Filippo Favilli, Isidoro De Bortoli, EURAC Research January 2015
[email protected], www.greenalps-project.eu
Work Package 4 Final Report
Governance in Pilot Areas
Discovering the needs to plan the future of Alpine Protected Areas
and local communities
Work Package 4 Final Report
2
INTRODUCTION
Learning from the past to build the future
Several studies in the Alps have demonstrated the high value of Alpine biodiversity. If the
connection between the different habitats are established and maintained (ecological
connectivity), the Alpine environment provides for fundamental and high-quality ecosystem
services (clean air, water, soil, forests, aesthetic value etc.), which bring enormous benefits to
the human society. The Alps and their environment, together with the local communities and
their cultures, represent treasures to be protected and valorised at the same time developing
a positive vision for the future. The improvement of the local and regional ecological
connectivity and the protection and valorisation of the essential ecosystem services represent
new challenges for the Alpine protected areas and their surrounding territories. It is not time
anymore to separate the protection of nature from the regional development of local
populations, and this can be done only throughout the development of a participatory process
between protected areas managers and local stakeholder. A recent study co-authored by 10
institutions including the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), Sapienza
University of Rome and BirdLife International, published in the journal Conservation Letters,
demonstrates for the first time that human development goals and biodiversity conservation
do not need to compete. The study shows how biodiversity indicators can be used together
with social, economic and environmental scenarios to help develop sustainable development
policy (DOI: 10.1111/conl.12159).
Local Alpine inhabitants face several difficulties and restrictions due to the presence of a
protected area and feel the need to be involved in the decision process about their economic
development and the use of local natural resources. This kind of approach, opening the doors
to the dialogue with local communities, may bring to the development of a new strategy for the
Alps based on integration and not on separation. The involvement of local stakeholder in the
decisional process may improve the protected areas’ governance and the utilization of natural
resources, building together a new strategy for the regional development adapted to the
changes in the society and in the environment.
Especially in a period of financial crisis, and learning from the experience, people want to see
their money spent in efficient activities having concrete aims and visible outputs.
However, many projects funded by the European Union in the last years, have not satisfied
the expectations of the local stakeholder. In many cases, due to the scarce implementation of
concrete actions, in others, because they received no information and were not involved in any
stage of the project.
The consciousness about the scarce involvement of local stakeholders in European projects
and the difficulties in producing concrete outputs from projects’ results were the starting points
of the Work Package 4. To build a better future, we should better know the past.
The Work Package 4 of greenalps started from the capitalization of the results of the last 7
years of the Alpine Space programme projects for resource efficiency and ecosystem
management, with special emphasis on work done on biodiversity conservation, ecological
connectivity, and ecosystem services. This capitalization had the aim to check whether the
projects on these topics have produced concrete and visible changes in the Alpine territories
where they were applied. Additionally, we try to detect through a desk research whether the
needs of all the inhabitants of a certain territory, namely humans, wildlife and plants were taken
in consideration. Through a critical analysis of the results of relevant projects financed under
Work Package 4 Final Report
3
the last Alpine Space Programme financing period (2007-2013), we looked at potential gaps
in the project life cycle (procedures, financing, actions) that may have hindered the
achievement of projects´ vision and goals.
The collection and analysis of several projects’ results, together with the impressions and
experiences of local stakeholders, enabled us to identify the main needs of the investigated
alpine communities. The main impressions underline the necessity for new projects to be built
on real needs of both local populations and environmental biodiversity. The greatest challenge
for protected areas and their communities is to integrate the needs of humans and nature,
promoting environmental awareness, new forms of cooperation and exploring the potentials of
natural resources valorisation.
PROTECTING THE ENVIRONMENT AND PROMOTING
DIALOGUE IN ALPINE PROTECTED AREAS IN A PERIOD OF
FINANCIAL CRISIS
The greenalps project was built on the awareness that a broad biodiversity is needed for the
functionality of Alpine ecosystems. A rich biodiversity provides the basis for the functionality of
Alpine Ecosystem Services, and it can be maintained only if habitats are ecologically
connected to ensure the trophic cascade and the genetic exchange among the living beings,
assuming that the available resources are used and managed in a sustainable way. Protected
areas play a fundamental role in the protection of the biodiversity and in the ecosystem
services’ functionality and are (or should be) the main promoters of the local sustainable
development and of programs aimed at raising the local communities’ environmental
awareness. Besides that, protected areas can be the optimal platform to establish a functional
dialogue between the local community and the different stakeholder categories in order to
create a participatory process to reduce the distance between humans and their environment.
A new dialogue would allow the building of new projects based on the real necessities of the
area, the development of new ideas for the regional development and the creation of new
cooperation with neighbouring countries.
Protected areas are involved in several projects in the Alpine environment. They are perfect
open-labs to study the effects of management practises on the natural resources; protected
areas are “safe islands” and core areas for many wildlife species (especially big mammals and
birds) that need to be connected to other safe areas through an ensured ecological
connectivity. Protected areas are the places where humans’ and nature meet and cooperate
for the sake of both.
In periods of financial crisis, always more protected areas use third part funding (i.e., European
funding) for special actions (i.e., promotion and maintenance of ecological connectivity,
research projects, new infrastructure etc.) and to supply the continuous economic resources
reduction. European projects have the great potential to “create something new” in a certain
territory, highlighting a “before” and “after” the project’s activities. The presence of a research
consortium and the concreteness of the initial objectives may contribute to the economic and
environmental development of an area, only if projects’ results are implemented on the ground.
Work Package 4 Final Report
4
Developing a database to categorise and evaluate past projects
results. Are projects built on real needs? Are results implemented on
the ground? The best way to check whether past projects have brought a concrete contribution to the area
where they were applied is to analyse not only their life cycle but also the fate of their results
after the end of the project itself. The strategy we have followed has analysed the information
available, on the web and through indicated contact points, about the project preparation, the
tools developed and the results obtained, trying to detect the improved connection between
people and nature that projects dealing with ecosystem services and ecological connectivity
should bring.
Such an analysis had to start from a series of questions:
- How are related the conservation community’s and the other stakeholders’ worlds?
- Are local stakeholders involved in the preparation and implementation of a project?
- Are projects built on the real needs of a particular area? Moreover, how are local needs
detected?
- Which ways may be followed to improve the cooperation between researchers and
stakeholders?
- How to develop a common language between local people, stakeholder and
researchers?
- How to explain the benefit of cooperation beyond municipal, provincial or national
borders?
- Are results concretely implemented on the ground?
To reply efficiently to those and other questions, the different projects’ life cycle had to be
analysed in details according to the information available on the web and through projects’
contact people. For projects to be grounded in local reality, the ideal project development
phase should already involve local stakeholders. Simultaneously, project proponents should
garner political support from ministries and regional administrations. This would imply an
enlarged consultation (not limited to project partners) before a project submission and not
afterwards, but this is not what usually happens.
According to the Alpine Space programme (www.alpine-space.eu), the ideal project lifecycle
should follow the steps in Figure 1.
Our review of project websites, in
general, found that often project
results are difficult to understand, and
in our estimation hard for regional
stakeholders to translate into concrete
action without further explanation and
financing. Many projects end without
follow-up, websites are not updated,
and contact points disappear.
Figure 1 - Project Life cycle (www.alpine-space.eu)
Work Package 4 Final Report
5
Large quantities of reports, recommendations, plans and maps are produced and usually
remain freely downloadable, but whether stakeholders use them or are even aware of them is
not clear.
The capitalization was not an easy task. It was necessary to build a new database, for internal
purposes, where the different projects could have been compared. In order to have a
comprehensive overview of the main findings of the Alpine Space Programme projects, the
capitalization analysis focused on internet free-of-access databases and projects’ websites
that could provide, as much as possible, an overview of what has been realised during the last
7 years of the programme in these specific topics. This approach wanted to reproduce a
potential search of an external user about a certain project on a certain topic, to analyse if the
results were easily detectable and understandable and if implementations of project’s results
could be still feasible.
The database (Fig. 2) was structured highlighting
the different Ecosystem Services analysed and
which Alpine Space projects have been financed
checking:
The partners involved
What question(s) they have tried to
answer
Instruments used
Tools developed
Achieved results
Presentation and implementation of
results
Fate of the developed tools and results
Management of website and presence of
contact point
The analysis focused also on the pilot areas of greenalps. Project partners were asked to add
information to the database on how the projects were performed at local scale, highlighting
which (if any) benefits to local populations and concrete improvements in the landscape for a
valorisation of natural resources they have brought. The database was structure in order to
connect the Ecosystem Services to the projects done, the Pilot Areas, the governance, the
actions done for ecological connectivity, and the implementation of ECONNECT policy
recommendations (only for Berchtesgaden and Kalkalpen) (Fig. 3).
Figure 2 - DATABASE Access Objects
Work Package 4 Final Report
6
Figure 3 - Database Connection of Ecosystem Services, projects and pilot areas involved
Some of the questions asked to the project partners regarding their area were the following:
How can the project results be concretely implemented and be used by policy makers
and stakeholder in order to contribute to the welfare of local populations?
Are the projects implemented in your area built on the real needs of the area?
How were (if they were) local stakeholder involved in the realization and
implementation of a project?
What was the fate of the results after the lifetime of a project?
Only project partners and local actors are able to say whether this lifecycle has always been
followed. Only the “Project implementation” phase can be detected on the internet. Basing only
on projects’ websites, in general terms, it has to be stated that in many cases, projects results
are incomprehensible and too abstract for regional stakeholders that are unable to translate
them in concrete actions. Adding the fact that regional stakeholders are unable to implement
concretely the results of a project without a financial support and the guide of the experts,
many projects end but remain de facto uncompleted. Projects end when the foreseen
timeframe and/or when the money is over, websites are not updated, contact points do not
exist anymore. There is an absence of control of the Programme itself on the financed projects
after their end.
There is a vast production of reports, recommendations, plans and maps, freely downloadable
but the questions are:
For the sake of whom/what?
Are stakeholder and the large public aware of them?
Are these reports/recommendations translatable in concrete actions on the ground?
Is a financial coverage after the foreseen project’s end for the implementation of the
produced results?
Work Package 4 Final Report
7
This kind of information are not available, in most cases, on the websites of the projects. There
is no clue about the fate of many projects’ results, no news about the involvement of regional
stakeholder and on the real effects of a certain project.
Of course, there are also many positive examples. Several projects have been concretely
implemented and have produced positive changes in the landscape, according to their
foreseen aims. As an example, during the ECONNECT project, in the pilot area
Berchtesgaden, the revitalization of the Salzbach River was done, allowing the improvement
of the local and regional ecological connectivity.
ESTABLISH A DIALOGUE TO IDENTIFY THE NEEDS The developed database was not sufficient to get a clear picture of the fate of projects’ results,
especially of those done in greenalps pilot areas. The majority of important information could
be detected only through the dialogue with local actors. This aspect, which was not considered
during the greenalps project’s preparation, provided us the first result: as we promote the
development of new participatory processes and dialogues between the different actors, so
we had to establish a dialogue with the interested parts to get the information needed for our
analysis. For this reason, we decided to add specific site visits in the pilot areas to establish a
first contact with the interested actors and to know from their experience, what the different
European projects have brought to their area.
One of the first information gained from local stakeholders is that Protected Areas should be
the bridge between local population, the stakeholder and the central government. Protected
areas should “bring the message” of EU policies to the people and supervise the
implementation on the ground of the projects’ results on behalf of the European community.
What impedes this task and any other activity than ordinary administrations is the lack (or
continuous reduction) of basic financial support, the low awareness of local people and the
absence of dialogue and confrontation platforms.
This analysis done and the database developed provided the basis for the establishment of a
dialogue with local stakeholder. It was important for us that local people knew the aim of the
greenalps project. An honest dialogue produces trust on which it is possible to build a
discussion to detect the real needs and the concrete implementation of EU policies. One of the
aims of greenalps was to check whether the EU policies about ecological connectivity and
biodiversity protection were sufficiently implemented in the Pilot Regions of the project. As the
greenalps report “The EU Policy Landscape” makes clear, EU strategies and policies contain
ample references to the need of ensuring connected networks of natural areas in order to
protect biodiversity. There are initiatives to promote green infrastructure as one of the pieces
in the connectivity puzzle. EU policies are not created in a vacuum, they are voted on by
representatives of national governments in the European Parliament, so on the whole they
should be expected to confirm to national priorities. Nevertheless, do they also reflect local
needs?
The analysis done through the database highlighted that this aspect is usually not taken in
consideration during the preparation of the projects. Therefore, to identify the real local needs,
a desk research was not sufficient. As in the projects database, too many information are
missing on the web that can be identified only through the direct contact with local people.
The site visit in the pilot regions were not foreseen at the beginning of the project, but became
necessary for several reasons:
Work Package 4 Final Report
8
Establish a first contact with the local populations to understand the relationship
between the Park and the populations.
Analyse, through the words of local people, their experiences with European projects,
their involvement (if any) and the fate of the results.
Check the awareness of the locals in regards to ecological connectivity, ecosystem
services, the role of the Park in promoting the regional development and the
participation to EU projects.
This activity was useful because it helped us to identify (or get closer to) the real needs of an
area and of its inhabitants. Furthermore, it confirmed that only through an honest dialogue with
stakeholders and local people it is possible to solve local problems, creating with them and
with local/national/European institutions a long-term vision for their territories and for the whole
Alps.
Site visits – identifying the needs from the local experiences Site visits were performed between September and November 2014, spending two days in
each pilot area, getting the following information:
Organization and mission of the Protected Area
Funding
The relationship between the Park and the local communities
Ecosystem Services and Ecological Connectivity (knowledge and activities)
Regional development, stakeholders and awareness raising
Identified needs of the pilot region
Proposals for the future
This activity of the site visits was very fruitful and enabled us to produce a report for each pilot
area, which was used as a basis for the subsequent (and foreseen) stakeholder workshops.
In general, all the pilot areas suffer from a decrease (more or less emphasized) in basic funding
that hinder the possibility to fulfil even the daily activities and oblige the administration to reduce
the personnel. A special case is the National Park Berchtesgaden in Germany, where the
central government of Bavaria provides for the 100% of basic funding (although a reduction
has been noticed in the last few years) and where a platform for the dialogue between the park
administration and the local stakeholders is operating since several years. The presence of
the Park is seen as an important contribution to the local regional development but local people
ask for a higher cooperation to spread the philosophy of sustainability, integrate tourism and
nature protection, study the change in tourism destinations and develop mid-term and long-
term strategies. Only through an increased support to sustainable tourism, a new territorial
planning and an enhanced transboundary cooperation, new opportunities for regional
development can be opened.
In Kalkalpen National Park (Oberösterreich), (together with National Park Gesäuse –
Steiermark - and Dürrenstein Wilderness Area - Niederösterreich), there is the high need for
an improved inter-state and regional cooperation. The Parks’ territories and their surroundings,
with high peaks that separate narrow valleys, historically did not allow a high cooperation
among the different communities and a shared feeling of nature protection. At national level,
this particular landscape conformation has developed in a strict federalism, where every state
Work Package 4 Final Report
9
formulates its own laws and where maps end with the border of the state – highlighting the
separation from the neighbours. At local level, it has increased the sense of “not-belonging” to
the National Park area and does not stimulate in the local communities the will to cooperate
for the enhancement of local economy and wellbeing. Local stakeholder push for an increase
in the cooperation between local authorities, civic organizations, local business, local
government and Protected Areas administration to harmonize conservation action at local level
and develop sound policies in order to engage local communities in the local development. A
first step in the cooperation direction has been done during the ECONNECT project. Promoting
ecological connectivity, this project has stimulated also the connection between people and
traditions, opening a new chapter in the cooperation between the Austrian federal states.
The Regional Park Prealpi Giulie (Italy) and the National Park Triglav (Slovenia) have a
long history of cooperation in several projects and they have been recognized as a
transboundary protected area in 2009 by the Federation of European cross-border Europarc
within the project "Transboundary Parks." Recently, during the meeting of the Alpine
Convention in Torino (November 2014), the area was also recognized as a Transboundary
Alpine pilot area.
Nonetheless, due to the different histories of the areas, the two parks have shown different
needs. In the Regional Park Prealpi Giulie, one of the missions of the park is to promote
cooperation among the municipalities. However, neighbouring municipalities are still lacking in
the will of overcoming local differences and working together as a whole, using the Park as
common platform. This situation is reflected in the missing of a structural planning of the Park
as an operative tool to create development. Local populations do not feel the belonging to the
Park. They feel themselves more as “guardians” of a natural asset, which is used by others. In
this sense, local populations feel penalized and wants to be recognized for their efforts.
The Triglav National Park is very active in the whole region to give support to local
populations. Currently it is experiencing a lacking of basic funds that does not allow the
continuation of many activities. The park management board made a request of economic
support to local communities but nature protection and the role of a National park in promoting
regional development are not yet so clear in local people’s mind. There is still the mentality of
“if there exist a park, it has to do something for the people”. There is then the serious need to
involve much more local communities in the park’s management in order to develop programs
for the payment for ESS and new forms of self-financing. Additional need come from the traffic
management. There is the proposal to offer public transports during the weekend but there are
no actual data for its development. Infrastructures (and money) for this shift from private to
public transportations are still inadequate.
STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOP IN PILOT AREAS The site visits were useful to get an idea especially about the difficulties experienced by the
local people and stakeholder in the territories close or inside a protected area. The limits
imposed, the remoteness of the territories and the general abandonment of mountain areas
still overcome the opportunities that may come from its presence. In many cases (with local
differences), in Italy, Austria and Slovenia, the protected areas are still perceived as “pure
nature protectors” and not as fundamental actors for regional development. Stakeholders
showed concern about the ineffectiveness of several European projects. “Too many words but
no action” was one of the main complain. Several past projects organized stakeholder
Work Package 4 Final Report
10
workshops to collect ideas about the improvement of a situation regarding a certain topic (i.e,
ECONNECT in Kalkalpen), without concrete implementation of projects’ results.
Also in the greenalps project, all the issues collected during the site visits were discussed in a
series of stakeholder workshops in pilot areas. If we now focus in on the connectivity issue,
meaning that not only for wildlife but also for human populations and cultures, it turns out that
the two threats of local development that were most commonly mentioned by greenalps
workshop participants are landscape fragmentation and the loss of local identity. The
maintenance of unfragmented landscapes is a need shared by many interested stakeholders
in pilot areas. Such unfragmented landscapes are the very foundation of ecological
connectivity and provide the basis for local economy and tourism. Many stakeholders
recognize the importance of the ecosystem services that directly or indirectly supply benefits
to people living in an area. Yet non-experts poorly understand the concept of connectivity.
Greenalps partners have pointed out the importance of transparent communication between
protected areas’ administration and stakeholders at all levels. Protected areas should be able
to translate EU policies to the local level, taking care that communication is not only open and
regular, but also in a format that everyone can understand. In an attempt to simplify the
connectivity concept, greenalps developed an infographic poster showing symbolically how
connectivity is at the heart of the interaction between humans and the rest of nature in a
landscape (Figure 2). What this infographic poster wants to stimulate is the empathy of humans
towards the environment and the wildlife populations, understanding that the need for moving
is shared by all the living beings.
The other issue that is most important to stakeholders in pilot areas is a type of local
development that maintains a local or regional identity. In a sense, this is a different type of
connectivity issue. People, their community and their landscape need to be connected too.
Local brands (e.g. “Berchtesgadener Milch”), customs, architecture, special landscape
features all contribute to the maintenance or creation of such an identity, which can also
provide new economic opportunities, among them sustainable tourism development.
Importantly, many of these local development opportunities also depend on unfragmented
landscapes.
The stakeholder workshop have highlighted another important issue: the sense of affection felt
by local stakeholders towards the presence of the park. The presence of stakeholder varied
greatly in the four pilot areas; in Berchtesgaden, Kalkalpen and in Prealpi Giulie, where new
forms of cooperation are starting, the participation was of around 20-25 people, while in Triglav
was very low (5 people).
Work Package 4 Final Report
11
Figure 4 - Infographic showing the importance of ecological connectivity for people (Source: EURAC 2014, produced as poster for greenAlps)
Work Package 4 Final Report
12
Berchtesgaden Stakeholder Workshop In the Berchtesgaden area, where a dialogue platform with local communities and stakeholder
is operating since several years to elaborate the spatial planning of the park’s territory and of
neighbor villages, the participation was high (23 participants). Stakeholder feel the park as an
important actor for the local regional development and want to be involved in the decisions
concerning their future.
Next to several organizations representing the greenalps project different sectors of the region
were present, e.g. tourism, municipalities, agriculture, protected areas, German armed forces.
The EuRegio Salzburg – Berchtesgadener Land – Traunstein represented the Austrian part of
the transboundary pilot area. Several topics were discussed in the Berchtesgaden stakeholder
workshop, from ecological connectivity to the needs of local communities, from the ecological
regulatory plan to new ideas for regional development.
The main proposals were the creation of a market for regional products and the increase in the
communication in the region.
The stakeholder categories present at the Workshop, especially farmers, expressed their need
to increase the spreading of local agricultural products in the region, both for local people and
for the tourists. This market of local products is now almost absent in the region, due to the
low relation with farmers and among the different stakeholder categories. Stakeholder ask for
the creation of a net of producers-distributers-consumers of regional products in order to be
independent from government grants. Stakeholder ask for an increase in the communication
with local populations and for the creation of an association of stakeholder from different
sectors, like agriculture, gastronomy, hoteliers, business development, skilled crafts and trades
to share the knowledge and implement it in the region. This approach would allow the
integration of different interests and ideas for new projects.
Kalkalpen Stakeholder Workshop The three protected areas (Kalkalpen National Park – Oberösterreich, National Park Gesäuse
– Steiermark - and Dürrenstein Wilderness Area - Niederösterreich) are working on the
development and protection of an inter-state ecological network, seen as the way to promote
inter-state cooperation. Furthermore, the three protected areas, together with local
stakeholder, check the possibilities and the opportunities that would come from the
establishment of a UNESCO “Man and Biosphere” Reserve. The lack of a national framework
for connectivity poses drastic limits to the concrete actions on the ground. Only after the
ECONNECT project – with a new project called “Netzwerk Naturwald” – the neighbouring
states are trying to connect themselves in an ecological way. The new project focuses on the
creation of a corridor among the three states and three protected areas. There is the tentative
to involve more areas and to stimulate the cooperation among the different provinces, in order
to change the national framework. Ecological connectivity is a “hot issue” in the Park, which is
working for the creation of “green belts” with restricted access and specific rules for private
land and quiet zones for wildlife. All the protected areas in the region suffer because of the low
number of tourists staying more than one day. The increase of inter-states cooperation through
the development and application of common touristic programs and destination management
is now seen as a possible solution to improve the touristic offers. Local communities are always
more involved in the development of a participatory process for the assessment of Ecosystem
Services economic, social, cultural and spiritual benefits inside and outside a Protected Area.
Work Package 4 Final Report
13
At the Kalkalpen stakeholder workshop, due to the new project “Netzwerk Naturwald”
developed by three different protected areas in three federal states, the participation was
higher than expected. In this special case, the participation to European projects like
ECONNECT and greenalps, nonetheless the absence of concrete actions as mentioned
before, stimulated the need for a higher cooperation between the parks and the stakeholders,
producing concrete results that will develop in the future. In the common discussion there were
several issues mentioned, on one hand, the shortage of funding provided to the protected
areas to enable the application of best practices and the difficulties of municipalities to
participate in projects as they do not have money for the part not funded. On the other hand,
the awareness about the topic of ecological connectivity that should be extended to help
regional development. In this sense, all three federal states should be part of a network and
work together on a vision, which makes value out of the natural jewels and the common history
(Eisenwurzen); therefore, the steering board of Netzwerk Naturwald should be supplemented
with representatives of culture and economy.
As future perspectives, the participants ask for a clear need for a superior structure that should
be identified in order to drive and coordinate project at regional level. It would be good to have
structures that exceed a certain critical size to be more effective. Maybe a biosphere reserve
would be an efficient solution to establish effective structures, but the real potential to go on
derives from the cooperation. In fact, regional policy needs critical mass. This need should also
be formulated in the recommendations given to the EU and the program authorities by the
greenalps project.
Triglav Stakeholder Workshop The main aspect of the Triglav stakeholder workshop was the absence of participation of the
economic categories. Because of that, it was not possible to identify clearly the needs of the
area and to collect proposals for the future development. The absence of stakeholder could be
due to the low affection regarding the Park and the Biosphere – people do not feel themselves
as part of a single community. Stakeholder show to be tired of European projects that
concretely have brought few results to the well-being of their economy. They do not see new
economic opportunities coming from the park nor from the UNESCO brand.
Due to the perception of low economic opportunities, people are moving to cities, leaving
agriculture without a support. The absence of stakeholder shows also the lack of confidence
in regards of European projects. Nobody of the presents knew Recharge Green project
(although the park is a partner in this project), someone knew greenalps.
Nonetheless, the traffic inside of the park represents a big problem. There was a proposal to
offer public transports during the weekend, but there are no data in hand about it. Money are
few and infrastructures inadequate. By the way, the park has not yet adopted a management
plan. About renewable energies, the focus is only on biomasses. Forests owners are another
problem of the Park. They do not contribute and collaborate to the ecological connectivity and
there are problems with the compensation system.
Prealpi Giulie Stakeholder Workshop In the Prealpi Giulie area, the park, despite the small extension without comprising any
community, is very active in promoting the regional development and the awareness of local
people. The presence of the park was seen as a continuation of the prohibition of traditional
hunting and forestry activities present during the years of the Cold War. In recent years, the
Work Package 4 Final Report
14
park established many connections with the local populations, contributing to the touristic
attraction of the entire region. Currently, the local populations and stakeholders see the park
has a potential partner for the regional development of their communities and as a “pole of
attraction” for the six municipalities.
The park’s main mission is the protection of the high ecological quality and wilderness of the
territory. Due to that, the park’s territory provides for clean water to more than 300.000 people
and for non-wood products.
The park promotes the establishment and the conservation of ecological connectivity
especially towards the Triglav National Park.
In this sense, regarding both Ecosystem Services and ecological connectivity, the park faces
the “culture of immediate”, which does not consider the value of Nature in a long-term strategy.
The majority of people, during daily life, does not consider the ecosystem services a priority
and take them for granted. This situation and attitude does not allow the raising of awareness
of local people and stakeholder.
A big problem has been considered the interference of political power on the Park’s system.
There is a strong complexity to expand the boundaries of the park. The reason is the complete
lack of cooperation between neighboring municipalities. A structural planning of the Park is
missing as well as an operative tool to create development. There is the need to foresee
different degrees of protection. The population feels guardian of an asset used by others. In
this sense, local population feels penalized and wants to be recognized for her efforts.
Due to the long-term cooperation with the Triglav National Park in Slovenia, the Prealpi Giulie
Park is considering the idea of being included in a “Transboundary Biosphere Label” as an
opportunity to:
Increase the relations with local communities
Increase the visibility of the park and opportunities for regional development
Promote meeting of stakeholders categories – local and transboundary
Support to local/regional products
Management and maintenance of habitats
Establishment and maintenance of a transboundary ecological network
Stimulate transboundary tourism
Improve the accessibility / alternative mobility
Stimulate the sense of belonging to the same environment and stimulate international tourism
under the UNESCO umbrella
This would mean to enlarge the Triglav Biosphere, more than creating a new one in the Italian
side. Crucial in this regard is the improvement of the collaboration with the Triglav National
Park. There is already the delegation by all municipalities to establish the Biosphere to the
territory of Prealpi Giulie Park.
SWOT ANALYSES – WHAT PLANS FOR THE ALPINE
PROTECTED AREAS? The dialogue established in the pilot areas during the site visits and the workshops, highlighted
the critics but also the proposals of the local stakeholders. In all the pilot areas one of the main
theme was the desire expressed by the stakeholders for a higher involvement in the decisions
regarding their territories and the opportunities for regional development. Local actors want to
be involved more in the preparation and in the implementation of European projects and have
Work Package 4 Final Report
15
(still) trust in the protected areas. The need for a platform encouraging the exchange of ideas,
the participatory process and for developing new perspectives is high in all the pilot areas and
should be the role of a protected area.
In greenalps, the main themes were ecological connectivity and ecosystem services but the
discussions held during the workshops touched many other fields. We collected all the critics
and ideas from local stakeholders but only one perspective/proposal in each pilot area was
analysed deeper to produce a resume document in which the Strengths (resources,
competences, positive internal factors), the Weaknesses (lack of resources, negative internal
factors), the Opportunities (positive environmental factors) and the Threats (negative
environmental factors) have been highlighted (SWOT analysis).
Berchtesgaden SWOT – “Trademark of local products, association
of stakeholder, distribution”
STRENGHTS:
Good experience accrued with the brand “Berchtesgadener Land”, bio milk, butter and
yogurt renowned and sold up to Italy and other countries.
sales promotion.
whole area presents a high aesthetical value and offers possibilities for different types of
recreational activities in order to promote local products.
that could create a marketing linked to it
WEAKNESS:
eap products coming from other countries
es, pastures and lawns need to be better valorized
THREATS:
competition of foreign products can compromise local products trade
cycle for products, leading up to their closure
me
OPPORTUNITIES:
UNESCO
brand and the potentiality of the land
Create new positions, hiring people interested to the project
Work Package 4 Final Report
16
producers
cosystem Services are
Kalkalpen SWOT – “New UNESCO Man and Biosphere (MAB),
cooperation among states”
STRENGTHS:
three difference protected areas
make up part of Kalkalpen National Park
High biodiversity and wilderness
ion - hotspot of biodiversity
, which formed the whole region – Eisenwurzen
WEAKNESSES:
s of view among the mountain’s economic categories exponents
weak; some areas are without a plan
strative positions without valuing their
competences
connect, there is a long road distances to other villages
do not believe in chances but are rather disappointed by initiatives done in the
past
OPPORTUNITIES:
ons
cosystem Services
for ecological connectivity
exceeded
as could concentrate on their core competences
Work Package 4 Final Report
17
THREATS:
being in peril
iously damage the Park (wind farm)
Landowners can stand opposite to the idea of a Biosphere reserve
t realize that biosphere is only a tool and not an automatism
sceptical about the biosphere topic
Prealpi Giulie SWOT – “Potentials or the establishment of a UNESCO
Biosphere (Man and Biosphere Program)”
STRENGTHS:
to join Triglav Biosphere
WEAKNESSES:
rginality of the area
extensions
OPPORTUNITIES:
the awareness of Ecosystem Services
Work Package 4 Final Report
18
THREATS:
at can seriously affect biodiversity (ski slopes, mountain roads)
al populations
Triglav SWOT – “Traffic and mobility, existing alternative solutions,
new opportunities”.
STRENGHTS:
cal products
and services
riglav National Park Management Authority with years of experience in the field of park’s
management and with great knowledge for assistance to local communities in obtaining
financial incentives and for applying projects
WEAKNESSES:
cultural landscape
existing compensation system, insufficient involvement of local community in park’s
management
prices
OPPORTUNITIES:
Green market trends and changing of lifestyle, growing popularity of sustainable tourism,
and use of TNP values as trademark
Park
Work Package 4 Final Report
19
sustainable and environmental friendly technologies and services
THREATS:
l
landscape; inappropriate spatial planning at the state level, loss of traditional knowledge
dominance of summerhouses users in compare with local population
the introduction of untested (modern) agricultural and forestry technologies and processes
r
conservation zone (for example,
forest management, implementation of sports activities in nature ...)
peration between responsible authorities, administrative burdens
JECAMI – A TOOL TO ANALYSE THE REGIONAL
ECOLOGICAL CONNECTIVITY One of the aims of Work Package 4 of greenalps was to investigate the potentials of the
instrument JECAMI, developed during the ECONNECT project, to integrate selected
Ecosystem Services and becoming an important tool for decision makers in Alpine Protected
Areas. The JECAMI is a GIS-tool, developed by the Swiss National Park, to analyse the
landscape in order to detect, among ten indicators, which are those more involved in the
blockage of the local/regional ecological connectivity.
This tool was applied, during the ECONNECT project, in the greenalps pilot areas
Berchtesgaden and Kalkalpen, in order to detect the most important barriers for the
establishment of a regional ecological connectivity and plan future actions to re-establish or
enhance ecological connectivity. During greenalps, the pilot area Prealpi Giulie, together with
Triglav, applied the tool during the “JECAMI training day” of greenalps, to highlight the best
areas for developing concrete actions for connectivity. The results of this application, together
with the results of Berchtesgaden and Kalkalpen, were showed during the workshops held in
these two pilot areas, although the results were not completely understood by local
stakeholders (Fig. 5). The JECAMI analysis done in Prealpi Giulie Regional Park has
highlighted that the best areas for developing concrete actions for connectivity are those with
a lower urbanization together with those where the man is not present. However, someone
believes that the human presence is essential in certain areas. For instance, to mow meadows
and to avoid the abandon of remote areas. In this perspective, there is a risk that connectivity
becomes “radical” and the presence of the man becomes important to ensure the connectivity.
To reach this ambitious goal, it is essential that policy makers initiate farsighted decision-
making processes that bring together scientists, politicians, practitioners and stakeholders to
develop workable, integrated solutions that build on the ecological and economic opportunities
for synergy and co – benefits of ecological connectivity. Someone underlines how the tool can
be useful for the experts, but difficult to explain to the local population.
Work Package 4 Final Report
20
In the considered area, the Continuum Suitability Index (the index analysing the ten indicators)
can be used:
- To increase the already existing and well-functioning transboundary relationship between
Parco Naturale Regionale delle Prealpi Giulie and Triglav National Park;
- To increase knowledge of the characteristics of the area and their relationship;
- To take into account ecological connectivity and landscape permeability in territory
management;
- To inform and involve local community, local administrator and other stakeholders;
- As a strength point to identify the ideal area for a Biosphere Reserve MAB UNESCO.
Figure 5 - JECAMI Indicators analysis for greenalps pilot areas
In fact, the Parco Naturale Regionale delle Prealpi Giulie is putting effort into the identification
of the whole territory of the six municipalities considered in this study as a Biosphere Reserve
within the UNESCO Man and Biosphere (MAB) programme. In particular, the MAB programme
focuses on both the conservation of natural and cultural heritage and the rational and
sustainable use of natural resources, improving the overall relationship between people and
their environment. It predicts the consequences of today’s actions on tomorrow’s world and
thereby increases people’s ability to manage efficiently natural resources for the well-being of
both human populations and environment.
Critical issues on the JECAMI methodology reported by the Regional Park Prealpi Giulie
Work Package 4 Final Report
21
The main critical issue that it is possible to identify in the JECAMI method consists in the
method itself. In fact, this method was developed on a specific GIS software and the various
steps were explained basing on its specific tools. So, when the JECAMI is implemented with
another software (i.e., QGIS), the problems begin to appear; if the other software does not
have those specific tools, it is not possible to obtain the same result. The JECAMI method can
be used only with the specific GIS software (ArcGIS®).
Another critical issue is the lack of description in the Technical Report. For example, the
suggested categories of the land use-planning indicator are not defined and so it is difficult to
correlate to them the categories of the input dataset.
Moreover, as all the GIS works, the data finding is a complicated and time demanding process.
General considerations on JECAMI
Ecological connectivity is hard to understand and explain. The main goal of JECAMI is to
overcome this problem and to help analysing connectivity and barriers of the landscape. How
can that be done? By providing data for the Alps and analysis, tools that will calculate specific
indicators used to measure the ecological connectivity potential.
JECAMI was developed as part of the ECONNECT Project, whose main objective was the
protection of diversity in the Alps by promoting the ecological continuum. There are two
underlying concepts when referring to ecological continuum: structural connectivity and
functional connectivity. The influencing factors for each type of connectivity are used as
indicators for JECAMI analysis tools. Each indicator has a specific value that indicates if it has
a positive or a negative role in ecological connectivity (JECAMI handbook – Swiss National
Park, 2014). During greenalps, the issue was to analyse whether the JECAMI tool could
integrate the local ecosystem services and the topics of the different SWOTs of the pilot areas
to help local policy makers and stakeholders to make a deeper and comprehensive analysis
of local/regional ecological connectivity together with the regional development. The idea
suggested during the partners meeting and the stakeholder workshops was to insert new
indicators that could represent additional potential barriers for connectivity and, at meantime,
be used for spatial planning, and regional development (local products producers and
distributions, transportation, UNESCO Biosphere, renewable energies areas, regional laws,
and restrictions due to the protected area). These kind of indicators, however, are not easy to
build and insert in the JECAMI method. The Continuum Suitability Index (CSI) was created to
show the ecological connectivity potential by using the indicators identified for structural
connectivity. If new indicators have to be build, it is fundamental to check the available data.
Based on that, and on the description of the indicators, a feasibility study can be done. One
criterion of this study is the question if the defined problem can be presented sufficiently with
the available data. The other question is if the indicator can be built up in an adaptable way,
so that it can be realised with varying data sets (JECAMI handbook – Swiss National Park,
2014). Already during the ECONNECT projects, some indicators identified as important after
the greenalps workshops (urbanization, economic activity, public opinion), were market as
“partly feasible” or “non-feasible” due to the absence of data available in appropriate resolution
or because they could not be visualized spatially (Fig. 6 and Affolter, 2010).
Work Package 4 Final Report
22
Figure 6 - Results of the feasibility study for the JECAMI indicators in ECONNECT (from Affolter, 2010)
Due to the short timeframe of the greenalps project, an implementation of the new suggested
indicators was not feasible. It is straightforward that an integration of new indicators, based on
local characteristics, could contribute to the creation of a tool that could be useful for the future
development of an area, with the aim of integrating human and wildlife/nature needs.
Local policy makers and stakeholders valuated the JECAMI analysis as of “potential help” for
them, but the tool was not understood completely in its concept, methodology and results.
Protected areas and local administrations often suffer for the missing of a proper professional
GIS expert. The reduction of personnel and of basic funding, oblige parks’ administration to
use free-GIS software, tools, and datasets to analyse their territories. One of the limits of
JECAMI is its bonding to ArcGIS® and the copyright owned by the Swiss National Park. The
ArcGIS Explorer Desktop is a free of charge viewer but the resolution of the data visualized
and analysed by the CSI is highly rough (1 km).
A GIS tool that integrates ecological connectivity and regional development with indicators on
the local characteristics and following a shared strategy of development could be of great help
for policy makers and protected areas’ managers, as seen in ECONNECT. However, the
amount and the non-availability of required data, the local absence of GIS experts and the
copyright of the software, makes it, for the moment, inaccessible for many Alpine Protected
Areas in their daily activities.
Final considerations on Work Package 4 “Governance in Pilot Areas”
The management of a protected area is not an easy task. The four greenalps pilot areas,
although associated with the typically alpine landscape that they protect, showed us four
different attitudes of the central government and of local communities in their regards.
Work Package 4 Final Report
23
However, all the information collected during the greenalps project allowed us to draw some
general conclusions about their governance, the local/regional ecological connectivity and the
management of local ecosystem services.
The direct contact with local populations, decision-makers and stakeholders established during
the site visits and the workshops have shown that people are tired of conservation policies that
exclude a priori the human presence. People want to get involved, although the level of
communication is still quite low (except some special cases).
The new strategies for coupling nature protection and regional development are the new
challenges that alpine communities have to face in the near future, for the long-term
preservation of mountain vital ecosystem services.
Protected areas and their inside and surrounding populations have to work together as actors
and partners for local development. Protected areas, to proceed further in their mission, have
to become promoters of the necessary passage from “Nature Conservation” to “Nature
Integration” in regional development policies.
The same approach used to analyse and improve the ecological connectivity has to be applied
for regional development strategies, overcoming national borders and concentrating on the
continuum of nature and human history, rather than on local differences.
Which are then, in conclusions, the new challenges for Alpine protected areas?
- To find the right balance between human and Nature
- Spread a culture of sharing human/nature spaces instead of separation and isolation
- Become a platform for participatory processes for common growth
- Being the lead partners in new projects based on local needs highlighting and
supervising the implementation phase
- Becoming the spokesperson at national level of the local populations and stakeholders’
needs
- Spread the culture of environmental awareness and nature protection in the daily life
of local people, to arrive at the utopic destination of having no more the need of
protected areas.
