[PDF] BARRIERS TO NATURE CONSERVATION IN GERMANY: A

View - Download BARRIERS TO NATURE CONSERVATION IN GERMANY: A

Previous PDF

Next PDF

BARRIERS TO NATURE CONSERVATION IN GERMANY: A MODEL

EXPLAINING OPPOSITION TO PROTECTED AREAS

SUSANNESTOLL-KLEEMANN

Global Change & Social Systems, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK)

Abstract

Germany is particularly plagued in its nature conservation strategies by widespread and persistent opposi-

tion to the designation and management of protected areas through local resistance. This opposition is con-

tinuing, despite Germany"s commitment to international and European mandates to enhance biodiversity

within its borders. This paper seeks to explain why this opposition is so coherent and so protracted with

reference to research into the attitudes of residents, landowners and managers on both sides of the debate.

The research involved the use of grounded theory approaches, sensitive interactive interviewing, and the gra-

dual application of social psychological theories of social identity and reactance. The evidence is strong that

there are powerful emotional and cultural drivers that divide nature conservationists and local landusers and

residents into two camps, maintained by stereotyping and group bonding. Based on these ¢ndings, practical

and constructive ways are proposed to reconcile these di¡ering perceptions.#2001 Academic PressIntroduction

The designation and subsequent management of

protected areas are statutory and international ob- ligations for nation states. In Europe, a legacy of historical legislation for wildlife conservation, na- tional parks, biosphere reserves and protected land- scapes is supported by new obligations under the

UN Convention on Biological Diversity1

, and the

Habitats Directive of the European Union

2 .The main strategy for implementing nature conservation is the establishment and appropriate management of protected areas (''in-situconservation""). It is also considered desirable to extend the basis of protec- tion to adjacent and connected areas. This approach incorporates the sympathetic actions of people to avoid continuing damage to species and ecosystems (SRU, 2000: 29). According to the IUCN (The World

Conservation Union), protected areas support the

well-being of societies, through 'maintaining those essential ecological processes that depend on natur- al ecosystems, preserving the diversity of species and the genetic variation within them, safeguarding habitats critical for the sustainable use of species, securing landscapes and wildlife that enrich human experience through their beauty and providing op-portunities for community development, scienti¢c research, education, training, recreation, tourism, and mitigation of the forces of natural hazards" (McNeely, 1995: 2).

In Germany, the drive to protect potentially

threatened areas is so strong that inadequate atten- tion is paid to the sensitivities and traditions of lo- cal landusers and residents.This lack of empathy on the part of the German nature conservation autho- rities has led to widespread resistance to protected areas management and a strong sense of solidarity in opposition. This paper examines the social-psy- chological processes at work, and indicates possible ways forward towards possible reconciliation.

Contradictions in German nature conservation

The current picture of nature conservation and pro- tected area establishment and management in Ger- many is characterized by twin contradictions. One is that the German Government appreciates the widely accepted goals of nature conservation and protected areas in the ¢rst paragraph in its Federal

Nature Conservation Act (Bundesnaturschutzgesetz}

1Abs.1).This Act rests on a fundamentalist positionJournal of Environmental Psychology(2001)21,000^000 0272-4944/01/000000+00$35.00/0#2001 Academic Pressdoi:10.1006/jevp.2001.0228, available online at http://www.idealibrary.com on

JEVP: 20010228 7.00a/W (Sep 25 2000) GRACY manju/bala regarding the protection of nature (SRU, 2000: 28). In support of this objective, the German Council of

Environmental Advisors bemoans the continuing

damage to whole ecosystems, resulting in the wide- spread loss of natural and semi-natural habitats and species (ibid:28).Yet a noted feature of German nat- ure conservation policy lies in the inability to re- verse these disappointing outcomes (Fremuth, 1995:

48; Panek, 1999: 268; SRU, 2000).

The complementary contradiction is that when

theL?nder(Federal states), constitutionally respon- sible for the establishment of protected areas, seek to implement nature conservation regulations they face considerable opposition from the people living in and around the areas a¡ected. The German Gov- ernment points out that 'in the past, there was never a less disputed subject in society than nature conservation. Everyone, from ecologists to the Con- servative camp of politics, shared the view that it made sense to protect nature for its own sake. These days, rather than being a point of agreement, nature conservation is riddled withcon£ict. The de- bates about the Schleswig-Holstein Wadden Sea (Schleswig Holsteinisches Wattenmeer) National Park and the Lower Oder Valley (Unteres Odertal)Na- tional Park dominate entire election campaigns. What is new today is that con£icts over National Parks involve extensive polarisation" (Federal Minis- try for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety 1999: 12). The reasons for this contin- uous con£ict can partly be explained through so- cial-psychological perspectives, hence the purpose of this article.

This kind of opposition isn"t a particular German

phenomenon.'Open protests and rallies against pro- tected areas, attacks on park guards, poisoning of animals, deliberate burning of forests have become common in many countries" (Pretty & Pimbert,

1995, 7). McNeely (1995: 3) observes that con£icts

withlocal people can be found everywhere, since the establishment of protected areas often requires explicit restrictions.

The purpose of this paper is four fold:

.to review the current diculties associated withproposing and managing protected areas in Germany withspeci¢c references to case studies .to describe the methodology used to examine the reasons for con£ict based on sequential interviewing of key individuals, and the deployment of grounded theory .to explain the model of opposition to protected areas designation andmanagement developed from the relevant literature and ¢eld evidence .to consider innovative ways of seeking greater consensus over the designation and management of protected areas in Germany.

Problems of protected areas in Germany

McNeely (1995: 2¡) indicates that the most impor- tant general problems protected areas face are 'weak national constituency, con£icts withlocal people, con£icts withother government agencies, in- sucient management, and insecure and insucient funding". Most of these dilemmas can be found in

Germany, as this quote about the German experi-

ence concerning the status of national biodiversity planning shows:

There were several obstacles or challenges in the

strategy process, including the lack of adequate per- sonnel, potential problems concerning the willing- ness of the local government (L?nder) to carry out nature conservation e¡orts, and insucient ¢nan- cial resources (Miller & Lanou, 1995, 96).

Weak national constituency

The general policy framework for nature conserva-

tion policy has changed in recent years. There has been a growing tendency to neglect nature conser- vation in order to focus on a range of social and economic problems suchas unemployment. Given this background, nature conservation is losing poli- tical status to be replaced by a sense of interna- tional obligation and symbolic signi¢cance (M˛ller,

1995: 28; Panek, 1999, 266).

The low political weighting given by politicians

over the implementation of nature conservation pol- icy is a matter of concern to the German conserva- tion lobby: Nature conservation policy is an unattractive ¢eld for politicians. Nature conservation doesn"t enjoy the advocacy of interests with considerable political and societal clout. This is wholly in contrast to the positional power of the lobbies in other areas of so- ciety and economy. Political engagement over nature conservation is not at all capable of winning a ma- jority and is not regarded as relevant for the main- tenance of power (SRU, 1996: 53).

Con£icts with other government agencies

In Germany the commentary by McNeely (1995: 3)

applies: 'the agencies responsible for protected areas

2S. Stoll-Kleemann

JEVP: 20010228 7.00a/W (Sep 25 2000) GRACY manju/bala tend to be relatively weak in the government struc- ture, leaving them vulnerable to policy con£icts and budgets cuts". The demarcated sectoral structure of political in- stitutions makes the cross-policy handling of nature conservation issues muchmore dicult to ensure. The strong in£uence of other political sectors and the so called 'resort egoisms" reduce the room for manoeuvre for nature conservation policy. This in- adequacy of policy cohesion is also noticeable in the handling of land use planning. The result is a patchwork of inconsistent decisions that adversely a¡ect the integrity of the landscape (SRU, 1996: 59;

Panek, 1999: 268).

Inadequate management

This inadequacy is especially noticeable in nature reserves and national parks, the two strictest cate- gories of protected areas from a nature conserva- tion viewpoint. These two designations are aimed at little or no human intervention, so as to favour the conservation of the greatest possible variety of indigenous plants and animals. A review of existing and potential national parks in Germany has shown that national parks continue to be exploited, mak- ing a mockery of their purported classi¢cation (F?-

NAD and BfN, 1997: 257). For nature conservation

zones a further review (Haarmann & Pretscher,

1988) has shown that about 20 per cent of them are

in a bad ecological state, withthe majority moder- ately impaired. About 80 per cent of suchreserves showed distinctly adverse traces of human interven- tion (Haarmann & Pretscher, 1988).

Some conservation managers misread these cir-

cumstances. They 'have considered their challenges to be primarily ecological rather than social, eco- nomic, and political; they have thus considered their management problems in a narrow ecological sense rather than in terms involving adjacent areas, local people, and other sectors" (McNeely, 1995: 4).

Insecure and insucient funding

The funding of protected areas is regarded as insuf- ¢cient to ensure the integrity of nature conserva- tion measures (Panek, 1999: 268). For German nature parks the funding for management is not only low. It is also very unstable and decreasing, so that comprehensive and prolonged intervention and protection, so essential for reliable nature conserva- tion, is impossible (BTE, 1993: 27; SRU, 1996: 59). The national park administrations do not even haveenoughmoney to meet their statutory obligations (F?NAD & BfN, 1997: 246).

Con£icts with local people

Opposition to protected areas in Germany comes

primarily from local social and political interests intent on safeguarding what they regard as their traditions and their liberties. Opposition is aimed bothat the processes of designation, and also of subsequent proposals for conservation management of land and natural resources. Opposition is ex- pressed by local and regional authorities in particu- lar by some mayors and by politicians, sometimes representing parties opposing the local or regional government, but sometimes even representing the governing party. Con£ict is also evident amongst forest administrators, farmers and via active citi- zens" groups. The latter are mostly organized in lo- cal, regional or national citizen initiatives, e.g. in the 'Federal Association of Persons Concerned by

National Parks"/'Bundesverband der Nationalpark-

betro¡enen", a union of about 40 di¡erent regional associations. Opposition to protected areas is also manifested in other ways, from public demonstra- tions, to boycotts of public meetings seeking the es- tablishment of such areas. Persistent protest against protected areas can also take on violent forms: in some protected areas signboards were stolen or de- stroyed, barriers were pulled away, and where prohi- bitions laid down in individual regulations for protected zones were deliberately disregarded (for more detailed overviews see Stoll, 1999; Stoll-Klee- mann, 2001a). We shall see that this opposition is not, in itself, a function of misplaced and misapplied management based on a weak mandate. It is actually coherent in its own right. Even if management measures were to be strengthened, the reasons for the opposi- tion need to be understood before it can be con- structively incorporated in future management practice. This is the purpose of the model intro- duced below.

Methodology

Social psychologists have recently begun to address the issues associated with the promotion of nature conservation strategies. Consequently there are still relatively few speci¢c theories to apply (see Stoll,

1999; Schenk, 2000; Ho¢nger, 2001). Stern & Oskamp

(1991: 1059) state?referring to conservation of land and biological resources?'there appears to be A Model Explaining Opposition to Protected Areas in Germany3 JEVP: 20010228 7.00a/W (Sep 25 2000) GRACY manju/bala almost no psychological literature on them". Some areas of analysis that have been looked at by social psychologists that could be used here include the di¡erent perceptions of user groups and managers (see Pitt & Zube, 1991), the underlying causes of so- cial dilemmas (see van Vugtet al., 1996; Dawes &

Messick, 2000) or literature and researchon con-

£icts about siting industrial plants or solving long existing group con£icts through mediating such con£icts (see Fietkau & Weidner, 1998; Zillessen,

1998).

Up to now the analysis of opposition to nature

conservation strategies has focused on con£icts due to overlapping or competing uses of resources. This is not the 'core" issue in Germany (see Federal

Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation

and Nuclear Safety 1999: 12). It also usually starts from an assumption that opposition is based on in- complete knowledge or concern for the environmen- tal bene¢ts associated withnatural areas designation. Consequently, solutions tend to rely onquotesdbs_dbs27.pdfusesText_33

[PDF] BFOEncoder output

[PDF] BFQ - 575 - Stylo.ca

[PDF] BFTA - N15 - Artisans du Monde

[PDF] BFV Spielordnung - Stand 1. Juli 2015

[PDF] BF_BROCHURE_BENEFICIAIRE_COFFRET Juin - France

[PDF] BF_BROCHURE_BENEFICIAIRE_COFFRET Juin 2015.indd - Anciens Et Réunions

[PDF] BG 66D - M-Jardin.fr - Anciens Et Réunions

[PDF] BG Ingénieurs Conseils SAS - France

[PDF] BG Regeln Lagereinrichtung

[PDF] BG-2014-6 MINUTES OF THE OPEN SESSION MEETING OF THE

[PDF] BG-RS 2845 CB - Anciens Et Réunions

[PDF] BG-Turbo - Anciens Et Réunions

[PDF] BG-Turbo Carter 405 T16 - Anciens Et Réunions

[PDF] BG-Turbo Carter GT Turbo

[PDF] BG-Turbo Carter R21 Turbo - Anciens Et Réunions