosystem services Employment and income

Business opportunity Social inclusion Health and well-being

Education and training Close matches indicated

62 62

19 APPENDIX 3 This was originally written as an internal working paper for Hambrey Consulting as part of a project relating to site optimisation for aquaculture operations.

19.1 The use of economic multipliers

Introduction Economic multipliers bring alive tables of statistical data. They are a way of describing numerically the nature of the interdependence of various sectors of the economy. Multipliers are derived from input-output tables; real data about the flows of products, services and money in the (Scottish) economy for a given year. Multipliers can be used to predict the likely changes in output, employment and income resulting from a marginal56 change within one industry group. They enable us to quantify what we know intuitively; that a change in circumstances within an industry has a “ripple” effect in that it can effect the economic situation, and hence the society, in which that industry is based.

Used intelligently, multipliers add depth and reality to discussion about economic development and can be readily understood by the non-specialist. Tables of multipliers are publicly available to download on www.scotland.gov.uk/stats. It is important to understand exactly what they are measuring, and whether or not they can be sensibly used at a local level.

Derivation of multipliers National multipliers are derived from Input-Output tables. The raw data for these tables comes from official sources such as the Scottish Annual Business Statistics, which are compiled using Office of National Statistics Annual Business Enquiry data. Other data sources include Scottish Executive Rural Affairs Department and various Scottish Executive surveys.

The basis data sources are the supply table, which gives the monetary value of the output of each industry for a given year, and the domestic use matrix, which indicates the inputs each industry has used to produce that output. These data can be presented as an industry-by-industry use matrix, which describes the purchases made by each industry from other sectors of the economy, thus indicating their level of interdependence.

To make practical use of this information it is transformed into a Leontief Inverse Matrix, which shows how much of each industry’s output is required, in terms of direct and indirect requirements, to produce one unit of another given industry’s output57. This is the change in the economy as a whole resulting from a marginal shift in the conditions pertaining in another industry, for example a change in the final demand for a commodity. At a more local level, a change in production levels in a local industry will have a ripple effect through the community, and this can also be described using multipliers as long as data is available that adequately describes the operation of industries at a local level.

56 “Marginal” in economics means a small change, not enough to affect the basic structure of an industry but enough to have a measurable effect on some aspect of it. A large (non-marginal) change, such as the collapse of an entire industry, will affect economic behaviour so much that the real data used for the tables will be outdated and existing multipliers may be misleading. The tables from which multipliers are derived are based on average rather than marginal relationships, but one must still be cautious when using them to predict the knock-on effect of changes which are more than marginal. 57 Melling and Graham, 2000

63 63

Direct, indirect and induced impacts The impacts of changes within an industry can be direct, indirect or induced, and can refer to production levels (output), employment or income. At the national level, multipliers exist for all these situations.

Direct impacts – changes that occur strictly within the industry under consideration, such as a change in output in response to a change in final demand, or an increase in the number of employees in response to a change originating within that industry.

Indirect impacts – changes within businesses and services that supply the original industry. For example, if the original business under consideration is a fish farm, and they reduce production, there will be an indirect impact on their suppliers who will provide less feed, potentially reducing their own output and levels of employment. Indirect impacts can be “upstream” e.g. feed producers, or “downstream” e.g. processors. This is the start of the “ripple” effect.

Induced effects – The combined effect of direct and indirect impacts on businesses not directly connected with that within which the original change occurred. The effects are due to consumer expenditure, which will change with employment and income levels. As an example, this could change the income levels of local shops. To continue the “ripple” analogy, this is where the ripple starts to deepen, and spread.

Types of multiplier Multiplier information is so structured as to make it clear which type of impact is being described.

Type I multipliers. These consider only the direct and indirect impacts of a marginal change, i.e. those changes in output, employment and income that are confined to the industry under consideration and its supporting businesses, upstream (e.g. feed suppliers) and downstream (e.g. packing companies).

Type II multipliers. These consider all the impacts of a marginal change i.e. direct and indirect (as in Type I) plus the induced effects caused by impacts on consumer expenditure. Clearly, to look at the socio-economic effects of aquaculture siting, it is Type II multipliers that must be used.

Specifically, the most relevant multipliers58 for our purposes are:

Type II employment multiplier: Measures the increase in total employment resulting from a unit increase in employment in one particular sector, i.e. the ratio of direct, indirect and induced employment changes to the direct employment change.

Type II income multiplier: The ratio of direct, indirect and induced income changes to the direct income change. i.e. for every unit change in wages in aquaculture what is the effect on income elsewhere?

It is also possible to calculate the employment and income effects throughout society as a whole resulting from changes in final demand (output) from a particular industry.

Employment coefficients may be relevant to local planning as they measure the amount of employment (measured in full-time equivalents, FTEs) required per unit output of each sector.

58 Definitions partly taken from Scottish Executive Statistics division website on www.scotland.gov.uk/topics/statistics/14713/460

64 64

The practical use of multipliers Once one is familiar with the difference between the two types of multiplier they are readily used, at least on a national scale. If we look at the latest multipliers (2001) available at the time of writing59 we find that the Type I employment multiplier for fish farming is 2.591, and the Type II multiplier (larger, intuitively) is 2.857. This tells us that, in 2001, each job in the fish farming industry supported, in total, roughly two and a half jobs directly related to the industry, and nearly three jobs in the Scottish society as a whole. There are two important caveats:

11 It is not possible to directly relate jobs supported to jobs that might be lost if employment in a sector were to decline. Employment may be found in other sectors of the economy and factors such as local work availability, skills profile and the overall health of the economy would affect the final figure.

12 Accurate local employment multipliers would need the generation of Input-Output tables for each area. Local multipliers can be small due to leakage from small local economies i.e. the local population may do the bulk of their shopping somewhere else. They may pick up much displacement, for example a new job may be one from another part of the country, so not, on the national scale, a real effect. Applying a national multiplier will overestimate aquaculture-generated employment in some areas and underestimate it in others60.

19.2 Using multipliers at a local level. Few studies have attempted to estimate Input-Output tables and multipliers for areas at a sub-Scotland level61. Generally speaking, the larger the area, the bigger the multiplier as one includes more of the “ripple” effect originating from the original industry. Input-Output tables are available for the Shetland Isles 62, the Orkney Isles 63 and the Western Isles 64, but these are one-off studies, and not updated yearly as are the national multipliers. The study in the Western Isles found a Type II employment multiplier for fin-fish farming of 2.165 (1997), which is far lower than the comparable national multiplier of 3.423 66. This indicates that much of the economic effect of the Western Isles fin-fish industry was not local67.

There are ways of attempting to estimate local multipliers short of running a full local business and household consumption survey, which is clearly an expensive and intrusive exercise. Caution must be exercised, as most non-survey methods of estimating single-region (local) multipliers will tend to over-estimate the local links involved. It may be possible to arrive at a reasonable estimate of local

59 Available to download as an Excel file on http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/933/0007713.xls 60 The Regional Employment contribution of the Fisheries Sector to the Scottish Economy. Michael Thomson, Scottish Executive, Scottish Economic Report June 2002. 61 Michael Thomson,2002, op cit. 62 An Input-Output Table and Model for the Shetland Isles, 1996/97, Gillespie, McGregor, Swales and Yin, Fraser of Allander Institute. 63 An Input-Output Table and Model for the Orkney Isles, 1995, McGregor, Swales and Yin, Fraser of Allander Institute. 64 Modelling the Western Isles Economy, 1999, Roberts, Thomson and Snowdon, MLURI/University of Aberdeen 65 Note how much higher this is than the recent (2001) type II employment multiplier of 2.857. Perhaps due to changes in the structure of the industry, with more efficient feeding and processing reducing upstream and downstream effects of work in the primary industry. 66 National type II employment multiplier relates to 1998, the most comparable year available. 67 Caution required: the national figure includes shellfish farming, which may only be a small effect but the fact must be recognised before strict comparison may be made.

65 65

multipliers through spatial disaggregation of national, survey-based multipliers68, but this is not a task for the novice.

How, and where, one obtains ready-made, recent local multipliers depends on the area in question, and is most variable. The first line of enquiry would be the Economic Development Unit, or equivalent, of the local authority.

19.3 Practical advice for the non-specialist.

Find out what sort of multiplier you are looking at. To look at local issues, you need:

a recent disaggregated national multiplier, or a survey-based local one, appropriate to the locality and to the industry

a type II multiplier (includes ALL the ripple effect, or more of it than a type I) an employment or income multiplier, or both to remember that a multiplier will not, on it’s own, tell you anything about

long-term employment levels.

68 Spatial interpolation and disaggregation of multipliers. Jan Oosterhaven in Geographical Analysis 1/1/2005

66 66

20 APPENDIX 4

20.1 The Criteria for Selection - World Heritage ListTo be included on the World Heritage List, sites must be of outstanding universal value and meet at least one out of ten selection criteria. These criteria are explained in the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention69 which, besides the text of the Convention, is the main working tool on World Heritage. The criteria are regularly revised by the Committee to reflect the evolution of the World Heritage concept itself.

Until the end of 2004, World Heritage sites were selected on the basis of six cultural and four natural criteria. With the adoption of the revised Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention, only one set of ten criteria exists.

Cultural criteria Natural criteria

Operational Guidelines 2002 (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (i) (ii) (iii) (iv)

Operational Guidelines 2005 (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (viii) (ix) (vii) (x)

Selection criteria:

i. to represent a masterpiece of human creative genius; ii. to exhibit an important interchange of human values, over a span of time or within a

cultural area of the world, on developments in architecture or technology, monumental arts, town-planning or landscape design;

iii. to bear a unique or at least exceptional testimony to a cultural tradition or to a civilization which is living or which has disappeared;

iv. to be an outstanding example of a type of building, architectural or technological ensemble or landscape which illustrates (a) significant stage(s) in human history;

v. to be an outstanding example of a traditional human settlement, land-use, or sea-use which is representative of a culture (or cultures), or human interaction with the environment especially when it has become vulnerable under the impact of irreversible change;

vi. to be directly or tangibly associated with events or living traditions, with ideas, or with beliefs, with artistic and literary works of outstanding universal significance. (The Committee considers that this criterion should preferably be used in conjunction with other criteria);

vii. to contain superlative natural phenomena or areas of exceptional natural beauty and aesthetic importance;

viii. to be outstanding examples representing major stages of earth's history, including the record of life, significant on-going geological processes in the development of landforms, or significant geomorphic or physiographic features;

ix. to be outstanding examples representing significant on-going ecological and biological processes in the evolution and development of terrestrial, fresh water, coastal and marine ecosystems and communities of plants and animals;

x. to contain the most important and significant natural habitats for in-situ conservation of biological diversity, including those containing threatened species of outstanding universal value from the point of view of science or conservation.

The protection, management, authenticity and integrity of properties are also important considerations.

Since 1992 significant interactions between people and the natural environment have been recognized as cultural landscapes.

69 http://whc.unesco.org/pg.cfm?cid=57

67 67

snh commissioned report 248: social, economic and ... · [email protected] this report...

Documents