1978// Map 2: Historical evolution of Alpine Protected Areas
1.4 The conditions for success of nature protection in the Alps
4 2
5 3
Research, environmental education and leisure offers figure also among the tasks of Alpine Protected Areas. Specific programs are proposed to the young locals and visitors addressing different topics like biodiversity or landscape.
1.4 The conditions for success of nature protection in the Alps
// Guido PLASSMANN //
Alpine Network of Protected Areas ALPARC, Chambéry, France
The success of nature protection policies probably depends directly on their capacity for regional or local implementation and, at least in the long term, on par-ticipatory processes. To insure cohesion of nature con-servation quality and of the type of measures applied for the whole Alpine arch, a minimum of coordination and harmonisation of approaches between the Alpine countries is needed.
1.4.1 Different political systems need to cooperate and exchange competences
Today the competences for nature protection are spread through numerous territorial levels, and systematic coordination is lacking. While nature protection may be a topic of national relevance in some countries (France, Italy and Slovenia), it is more of a decentralised issue for the federal states of the Alps (Austria and Germany) within the “Bundesländer”. For Switzerland nature pro-tection is, apart from the sites of national importance, a concrete competency of the Kantons. Different levels of legal competences do not always permit international coordination between essential decision makers and policies. European policies, by definition, are drafted in order to improve a given situation or maintain exist-ing features. Most environmental policies are, however, not tailored to specific landscapes or regions, and they don’t need to be, because they are defining general and logical principals that can be implemented in all sorts
of regions with or without adaptations. Mountains, like other landscapes, have ecological, economic and some-times social peculiarities. Thus, the way in which poli-cies are implemented and adapted by involved partners, stakeholders and decision makers is essential and needs to be coordinated in order to be efficient in an Alps-wide context.
1.4.2 Different historical and cultural backgrounds and use of the Alpine space should not be a disincentive for future-orientated policies
The Alpine space was, is, and will in the future be sub-ject to very different interests of use. These interests are partially linked to different historical and cultural backgrounds of the Alpine regions. Historically, the Alpine countries developed different strategies for economic growth in the Alps (more or less specific, planned at a central level or based on regional or local initiatives) and different opinions on the use of the Alpine space. As a result, we are nowadays confronted with a fragmented space and a lack of common un-derstanding of “what we will do” with the Alps.
The Alps can be seen as an economic site, as a rec-reational area, as a nature and wilderness area, and finally as a living place for 14 million inhabitants. The Alps are all these things, and the use of this space var-ies significantly from one region to another. Some
In the early 20th century, the bearded vulture (Gypaetus barbatus) was extinct in the wild due to human persecution.
From the 1970’s onward, on the basis of enhanced protec-tion, it was successfully reintroduced to the Alps.
1
4 2
5 3
regions are exposed to rural exodus (isolated pastoral-ism area without supplementary activities), others to extreme concentrations of activities (multi-functional tourist resorts and areas, industrialised valleys, energy production and more), and some areas strive to create regional economic development that will retain local population (in some Alpine valleys with innovative approaches).
Perspectives on the use of the Alpine space may differ, but common goals are crucial for the ‘border-less’ topic of nature protection.
Through its implementation protocols, the Alpine Con-vention has tried to give such a common vision to the protection and the sustainable development of the Al-pine regions since the early 1990’s. In this forum, differ-ent strategies and planning processes developed in the Alpine states find a sort of common legal framework, as it is an international treaty ratified in almost all Alpine states. This means that the convention reveals (at least theoretically) the limits of certain national strategies (for example “plan neige”, France; highway Alemannia, Italy) or, on the other hand, tries to include national spatial planning concepts in its policy like the Bavarian “Alpine Plan” or the Swiss National Ecological Network (REN).
In this sense, the convention is a basis for cooperation between the Alpine states, and it fosters future-orien-tated policies, which should be shaped cooperatively.
The most important issue remains, nevertheless, a common identification of the inhabitants with the cen-tral goals of biodiversity protection and sustainable and regional development. This goal is difficult to achieve and constitutes a long-term process that will involve more than one generation.
1.4.3 Nature protection needs to evolve from a static to a dynamic approach and policy
Protected areas could and should be the core areas of local, regional and Alps-wide ecological networks to-day, covering extended functions as facilitators, media-tors and laboratories with the goal of involving stake-holders and organizing regional development together with economic players. “Protected area administrations are indeed starting points for the development of suc-cessful governance models of connectivity at a regional level due to their interdisciplinary competences and know-how” (Künzl et al., 2011).
Protected areas nowadays fulfil several missions – from strong nature protection (national parks and nature reserves) to more or less “soft” protected areas acting primarily as platforms for regional development, to extensive land use and regulatory protection wherever it makes sense. They are often well accepted by local people through a more or less developed governance process. Natura 2000 sites are part of this last category.
The “platform” function of regional development par-ticularly supports the role of protected areas within re-gional negotiating processes, as it generates a dialogue with the surrounding communities. The platforms can often demonstrate new approaches of management for a territory and discuss alternatives to existing ap-proaches.
Nonetheless, it is clear that protected areas are all too often “only” an island of protection in the middle of heavily used Alpine spaces (for example Vanoise Na-tional Park, numerous nature reserves). The potential of a sensible and well-reflected policy of ecological links (corridors) and measures in-between protected areas is not yet fully utilised in the Alps. This means Alpine nature protection policy is currently a static policy. Ecological corridors would actually be only one element of an Alps-wide ecological continuum and should be accompanied by local sustainable land management measures and specific provisions for the various local stakeholders (contractual protection, agro-environmental measures, and more). Nature protection requires adaptation and flexibility.
Another important issue is the fact that strongly regu-lated protected areas are mainly at higher altitudes.
This does not reflect the reality of biodiversity, which is mostly present in middle and even low altitudes, where all the conflicts of land use are at their highest potential. It will be crucial to adapt the links between protected areas in order to establish the ecological con-tinuum at a local level based on an assessment of local potential at all altitudes.
Creating more, even smaller, strictly regulated pro-tected areas at lower altitudes is another way to compensate for the lack of large protected areas at low altitude. Nevertheless, it is vital to link those protected areas and existing natural areas (for exam-ple by ecological corridors) in low level zones (small, well-preserved biotopes, large natural reserves, greenbelt areas) in order to develop migratory routes between them and eventually create larger protected areas in the longer term.
1
4 2
5 3
Discussions during stakeholder workshop in the Pilot Regions Berchtesgaden/Salzburg and Northern Limestone Alps.
In terms of the ecological continuum, this movement could be boosted through zoning and through estab-lishment of buffer zones around protected areas in order to reduce the impact of neighbouring towns and villages. Protected landscapes and transition zones in biosphere reserves should be used to reach this future-orientated goal.
The protected areas are now an undeniable part of re-gional structures in the Alps. They are spread through-out the Alps and play a role in conserving endangered species as well as in preservation of social and cultural life in the Alps, which is being threatened by economic globalisation and land management policies.
Certain species that have returned after being eradi-cated by humans in the early 20th century now use the protected areas as places of sanctuary and in their mi-grations. However, these areas are generally too small in surface area, and their greatest potential lies in con-nection to one another. Creating Alpine ecological cor-ridors is one of the greatest challenges facing the pro-tected areas and the Alpine Convention – equivalent to that of European policy and the Alpine Macro-Regional strategy in the coming years.
Alpine Protected Areas are currently highly comple-mentary due to their various missions and provision of numerous eco-system services. They are the key ele-ment of every future-oriented nature protection policy in the Alps insuring the survival of numerous species.
Nevertheless, they will definitely need connectivity and will benefit from a dynamic policy of adaptation to new situations and threats.
1.4.4 Ecological connectivity entails networking and persuasion
To be successful in creating ecological connectivity, a strong involvement of diverse stakeholders is crucial.
To ground connectivity projects in local and regional reality, the involvement of local stakeholders is essen-tial, and this must be coupled with political support from ministries and regional administrations. Even more important is a continued dialogue process. Beside the fact that connectivity needs to be planned with adapted tools and legal frameworks, the implementa-tion of ecological connectivity as a pre-condiimplementa-tion for long lasting functioning ecosystems should be con-sidered as a process of continuous exchange between different policy levels and communities that are being asked to undertake certain activities.
In order to test, apply and improve governance proc-esses and real implementation of ecological connec-tivity, so called Pilot Regions comprising protected areas have been created all over the Alps. These have been labelled by the Alpine Convention Minister Conference. Such areas are launching stakeholder participation processes, including pilot activities for ecological connectivity such as the creation of con-tinua between protected areas via special stepping stones (biotopes) or other species or habitat orientated measures. Some of these Pilot Regions have started to include the topic of ecological connectivity in all landscape planning documents.
Crucial elements of this exchange or governance proc-esses generally and especially in Pilot Regions are:
1
4 2
5 3
Source: Alpine Space Cooperation Programme 2014 to 2020
// Figure 1: Alpine Space Programme (ASP) Policy Cycle – Projects and policy making have to be linked
General awareness among stakeholders and the wider public about creating ecological con-nectivity
Most people are not rational, and don’t make daily decisions based on logical scientific analysis. Instead they are motivated by a mixture of emotion, habits and social norms. It is how biodiversity makes them feel, not think, that leads them to act. Biodiversity is the world’s most elaborate scientific concept, but also, potentially, its greatest story. For most people, a love of nature is about awe, wonder and joy, not habitats, ecosystem services or extinction (Svadlenak-Gomez et al., 2014a).
Let’s make people dream and act for biodiversity and life!
Support of protected areas as facilitators for na-ture conservation in extended regional contexts Protected areas are a key element of ecological net-works due to their spatial role in the network and their potentially catalytic function for the initiation and sup-port of the process to maintain and restore ecological connectivity. For protected area administrations it has become obvious that the delimitation of Pilot Regions must thoroughly consider the territorial aspects of nat-ural areas versus administrative boundaries, as well as the needs of participatory elements in the delimitation
process and a clear distribution of competences and tasks within the group of involved persons and institu-tions (Künzl et al., 2011).
Protected areas are more than just sites, they are animators and often initiators of new processes such as ecological connectivity!
Awareness of ecosystem services and sustaina-ble use of Alpine resources delivered by well-es-tablished protected areas with high biodiversity While society appears to appreciate the value of pro-tected areas (for example sanctuary, recreation) and generally accepts the importance of biodiversity and the associated ecosystem services, there is little under-standing of the dynamic needs of our environment. It appears prudent to raise awareness of the limitations of a static protected area approach to Alpine environ-mental protection in the face of rapid regime changes (Füreder et al., 2011). Well-recognised protected areas can deliver a better understanding of the needs of con-nectivity linked to a sustainable use and protection of Alpine resources through their action and work in edu-cational programmes for the wider public.
Protected areas are insuring a pedagogical mission through their numerous activities and their simple presence!
Cooperation between all sectors and improved links between the nature conservation scene and economic players
Pilot areas allow theory to be transformed into reality, and work in cohesive territories permits the involve-ment of relevant stakeholders and decision makers from different sectors. This dialogue process with the local population and stakeholders from different economic sectors helps to define goals and common actions in specific regions (Svadlenak-Gomez et al., 2014a).
It is definitely necessary to overcome or better yet to break down the barriers between the nature protec-tion orientated argumentaprotec-tion and convicprotec-tions on one hand and the economic based argumentation and ambitions on the other hand!
This whole governance process should be managed as a natural developing process of exchange rather than ex-clusively according to rigid plans, goals, objectives, tar-gets and schedules. Plans and objectives are important, Policy
1
4 2
5 3
but they are not convincing without a strong involve-ment at the local level.
In the case of protected area regions, one opportunity is to integrate their management planning into the management of surrounding landscapes based on an ecosystem approach, which would lead to a more co-herent integration of nature protection in the regional planning as a whole. Moreover, the private land uses, especially by agriculture and forestry, still need to be integrated in such approaches and planning concepts probably through participatory processes during the establishment of planning documents.
Parks and comparable structures may promote co-operation between different municipalities or across borders, but are in some cases faced with reluctance by municipal administrations to cooperate outside their own boundaries. Furthermore, cooperation may be hampered by unsupportive legal regimes, and the operational possibilities of park administrations are sometimes constrained by a lack of legal authority (Svadlenak-Gomez et al., 2014a).
The success of improving biodiversity conservation depends not only on the work of different stakeholders
and decision makers but also relies heavily on the sup-port of the local population and various stakeholder groups. In order to gain their support (or at least strong approval) for complex issues of global importance such as ecological connectivity, this subject must be com-municated in a tailored fashion.
Public awareness and education is therefore funda-mental to persuading decision makers and the global public to take action on conservation. Biodiversity science may provide the foundations of understand-ing, and it is an essential basis for policy making.
However, it rarely succeeds in inspiring public action on its own. Sound science is fundamental to under-standing the consequences of biodiversity loss. It also has the potential to be a powerful incentive for conservation action, but only if the global popula-tion understands what science is saying, and only if people care about what it means (Svadlenak-Gomez et al., 2014a).
The challenge consists in convincing people on the grounds of scientific knowledge to be part of the most important stakeholder group and to realise their ability to act and to influence the evolution of our source of life – to conserve biodiversity!
Laternser Tal, Vorarlberg, Austria