Convention
Fr ench edition:
P a y sa g e et dévelo ppement
d ur abl e
– Le s enjeu x de
La C onvent ion eur o péenne
d u pa y sa g e
ISB N-10: 92-871-5988-2
ISB N-13: 978-92-871-5988-5
T he o pinion s e x pr e ssed in t hi s wor k ar e t he r e spon sibil it y o f t he
aut hor(s) and d o
not
nece ssar il y r e fl ect
t he o fficial pol ic y o f t he C ouncil
o f E ur o pe.
All r ights r eser ved. No par t
of this pu blication may
be tr anslated, r e pr oduced
or
tr ansmitted, in any f or m
or by any means,
electr onic (CD-R om, Inter net,
etc.)
or mechanical, including photocopying,
r ecor ding or any
inf or mation stor age or
r etr ieval system, without
pr ior per mission
in wr iting
f r om the Pu blic
Inf or mation
and Pu blications Division,
Dir ector ate of Communication
(F-67075 Str as bour g
Cedex or pu
[email protected]).
Photo: Jean-Fr ançois Seguin
“On the Long Str and, an
Ir ish beach, pe bbles unite
in their diversity as
if in
homage to the Eur opean Landsca pe
Convention”
© Council of Eur ope
Cover design: Gr a phic Design Unit,
Council of Eur ope
Text pr oof r eading and layout
by the Documents and Pu blications
Pr oduction
De par tment (SPDP),
Council of Eur ope
Council of Eur ope Pu blishing
F-67075 Str as bour g Cedex
htt p:/ book .coe.int
Pr inted at the Council of Eur ope
Pr ef ace
The Eur opean Landsca pe Convention
was adopted in Flor ence
(Italy) on
20 Octo ber 2000 under the
aus pices of the Council
of Eur ope, with the aim
of
pr omoting Eur opean landsca pe
pr otection, management and planning,
and
or ganising Eur opean co-oper ation
in this ar ea. It
r e pr esents the first
inter national
tr eaty to be exclusively concer ned
with all as pects
of Eur opean landsca pe.
It
a pplies to the entir e
terr itor y of the par ties
and covers natur al,
r ur al, ur ban and
per i-ur ban ar eas. It
concer ns landsca pes that might be
consider ed outstanding as
well
as ever yday or degr aded landsca pes.
The convention r e pr esents an
im por tant contr i bution
to the im plementation of
the
Council of Eur ope’s o b jectives, namely to
pr omote democr acy,
human r ights
and the r ule of law
and to seek common solutions
to the main pr o blems
f acing
Eur opean society today. By
tak ing into account landsca pe,
cultur al and natur al
values, the
Council of Eur ope seek s to
pr otect Eur opeans’ quality of life
and well-
being in
a sustaina ble development
pers pective.
TheCouncil of Eur ope has under tak en a
wor k aiming at examining and illustr ating
cer tain f undamental
as pects of the convention:
Landsca pe and
– social, economic, cultur al
and ecological a ppr oaches;
– individual
and social well- being;
– s patial planning;
– identification, assessment
and quality o b jectives;
– awar eness-r aising, tr aining
and education;
– inter national policies
and pr ogr ammes; tr ansf r ontier landsca pes;
– pu blic par tici pation.
This book has been pr oduced
thank s to the Council
of Eur ope ex per ts’
r e por ts
and to the r esults of the wor k shops which
have tak en place on the
im plementation
of the Eur opean Landsca pe
Convention and have ena bled
s pecific exam ples and
cases to be used to
illustr ate the same themes.1 The
var ious r esulting pu blications
may thus be examined together .
Our thank s go to Messrs
Michel Pr ieur , Yves
Lugin bühl, Bas Pedr oli,
Jan Diek Van Mansvelt,
Ber tr and de Montmollin and
Flor encio Zoido f or
the
excellent
quality of their contr i butions to the de bate.
1. Documents T-FLOR 2 (2002) 18
and 18 addendum and
T-FLOR (3 (2002) 12. Also see
Council of
Eur ope Pu blishing,
Eur opean s patial planning
and landsca pe ser ies, 2005,
No. 72 and 2006, No. 74.
3
Land sca pe
and su st ainabl e
develo pment
The
r e por ts wer e pr esented to two
Confer ences of the
Contr acting and Signator y
States to the Eur opean Landsca pe
Convention, held bef or e the
convention even
came into f or ce, the first
on 22 and 23 Novem ber 2001,
the second on 28 and
29 Novem ber 2002 and to the
confer ence held when the
convention came into
f or ce, on 17 June 2004.2
The r e pr esentatives of
gover nments and of
inter national
gover nmental and non-gover nmental or ganisations
who attended these confer ences
thus had the oppor tunity to
discuss the r elevant issues
and to tak e the first ste ps
towar ds optimum im plementation
of the convention.
The main featur e of the
Eur opean Landsca pe Convention,
which is wholly
dedicated to landsca pe, meaning
landsca pe as a whole,
is the way it in which it
calls f or the landsca pe to
be valued as a pr oduct
of histor y, the f ount
of cultur al
identity, a
her itage to be shar ed, and
a r eflection of a
Eur ope of multi plicity.
The task ahead, an
am bitious one, is hugely im por tant
to the
f utur e of our land and
our surr oundings.
We wish ever y success to those who
ar e committed to it.
Maguelonne Dé jeant-Pons
and Landsca pe Division
Council of Eur ope
Enr ico Buer gi
Convention Confer ences,
2001-2004
2. Documents T-FLOR 1 (2001) 19, T-FLOR 2
(2002) 27 and T-FLOR (2004) 15.
4
Pr eam ble to the convention
M ichel P r ieur ,
e x per t t o t he C ouncil
o f E ur o pe
Intr oduction........................................................................................................
11
1.1.1. Well- being f or all
...................................................................................
13
1.1.2. Sustaina ble development
.......................................................................
15
1.2.
The pr inci ples of the convention............................................................
17
1.2.1. The integr ation
pr inci ple........................................................................
18
1.2.2.
The consistency pr inci ple ......................................................................
21
1.3. Essential
instr uments .............................................................................
22
1.3.1. Institutional
instr uments.........................................................................
22
1.3.2. Inf or mation
and par tici pation arr angements
.......................................... 24
2. Landscape and individual
and social well-being
Pr eam ble to the convention
Y ve s Lu ginbühl ,
e x per t t o t he C ouncil
o f E ur o pe
Intr oduction........................................................................................................
31
2.1.1. Individual well- being
.............................................................................
34
2.1.2.
Social well- being ...................................................................................
35
2.2. Landsca pe
and well- being......................................................................
36
2.2.1. Landsca pe and
individual physical well- being
...................................... 36
2.2.2. Landsca pe and
individual s pir itual well- being
...................................... 39
2.2.3. Landsca pe
and mater ial well- being .......................................................
41
2.2.4. Landsca pe
and social well- being
...........................................................
41
2.3.
Do contem por ar y landsca pes pr oduce
individual and social
well- being?.............................................................................................
43
2.3.1. R ationalisation
of activities f or gr eater pr oductivity
............................. 44
2.3.2. The quest
f or immediate pr ofit
and/or the logic of s peed
...................... 45
2.3.3.
The disa ppear ance of the cultur e of natur e
in f avour of technological
or vir tual cultur e.....................................................................................
47
2.3.4.
The difficulty of secur ing pu blic par tici pation....................................... 47
2.3.5.
The tr end towar ds the monetar isation
of non-mar k et goods .................
48
2.4. The Eur opean Landsca pe
Convention’s contr i butions to
individual
and social well- being
.............................................................................
49
Conclusion
......................................................................................................... 51
Land sca pe
and su st ainabl e
develo pment
3. Landscape and spatial planning policies
Ar ticle 5 of the convention
F lor encio
Z oid o N ar anjo ,
e x per t t o t he C ouncil
o f E ur o pe
Intr oduction........................................................................................................ 55
3.1.
Eur opean s patial planning pr actice
........................................................ 57
3.2. Syner gies between landsca pe
and s patial planning................................
63
3.3. Landsca pe
in s patial planning instr uments
at differ ent scales ............... 66
3.3.1. The Eur opean scale
...............................................................................
67
3.3.2. National and r egional scales
..................................................................
71
3.3.3.
The local scale........................................................................................
74
Ar ticle 6 of the convention
Ber t r and
de M ont moll in ,
e x per t t o t he C ouncil
o f E ur o pe
Intr oduction.........................................................................................................
83
4.1.1. The
ex per ience of Switzer land................................................................86
4.1.2. The ex per ience of Italy
...........................................................................87
4.1.3. The
ex per ience of Slovenia: s patial planning
and sustaina ble
development in
Slovenia.........................................................................
92
4.1.4. The ex per ience of the
United K ingdom:
as pects of landsca pe
char acter isation and assessment in the
UK .............................................
93
4.2. Towar ds the development
of innovative tools
........................................ 93
5. Landscape and identification, assessment
and quality ob jectives
Ar ticle 6 of the convention
Y ve s Lu ginbühl ,
e x per t t o t he C ouncil
o f E ur o pe
Intr oduction........................................................................................................
99
5.1. Identif ying and
assessing landsca pes,
and f or mulating landsca pe
quality o b jectives: a
new political f r amewor k .......................................
99
5.1.1. Identification
........................................................................................
100
5.1.4. Cultur al
and natur al r esour ces .............................................................
103
5.2. Identif ying and
assessing landsca pes, f or mulating landsca pe quality
o b jectives: efficient and
innovative methods
....................................... 104
5.2.1. Landsca pe identification and
assessment methods .............................. 105
5.2.2. The f or mulation
of landsca pe quality o b jectives
................................. 113
Conclusion
.......................................................................................................
114
Ar ticle 6 of the convention
Ba s P ed r ol i
and J an Diek Van M an svel t ,
e x per t s t o t he C ouncil
o f E ur o pe
Intr oduction.......................................................................................................
119
6.1. Awar eness-r aising, education
and tr aining
f or living landsca pes ........
121
6.1.1. Connection with and commitment
to the landsca pe .............................
121
6.1.2. Education and tr aining as
human r esour ce development......................
123
6.2.
Inter acting dimensions of landsca pe
..................................................... 129
6.2.1. Landsca pe, a
young conce pt f or understanding
and f or management .. 129
6.2.2. The f actual, the r ight
and the r eal
landsca pe......................................... 129
6.2.3. The natur al, the social
and the cultur al
landsca pe ................................ 130
6.2.4. On identity, char acter ,
cultur e and physical a ppear ance
....................... 134
6.2.5.
Com pati bility of landsca pe per ce ptions................................................
136
6.3.
Pr actical consequences..........................................................................
137
6.3.1. The power of exam ples
.........................................................................
137
6.3.2. Basic inf or mation needed on
r elevant par ameters
................................ 137
6.4. Towar ds action
......................................................................................
138
6.4.1. Questions and pr eliminar y
answers
...................................................... 138
6.4.2. Im plementation
.....................................................................................
139
6.5. Synopsis: the Eur opean Landsca pe
Convention, a par adox?................ 140
Additional r efer ences
........................................................................................
140
7. Landscape and policies,
international programmes
and transf rontier
landscapes
Ar ticles 9 and 12
of the convention
M ichel P r ieur ,
e x per t t o t he C ouncil
o f E ur o pe
Intr oduction.......................................................................................................
143
7.1. Integr ation
of the landsca pe into
inter national policies and
pr ogr ammes...........................................................................................
144
7.1.2. Methods of achieving
integr ation
......................................................... 149
7.2.
Tr ansf r ontier landsca pes
.......................................................................
154
7.2.1. Per manent
instr uments f or local
and r egional tr ansf r ontier
co-oper ation
..........................................................................................
154
Conclusion
........................................................................................................
160
Ar ticles 5.c and 6.D
of the convention
M ichel P r ieur and S yl vie Dur ou sseau ,
e x per t s t o t he C ouncil
o f E ur o pe
Intr oduction.......................................................................................................
165
7
Land sca pe
and su st ainabl e
develo pment
8.1.
The r equir ements of the
Eur opean Landsca pe Convention with
r egar d to
pu blic par tici pation
................................................................
166
8.2.
The r equir ements of theAar hus
Convention with r egar d to
pu blic par tici pation
...............................................................................
170
8.3.
A pplica ble law r egar ding par tici pation
in cer tain Eur opean states ......
173
8.3.1. The pu blic affected
by the definition
and/or im plementation of
landsca pe policies
.................................................................................
173
8.3.2. Pu blic policy affected
by par tici pation pr ocedur es
in landsca pe
matters...................................................................................................
179
8.3.3. Par tici pation pr ocedur es
s pecific to im plementation
of the
r equir ements of Ar ticle
5.c....................................................................
181
8.3.4. Par tici pation pr ocedur es
s pecific to the definition
of landsca pe-
quality o b jectives (Ar ticle 6.D).............................................................
190
8.3.5. Par tici pation pr ocedur es
s pecific to
a par ticular landsca pe or
terr itor y .................................................................................................
192
8.3.6.
Pr ovisions designed to f oster the
emer gence of a
landsca pe cultur e
among the author ities
and the population
............................................. 195
8.3.7. Pu blic influence on the
final decision
................................................... 198
8.3.8. The effect of par tici pation
pr ocedur es on the integr ation
of
landsca pe concer ns in the
im plementation
of pu blic policies............... 199
8.4.
Pr oposals f or im pr oving pu blic par tici pation
in landsca pe
pr otection, management and planning
.................................................. 199
8.4.1. Landsca pe awar eness
and education.....................................................
200
8.4.2. Tr aining and r esear ch
in landsca pe matters
.......................................... 202
8.4.3.
The pr ocedur es f or par tici pation
in landsca pe matters ........................
203
8.4.4. The integr ation
of landsca pe pr otection
in differ ent sector al
policies
..................................................................................................206
A ppendices
A ppendix 1:
Questionnair e r elating to the
im plementation of
Ar ticles 5.c and 6.D of the
Eur opean Landsca pe Convention.... 209
A ppendix 2: Section 6
of the Fr ench constitutional law
No. 2003-276
of 28 Mar ch 2003
on the decentr alised or ganisation
of the
R e pu blic,
Jour nal officiel de la
R é pu blique f r ançaise
No. 75 of
29 Mar ch 2003, page 5568
.........................................................212
A ppendix 3: Dir ective
No. 2003/35/EC of 26
May 2003, pr oviding
f or pu blic par tici pation,
OJEC, No. L 156 of 25 June 2003,
A ppendix
II.................................................................................212
ecological appr oaches
M ichel P r ieur ,
e x per t t o t he C ouncil
o f E ur o pe
“T he member S t at e s
o f t he C ouncil
o f E ur o pe
sig nat or y
her et o [ ... ]
C oncer ned t o achieve
su st ainabl e develo pment
ba sed on
a bal anced
and har moniou s
r el at ion shi p bet ween
social
need s , economic act ivit y
and t he envir onment ...”
Intr oduction
As the first r egional
inter national convention exclusively to do with landsca pe, the
convention opened f or signatur e in
Flor ence on 20
Octo ber 2000 has
ar oused gr eat
inter est among Council of Eur ope mem ber
states. In a moder n way in k ee ping with
the universal pr inci ples of the
R io
Declar ation, the convention r eflects the
Council
of Eur ope’s main o b jectives:
democr acy, extension
of human r ights to tak e
in the
envir onment, and hel ping
solve the main pr o blems
of contem por ar y
Eur opean
society. It also gives pr actical effect
to the joint
Council of Eur ope-United Nations
Envir onment Pr ogr amme Pan-Eur opean
Str ategy f or Biological
and Landsca pe
Diversity which envir onment ministers of 55
Eur opean countr ies
a ppr oved at
Sofia on 25 Octo ber 1995.Action Theme
No. 4 in the 1996-2000Action
Plan was
entitled “Conser vation of landsca pes”,
and the aims to be achieved
by the year
2000 wer e:
“To pr event
f ur ther deter ior ation
of the landsca pes and
their associated cultur al and
geological her itage in Eur ope,
and to pr eser ve their beauty
and identity. To corr ect the
lack of integr ated per ce ption
of landsca pes as
a unique mosaic of cultur al, natur al
and
geological featur es and to
esta blish a better
pu blic and policy-mak er
awar eness and
mor e suita ble pr otection status f or these
featur es thr oughout Eur ope.”
The Eur opean Landsca pe Convention
can be r egar ded as
having am ply r isen to
those challenges: it goes well beyond
mer e pr otection
of landsca pes to concer n
itself with landsca pe management and
development, and it pr omotes
pu blic and
official awar eness of the
need to be attentive to all
k inds of landsca pe,
whether
or dinar y ones, outstanding ones or
s poilt ones.
The now gener al r ecognition
that all landsca pe has a social,
economic, cultur al
and ecological f unction is due to landsca pe’s contr i bution – as the pr eam ble to the
convention ex pr essly states – both to the community’s well- being
and sustaina ble
development. In s pite of its
a ppar ent
a bstr actness, landsca pe, thr ough
its physical
com position and
its psychological dimension, meets
im por tant social and cultur al
needs while also playing a par t
in ecological and economic
f unctions. This
com bination of char acter istics,
r eflecting landsca pe’s multi plicity of
f unctions, is
unique. The Eur opean Landsca peConvention sets out to
convince decision mak ers
and the pu blic of the pr esent
and potential wealth which all
landsca pes possess and
of the need f or all
ar eas
of official policy to tak e this
f actor , which
is now better
a ppr eciated, into account.
Why landsca pe “ policies” in
the plur al? Although Ar ticle
1.b of the convention
uses the singular in defining the ter m “landsca pe policy”, the deli ber ate
em phasis
is on avoiding im posing any
one model in landsca pe
matters. The concer n, in
11
13
r eci pes but
the methodology to use in
or der to attain what
the pr eam ble states to be
the convention’s two main
o b jectives:
– individual
and social well- being;
– sustaina ble development based
on a balanced and
har monious r elationshi p
between social needs, economic activity
and the envir onment.
Thus it is f or the
Par ties, thr ough active
monitor ing committees,8 to back
u p
convention im plementation with
Eur opean co-oper ation based on
exchange
of ex per ience and inf or mation
and on demonstr ation of
successes or f ailur es.
It is hoped this will pr oduce
a k ind of illustr ated,
collectively pr oduced users’
manual to the convention,
guar anteeing consistency of o b jectives, pr inci ples
and
im plementation tools.
Below
we shall be consider ing what, f or the pur poses of the
Eur opean Landsca pe
Convention, constitutes the
actual f oundations of landsca pe policies.
In or der to be
a ble to f or mulate clear ly,
and then im plement, landsca pe policies, ther e
ar e var ious
pr er equisites.
They r elate to differ ent
conce ptual and mater ial levels. First
we need
a clear statement of the
o b jectives of the new
Eur opean landsca pe policy
– why
a landsca pe convention? We
will then pr esent two k ey
pr inci ples of convention
accession and im plementation.
Lastly, to have pr oper landsca pe policies, par ties to
the convention must esta blish at least minimum
machiner y in ter ms of institutions
and exer cise of r es ponsi bilities on the one hand
and inf or mation arr angements and
pu blic par tici pation in
line with the convention on access to
inf or mation, pu blic
par tici pation in decision
mak ing and access to justice
in envir onmental matters
(Aar hus, 25 June 1998)
on the other .
1.1.
The ob jectives of the convention
The Eur opean Landsca pe Convention tak es
as its star ting point
the o bser va ble f act
of landsca pe deter ior ation
in Eur ope,
in ter ms of landsca pe quality
and diversity,
as a r esult of numer ous and
var ied f actors.
Incr eased pu blic and official
awar eness
in Council of Eur ope
mem ber states has gone hand in
hand with pr esent-day
insistence on quality of life
in an uns poilt envir onment, yet at
the same time on
having the benefit of a
degr ee of economic development.
That is why the convention’s main
o b jectives ar e concer ned
with guar anteeing
both well- being f or all and what
has been k nown, since the
Br undtland r e por t “Our
common f utur e”,9 as
sustaina ble development.
1.1.1. Well-being f or all
Human activity – whether
industr y, agr icultur e and
f or estr y, or constr uction
of
inf r astr uctur e and
buildings f or var ious pur poses –
has visual as well as physical
8.Ar ticle 10 of the Eur opean
Landsca pe Convention.
9. Gr o Har lem Br undtland, Wor ld Health
Or ganization, 1987.
Land sca pe
and social , economic,
cul tur al and
ecolo gical a ppr oache s
13
Land sca pe
and su st ainabl e
develo pment
im pact, modif ying the
individual’s per ce ption of his
or her surr oundings. It may
even cause what
some people descr i be as
visual pollution.
The landsca pe is a
f amiliar par t of
ever yone’s daily scene and plays
a par t in
people’s sense of belonging to
a par ticular place and
a par ticular community. So
on
a conscious or even unconscious level
it
contr i butes to mental well- being,
and
uns poilt landsca pes per ha ps
ther ef or e play a par t in
com bating violence. Those
who visit or ex plor e an
ar ea, as tour ists or
f or wor k , tak e
away an im pr ession
of a par ticular identity
and a local distinctiveness,
leading them to judge their
ex per ience of the ar ea
positively or negatively. Both
local people and the
visitor
will see the landsca pe as
a f actor in quality of life or the lack of it.
As stated in Ar ticle 5.a of
the Eur opean Landsca pe Convention,
landsca pes ar e
“an essential com ponent of people’s
surr oundings, an ex pr ession
of the diversity
of their shar ed cultur al
and natur al her itage, and
a f oundation
of their identity”. It
is because landsca pe is
indissocia ble f r om people’s
surr oundings that it “is a k ey
element of individual and social
well- being”, as affir med
in the pr eam ble to the
convention.
Clear ly, then, the
convention’s pur pose is to do
ever ything possi ble to
pr eser ve that
individual and collective well- being
by means of officially f or mulated landsca pe
policies
instead of letting landsca pes tak e sha pe
and evolve s pontaneously.
The f act that landsca pe involves a
sensitive r elationshi p to an
ar ea, without any
ownershi p link between the
beholder and the beheld, changes
landsca pe into a
genuine “common r esour ce”,10 in
other wor ds a collective visual
asset or item of
common her itage. It
is ther ef or e only to be
ex pected that
society should tak e ste ps
to pr eser ve that her itage
f or pr esent and f utur e
gener ations. The
ex planator y r e por t
to the convention
(par agr a ph 30) ex pr esses this
ver y well:
“In their diversity and
quality, the cultur al and
natur al values link ed to
Eur opean
landsca pes ar e par t
of Eur ope’s common her itage,
and so Eur opean countr ies
have a
duty to mak e collective
pr ovisions f or the
pr otection, management and planning
of
these values.” 11
As, ther ef or e, landsca pe
is both an essential com ponent
of community well- being
and a common asset, the individual
has r ights and duties in
r es pect of that asset,
which is am ple justification,
if any wer e needed,
f or the o bligation
– r e peatedly
stated in the convention – to
involve the community in
landsca pe policies (we
shall come to this in due
course). The
pr eam ble to the convention
gives a clear
statement
of the close link between the
individual’s r ights and duties and
concer n
f or well- being:
“Believing that the landsca pe is a
k ey element of individual and
social well- being
and that its pr otection, management and
planning entail r ights and
r es ponsi bilities
f or
ever yone.”
10.
Penultimate par agr a ph of the pr eam ble to the
Eur opean Landsca pe Convention.
11. Par agr a ph 36 of the
Ex planator y R e por t of the
Eur opean Landsca pe Convention.
14
1.1.2. Sustainable development
The Eur opean Landsca pe Convention’s
second main pur pose is to
hel p achieve
sustaina ble development.
Landsca pe is a com ponent
of the envir onment, just lik e
water , air and biological
diversity. Consequently landsca pe
policies must be so
f or mulated as to fit in
with the o b jectives
of sustaina ble development. As
ex plained in the
ex planator y
r e por t:
“The concer n f or sustaina ble
development ex pr essed at the 1992
R io de Janeir o
confer ence mak es landsca pe an
essential consider ation in
str ik ing a balance
between
pr eser ving the natur al
and cultur al her itage as a
r eflection of Eur opean identity
and
diversity, and using it as an
economic r esour ce ca pa ble
of gener ating em ployment in
the context of the boom
in sustaina ble tour ism.”
This is why the
pr eam ble to the convention
gives pr ominence to
sustaina ble
development
as one of the tr eaty’s o b jectives:
“Concer ned to achieve sustaina ble
development based on a balanced
and har monious
r elationshi p between social needs, economic
activity and the envir onment.”
In a statement to theCouncil of Eur opeEncounters at
Segovia (S pain) the secr etar y
gener al of Eur opa Nostr a
r eferr ed to Italy’s
setting u p pilot ar eas f or
landsca pe
pr otection and enhancement:
“The over all cost of an
integr ated pr ogr amme of that
k ind would undou btedly be
gr eater ,
he said, than s por adic
action but the money was an investment,
not economically
unpr oductive ex penditur e. The pilot
zones would show by exam ple,
which was the
most persuasive way of doing
so, that landsca pe pr otection was
not incom pati ble
with economic development and that, on the
contr ar y, pr otecting and
enhancing the
landsca pe was a pr er equisite
f or sustaina ble economic development.”12
Sustaina ble development is now a
goal built into all envir onmental
policy, and
landsca pe action is consistently
r eferr ed to as a
f actor , of no less
significance
than others, in sustaina ble development.
It is wor th dr awing
attention, her e, to
the two basic pr inci ples that
sha pe the content
of sustaina ble development. These
ar e Pr inci ples 3 and 4
of the 1992 R io de Janeir o
Declar ation on envir onment and
development:
Pr inci ple 3: “T he r ight
t o develo pment mu st be
f ul fill ed so
a s t o equit abl y
meet
develo pment al and envir onment al
need s o f pr e sent
and f utur e g ener at ion s.”
Pr inci ple 4: “ I n
or der t o achieve
su st ainabl e develo pment ,
envir onment al
pr ot ect ion shall con st itut e
an int e g r al par t
o f t he
develo pment pr oce ss and cannot
be
con sider ed in i sol at ion f r om it .”
12. Antonio Mar chimi Camia, in
a pa per on pr otecting the
landsca pe as a pr ior ity
f or civil society,
Segovia meeting, 6 and 7
A pr il 2000. See Envir onmental
Encounters, “ Awar ene ss
o f t he l and sca pe:
f r om per ce pt ion t o pr ot ect ion”,
Council of Eur ope Pu blishing, 2002,
No. 52, pp. 43-49.
Land sca pe
and social , economic,
cul tur al and
ecolo gical a ppr oache s
15
17
char acter istics and evolution
of landsca pe
in both r ur al and coastal ar eas18
and this
dou bly a pplies in pr otected
ar eas.19
Lastly, cultur al sites of course
need landsca pe policies
gear ed to sustaina bility,
as pointed out in Council
of Eur ope Committee
of Ministers R ecommendation
No. R (95) 9 of 11
Se ptem ber 1995 on the
integr ated conser vation
of cultur al
landsca pe ar eas as par t
of landsca pe policies:
“It is im por tant that landsca pe
policies should dr aw on the
pr inci ples of
sustaina ble
development while str iving, by tak ing
a ppr opr iate measur es, f or com pati bility between
the managed evolution of the
landsca pe and the economic and
social changes which
tend to alter the envir onment.”20
The f act is that by tak ing
car e of the landsca pe
we simultaneously pr omote
communal well- being, safeguar d the
envir onment and pr otect economic
activity.
All f our ingr edients
of sustaina ble development (social,
ecological, economic
and cultur al im pr ovement)
ar e thus involved her e. The
ex planator y r e por t
to the
convention mak es that point
sever al times:
“This [individual, social and cultur al
f ulfilment] may hel p to
pr omote the sustaina ble
development of the ar ea concer ned,
as the quality of landsca pe has
an im por tant bear ing
on the success of economic and social
initiatives, whether pu blic or pr ivate.”21
“These var ious tr eatments
[of landsca pes] may allow an im por tant
socio-economic
development of the
ar eas concer ned.”22
The pr eam ble to the convention, which, legally,
has the same f or ce
as the body of
the text, states the economic as well
as social im pact
of landsca pe:
“… [ t he l and sca pe]
con st itut e s a
r e sour ce
f avour abl e t o economic
act ivit y and
who se pr ot ect ion , mana g ement
and pl annin g can cont r ibut e t o
job cr eat ion.”
1.2. The pr inciples of the
convention
The Eur opean Landsca peConvention contains, both
dir ectly and indir ectly, a lar ge
num ber of pr inci ples.
Ar gua bly the convention’s scope23 is
a pr inci ple in
itself ,
given the innovativeness of stating that
all landsca pes deser ve
attention, r egar dless
of their value and even
if they ar e ever yday
or degr aded landsca pes. It
has been
said that the convention democr atises
landsca pe, tak ing a social
r ather than an
18. See Council of Eur ope
Committee of Ministers R ecommendation No.
R (97) 9 of 2 June 1997 on a
policy f or the development
of sustaina ble
envir onment-f r iendly tour ism
in coastal ar eas.
19. SeeCouncil of Eur opeCommittee of Ministers
R ecommendation No. R (95) 10
of 11Se ptem ber 1995
on a sustaina ble tour ist development
policy in pr otected ar eas.
20. Ar ticle 6.1 of the Council
of Eur ope
Committee of Ministers
R ecommendation No. R (95) 10
of
11 Se ptem ber 1995 on a
sustaina ble tour ist development policy
in pr otected ar eas.
21. Par agr a ph 24 of the
ex planator y r e por t
of the Eur opean Landsca pe Convention.
22. Par agr a ph 27 of the
ex planator y r e por t
of the Eur opean Landsca pe Convention.
23.Ar ticle 2 of the Eur opean
Landsca pe Convention.
Land sca pe
and social , economic,
cul tur al and
ecolo gical a ppr oache s
17
Land sca pe
and su st ainabl e
develo pment
elitist view of it,24 and r ecognises a
human r ight to landsca pe. The convention
also
contains the pr inci ple
of pu blic involvement, which
we shall be look ing at as
an
action tool in that im plementing it
necessitates ada ptation
of pr ocedur es. Nor must
we over look the pr inci ples of su bsidiar ity
and diversity.
We have opted to highlight
two less o bvious pr inci ples
in the convention which,
however , will play a ma jor
r ole in its f utur e
im plementation: the integr ation
pr inci ple
and the consistency pr inci ple.
1.2.1. The integr ation pr inciple
We can connect the integr ation
pr inci ple as r egar ds
envir onment, and thus
landsca pe, to the a bove-quoted
Pr inci ple 4 of the
R io de Janeir o
Declar ation:
landsca pe pr otection needs to be
an integr al par t
of the development pr ocess
and
cannot be tr eated in isolation.
In actual f act ther e
ar e two k inds of
integr ation
her e: integr ating the envir onment
into landsca pe policies, which
is to some extent
the natur al and o bvious
a ppr oach, and integr ating
landsca pe consider ations into
other sectors of activity
and thus building them
into sector al policies. This second
ty pe of integr ation is much mor e com plex, r equir ing
extensive co-or dination at all
levels of decision mak ing.
While the convention ex pr essly
deals with integr ation in the
context of national
measur es, we must not omit to mention
integr ation in the context
of Eur opean
co-oper ation.
Ar ticle 5.d places an
integr ation o bligation on par ties:
“Each Par ty under tak es:
[…]
d . to integr ate landsca pe
into its r egional and town
planning policies and in
its cultur al,
envir onmental, agr icultur al, social
and economic policies, as well
as in any other
policies with possi ble dir ect
or indir ect im pact
on landsca pe.”
The ex planator y r e por t to
the convention states that landsca pe
o b jectives ar e to
be tak en into account in all
r elevant sectors of pu blic
life.25 Building landsca pe
consider ations into policy in this way is
a unique oppor tunity to r econsider
sector al
policies without
narr owly f ocusing r eview on landsca pes which
alr eady have legal
pr otection.
This integr ation is of course viewed
as a pplying to
all stages of action on an
ar ea
– f r om the
f r aming of str ategies, plans or pr ogr ammes to giving per mission f or an
activity or item of inf r astr uctur e.
In the field of s patial planning
and development,
integr ation of sector al policies
consists in giving thought
simultaneously to the
mutual inter actions of a
r ange of activities well
bef or e a final decision
is tak en.
24. R iccar do Pr ior e,
“La Convention eur opéenne du
paysage”, Revue eur o péenne d e d
r oit de
l ’ envir onnement , 2000,
No. 3, p. 285.
25. Par agr a ph 50 of the
Eur opean Landsca pe Convention.
18
Land sca pe
and su st ainabl e
develo pment
landsca pe. In the event
of disagr eement, landsca pe ser vices would have to be
a ble
to veto a pr o ject
or a ppeal to some
higher ar bitr ation body.
The ser vices involved
in such consultation could dr aw
u p non- binding codes of conduct
f or planners
so that ther e would be a
s pecialist document with educational
intent pr oviding a
negotiation f r amewor k .
The k ey questions with the
integr ation pr inci ple ar e, in
actual pr actice, what
ty pe of integr ation
is needed and what
a ppr oach to adopt. Ther e
has to be over all
integr ation of the differ ent
integr ation levels, with pr ovision
f or geogr a phical
integr ation, institutional integr ation,
integr ated planning and
integr ated decision
mak ing. The Inter national
Centr e f or Com par ative
Envir onmental Law made
r ecommendations to this effect
dur ing the pr e par ations
f or the United Nations
Wor ld Summit on Sustaina ble Development in
Johannes bur g.28
Integr ation at the level
of Eur opean co-oper ation is
no less im por tant than
an
integr ated national a ppr oach.
Two ar ticles of the
convention ar e par ticular ly
r elevant her e,Ar ticles 7 and 8.
By under tak ing to tak e the landsca pe dimension into consider ation in inter national
policies and pr ogr ammes
and to co-oper ate f or that
pur pose, states
par ties to the
convention
agr ee, under Ar ticle 7, to
have the
inter national bodies of which they
ar e mem bers tak e landsca pe into
account wher e r elevant. The Eur opean
Landsca pe
Convention must not be an isolated
inter national legal instr ument oper ating
in a
vacuum and must be a dr iving
f or ce to pr omote the
landsca pe conce pt
wher ever
a ppr opr iate. This
“inclusion” of landsca pe (asAr ticle 7 puts
it) is an o bligation on
states not only in the
other Eur opean bodies
of which they ar e
mem bers – such
as, in some cases, the Eur opean Union
or , in others, the United Nations
Economic
Commission f or Eur ope – but
also in wor ld or ganisations, in
par ticular of course
Unesco, thr ough the wor ld
her itage convention, and the
IUC N.
Lastly, the integr ation pr inci ple
must also guide the multilater al
Eur opean co-
oper ation f or which ther e
is pr ovision in Ar ticle
8 of the convention.
By pooling
inf or mation and ex per ience
and arr anging f or technical
and scientific assistance,
including legal
assistance, the par ties to the
Eur opean Landsca pe Convention must
see to it that the integr ation pr inci ple set
out inAr ticle 5.d is pr oper ly
im plemented.
Pr oactive co-oper ation in this
ar ea will consist
in suggesting r emedies or offer ing
advice based on com par ison of
ex per ience, in the f or m of
guidelines, white pa pers
or sets of pr inci ples which
would be dr awn u p by
s pecialist committees under
Council of Eur ope aus pices
and then a ppr oved by the
Confer ence of Par ties.
Ar ticle 8 pr ovides f or
co-oper ation “in or der to
enhance the effectiveness of
measur es tak en under other ar ticles of this
Convention”.
28.
See r ecommendations on integr ated management
of the envir onment in theDeclar ation
of Limoges
II, A Wor ld Meeting
of Envir onment Law S pecialists
and Associations, CIDCE, Limoges, 9
and
10 Novem ber 2001.
Land sca pe
and su st ainabl e
develo pment
secondar y im por tance as a
f actor in biological diversity31 or as a
geogr a phical entity
to be pr otected f or its aesthetic value
(as in many inter national documents on coastal
or mountain zones).32 Consistency
hencef or th r equir es co-or dinated
inter national
action on landsca pe in the
s pir it of the Eur opean
Landsca pe Convention.
Im plementation of joint
pr ogr ammes in the case
of cr oss- bor der
landsca pes, as
pr ovided f or inAr ticle 9, will be
a test
of the consistency pr inci ple when
it comes
to com bining the convention’s pr inci ples with distinctive local,
cultur al and legal
featur es. Lastly, by its
ver y natur e,Ar ticle 12
r eflects the r equir ement that
ther e be
consistency between the
Eur opean Landsca pe Convention
and any other national
or inter national legal instr uments
str icter than it – that
is, mor e
f avour a ble in ter ms
of
effective pr ovision f or the landsca pe.
To gauge consistency given
var ious, of ten contr adictor y,
r equir ements will
need detailed illustr ations of good and
bad pr actice, com plete with
photogr a phs
and documentation, so as to build
u p a var ied ar chive
of exam ples that meet
the r equir ements
of Ar ticle 8 and hel p
mak e the new landsca pe
policy mor e
effective.
1.3. Essential instr uments
Some of the o bligations in the convention r equir e states to
put instr uments in place
if none exist in national legal systems. Those which ar e
clear ly essential f or f r aming
and im plementing landsca pe policies
ar e, first, institutional
instr uments closely
bound u p with exer cise
of powers and, secondly,
par tici pation and
inf or mation
arr angements which meet
the r equir ements of theAar hus
Convention.
1.3.1. Institutional instr uments
Although the convention is silent as to
what institutions need setting u p,
we can
assume that the r equir ements to
f r ame landsca pe policies,33 to
r ecognise landsca pes
in law,34 to esta blish par tici pation
pr ocedur es and to
integr ate landsca pe into
other
policies35
call f or administr ative machiner y to
per f or m those f unctions.
That does not mean ther e necessar ily
has to be a s pecial law dealing
with landsca pe:
giving legal r ecognition to
landsca pe can be done in the
constitution or in any
piece of legislation,
and f or ther e to be
an administr ative de par tment
r es ponsi ble
f or landsca pe does not
r equir e landsca pe legislation.
Conceiva bly ther e could
even be
a law dealing with landsca pe
and giving it legal r ecognition without
any
31.
The biological diversity convention does not
r efer to landsca pe, mer ely r eferr ing
in its pr eam ble to
the r ecr eational or aesthetic significance of some
ingr edients of biological diversity.
32. The im plementing Pr otocol
f or the im plementation
of the Al pine Convention
of 1991 of
20 Decem ber 1994 in the field
of natur e pr otection and
landsca pe conser vation is
mainly concer ned
with the “unique beaut y” (see
pr eam ble) and the
“d iversit y ,
d i st inct ivene ss
and beaut y o f
natur al
l and sca pe s” (Ar ticle 1).
33.Ar ticles 1.b
and 5.b of the Eur opean
Landsca pe Convention.
34.Ar ticle 5.a of the Eur opean
Landsca pe Convention.
35.Ar ticle 5.c and d of the
Eur opean Landsca pe Convention.
22
Land sca pe
and su st ainabl e
develo pment
par tici pation”.54 This wor ding
is open to var ious
inter pr etations. It r eflects
an
o bligation, if not to adopt the
pu blic’s views ex pr essly,
at least not to disr egar d
them and to tak e them into account
as f ar as possi ble.
R eview of the r easons given
in a ppeal pr oceedings bef or e a
higher administr ative author ity or a
cour t will then
test whether due account
has been tak en.
The r eason f or theEur opean
Landsca peConvention’s insistence
on the par tici pative
a ppr oach is a desir e not
so much to f all
in with pr evailing f ashion
as to give legal
r ecognition to the s pecial
featur es of landsca pe.
Landsca pe exists because it is
visi ble. A landsca pe policy which
involved only ex per ts and
administr ators, who
themselves
ar e of ten s pecialists, would r esult
in landsca pes that wer e
im posed on
the pu blic, just as in the days
when landsca pe was pr oduced by
and f or an elite.
Democr atisation of the landsca pe
is not just a question
of the new scope which the
Eur opean Landsca pe Convention
intr oduces; it is also r eflected
in this collective
and individual a ppr opr iation
of all
landsca pes, thr ough the r equir ement
that ther e
be dir ect par tici pation f or all
in
all phases of decision mak ing r egar ding landsca pe
alter ation, su per vision of landsca pe
evolution and pr evention
of r eckless landsca pe
destr uction.
All the mor e account will be
tak en of the outcome of
par tici pation if the
par tici pation pr ocess
itself is pr oof against
cr owd- pleasing tactics on the
one
hand and a bnor mal
pr essur e f r om
par ticular lo bbies on the
other . This entails
achieving balanced involvement of
ex per ts, elected r e pr esentatives, the pu blic
and
the voluntar y sector . And ther e
is a pr er equisite –
all the pr eliminar y
awar eness-
r aising, tr aining
and education which
ar e the cor nerstone of par tici pation.
54.Ar ticle 6.8 of theAar hus
Convention.
28
social well-being
Y ve s Lu ginbühl ,
e x per t t o t he C ouncil
o f E ur o pe
“T he member S t at e s
o f t he C ouncil
o f E ur o pe
sig nat or y
her et o […]
Awar e t hat
t he l and sca pe […]
cont r ibut [e s ] t o human well -
bein g […];
Bel ievin g t hat
t he l and sca pe i s
a k e y el ement o f
ind ivid ual
and social well -bein g […]”
31
“ I f I wer e t o
inquir e what pa ssion i s mo st
natur al t o men
who ar e st imul at ed and
cir cum scr ibed b y t he ob scur it y
o f t heir bir t h or t he med iocr it y o f t heir f or tune, I coul d
d i scover none mor e
pecul iar l y
a ppr o pr iat e t o
t heir
cond it ion t han t hi s
love o f
ph y sical
pr o sper it y. T he
pa ssion f or
ph y sical com f or t s
i s e ssent iall y a
pa ssion
o f t he midd l e
cl a sse s; wit h t ho se
cl a sse s it g r ow s
and
spr ead s , wit h
t hem it i s pr e ponder ant .
F r om t hem it
mount s int o t he higher or ders o f societ y
and de scend s
int o t he ma ss o f t he peo pl e.”
Al e xi s de
T ocquevill e, De la démocr atie en
Amér ique,
P ar i s , P a g nerr e, 1850.
Intr oduction
If we r efer to the
definition of landsca pe given
in the Eur opean Landsca pe
Convention,55 the r elationshi p that it
is possi ble to esta blish between
individual and
social well- being and landsca pe is
self -evident, since this definition
associates the
landsca pe with the quality of people’s lives,
which this text aims to im pr ove. In
f act,
this
r elationshi p r aises com plex pr o blems, which
ar e mor e or less
inter connected.
It is not possi ble sim ply to state that
all “high-quality” landsca pes
corr es pond to the
(individual and social) well- being
of the people who live
in the terr itor y of which it
is the visi ble ex pr ession. This
r elationshi p between the landsca pe, individual well