Participation in nature protection -Does it benefit the local community?A Triglav National Park case study

Rodela Romina a, Andrej Udovč b

a University of Sussexb University of Ljubljana

Outline

features of participatory practices in Central and Eastern Europe introduction of the Triglav National Park experience reflection on participation in nature protection in a context of a top-down establishment

PARTICIPATION IN NATURE PROTECTION

is seen to hold potential in enhancing legitimacy of the final outcomeenable citizen influence and social responsibility inclusion of diverse actors gives the opportunity to reach upon local knowledge and develop diverse partnershipsnature protection can throught participation greatly benefit from local inhabitants’ input

different experiences

in some member states practitioners, and protected area managements authorities, are successfully drafting management plans along the participatory principlethere are cases where public participation is a concept, and a procedure, recently introduced and practitioners do not have as much experience with it

THE INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT FOR NATURE PROTECTION IN SLOVENIA

Slovenia, at the end of the 1980s, differently from other Yugoslav republics already had an independent system for the protection of the environment consisting of a specialized bureau for the protection of natural and cultural heritage, several legal dispositions for the protection of flora and fauna species and one protected area

At the end of the 1990s’ a revisited legal framework, consisting of the Nature Conservation Law and the Environmental Protection Law gave a more comprehensive definition of nature and also accounted for human action and its consequences on the environment

Voluntary Groups and Nature Protection

also in Slovenia early measures of nature protection may be reconnected to activists and societiesMuseum Society in the 1920 drafted a proposal for the first Alpine Conservation Parkunder the Yugoslav period, associations were much controlled and some eradicated. Yet, those without a political agenda, or engaged in the provision of social services, where the state could not fill the gap, were allowed to continue with activities along the provisions of that time

A TRIGLAV PARK CASE STUDY

Its origins may be tracked to the Alpine Conservation Park designated in 1924, which in 1961 was up-graded with adjacent territories and in 1981 with further inhabited territories. Currently, the park covers a total of 83.807 ha, of which 55.332 ha are located in the inner area with high levels of protection, while 28.475 ha are in the outer zone with lower levels of protection. The outer zone sees the presence of 2.200 inhabitants in 25 villages.

First experiences

Despite the political climate the 1981 park extension included involvement of local communities with a communication campaign and meetings with locals. These measures led to positive results given that local inhabitants agreed on the inclusion of 25 villages within the park boundary, but also led to high expectations towards the park in terms of rural development.

Such situations did not materialize as expected, creating discontent in some villages and a degree of hostility towards public authorities

The complexity of interests, which converge in the Triglav Park, become more evident in the late 1990 and led to a “pro-economic development” proposal to revise its founding act.

The first suggestion for a revision was presented to parliament in 2003 and had not included any consultation. (but environmental associations and other stakeholder groups demanded to be part of the process and according to the participatory principle also they were granted access. Twenty-one environmental associations along with local communities contributed with comments and suggestions to several drafts of the revisited version of the founding act, which is currently in its last draft)

Management authorities

According to the current Nature Conservation Law, management authorities have duties in monitoring, planning and protection, which ought to be defined in a comprehensive management plan shortly after a protected area designation.Law stipulates that local communities need to be informed and may comment on management plans.

Participation of the local community

First, it may be linked to the reframing of the founding act where representatives of local interests, associations and NGOs have participated and contributed with comments. Second, participation may be linked to the drafting of Natura 2000 management sites that has seen local inhabitants’ participation.

Results

people reported that they would like to know more about the work and activities of the TNP administrationdata indicates that 51% of our sample (N=200) never had a contact with the park administration.the year of the first contact tends to increase after 1997, which may be linked to local events (i.e. earthquake), changes within the park administration and distance from the 1981 events

expectations towards the TNP administration: more consideration for their well-being concerns; information about the activities in the Park; and collaboration between the local community and TNP administration.respondents lacked in interest towards participation to workshop and other TNP organized events.

Municipality

Ministry,

other public inst

Regional develop agency

TNPadmi

n

Entrepreneur

s

Hunting

assoc

Mountaineering assoc

Tourism

assoc.

Sport

assoc

Nature protec

tion assoc

Mean value on question “being engaged in ameliorating rural well-being”

M 3,98 3,13 3,01 4,01 4,40 4,36 4,94 5,13 4,78 3,22

N 200 200 197 200 200 200 200 200 200 193

Mean value on question “delivering results in terms of rural well-being”

M 3,26 2,64 2,62 3,62 3,94 4,04 4,59 4,57 4,40 3,00

N 200 200 197 200 200 200 200 200 200 193

Mean value on the operate of local institutions and voluntary organizations.

Likert 1-7

Conventional agriculture

Bio agriculture Tourism Industry

Family and/or small

enterprise

Large firms/ enterprises

M3,01 5,91 6,15 2,38 5,72 2,84

N200 200 200 200 200 200

Mean value on the direction of the local rural economy.

Conclusions

participatory planning is important for protected areas that were established with a unilateral top-down decision, which not all locals see as legitimateadvocates of “one model fits all” should be cautious public participation requires time and financial resourcesparticipation may enable learning and may help participants to see things differently

Thank you for your attention