Planning Practice on three Island Biosphere Reserves

Planning Practiceon three Island Biosphere Reservesin Estonia, Finland and Germanya comparative study

by Martin Welp

UNESCO

4

Published in 2000 by:INSULA (International Scientific Council for Island Development)c/o UNESCO, 1, rue Miollis - 75015 Paris, France.E-Mail: [email protected]

Author:Martin Welp

Edited by:Cipriano Marín

Technical coordination:Giuseppe Orlando

Cover design, layout, and page make-up:Luis Mir Payá

Printed by:Tenydea (Canary Islands)

ISBN:84-923966-6-0

5

Islands are among the world’s most precious – and vulnerable – ecological systems. They have an

intricate human web, are often quite diverse in landscape and landform, and, of course, are the most

intimate linkage of land and sea.

The man and Biosphere Programme has had a long involvement with island ecosystems, not least

through the establishment of biosphere reserves. It differs from other UNESCO intergovernmental

programmes in that the main operational tool of the MAB programme is the site based World Net-

work of Biosphere Reserves.

Biosphere Reserves are recognised areas of representative environments which have been interna-

tionally designed within the framework of UNESCO’s MAB program for their value to conservation

through providing the scientific knowledge skills and values to support sustainable development. In

this sense it is very different from other site-based instruments which focus on unique sites, such as

the World Heritage convention.

Biosphere Reserves are nominated by national governments, but must meet agreed criteria and

adhere to a minimum set of agreements before being admitted to the worldwide network. In particu-

lar, each Biosphere Reserve should perform three complementary functions:

• a biodiversity conservation function (with a focus on conserving a representative sample of major

ecosystems);

• a development function (with a focus on humans in the biosphere, emphasizing an integrative role

for local communities); and

• a logistical function (combining conservation, research, education, training and monitoring).

The Biosphere Reserve approach links ecology with economics, sociology and politics, and en-

sures that good policy intentions do not yield inappropriate results. Performance and achievements

is evaluated on a regular basis, although achieving a globally uniform framework is an imperative.

While establishing protected areas has been a standard response to problems relating to the conser-

vation and use of the biodiversity, we need to look at “whole of earthscape“ approaches.

Foreword from the Secretaryof the Man and Biosphere Programme

6

Any Biosphere Reserve can be seen as encompassing such an approach, and is thus “beyond a

protected area”. This feature of the biosphere reserve concept provides a new and powerful tool to

define, complement and help to conserve and manage any land- or seascape. In this sense, Biosphere

Reserves on Islands, or encompassing islands, represent the best way for the future of biodiversity

conservation.

This volume has much information on this aspect, for the Baltic in particular. As an almost en-

closed sea, the Baltic and its islands have special features, which make the use of the biosphere

reserve approach even more compelling. I hope this work leads to further study on the island con-

cerned, and gives rise to new opportunities for the addition of Biosphere Reserves on, or including

islands!

Peter Bridgewater

Secretary, Man and Biosphere Programme

7

Preface

8

9

1.1 Coastal resources under pressure and the need for new planning approachesCoastal environments worldwide are subject to increasing pressures caused by a wide range of

human activities. Housing, tourism, industry, marine transport, fishing and aquaculture are some

examples of competing coastal resource uses. Environmental problems related to these uses include

water pollution, loss of biodiversity and a decline in the aesthetic qualities of coastal landscapes. On

a global scale, climatic changes involve changes in sea level and an increase in the frequency and

intensity of coastal storms. The deterioration of the quality of the environment and natural resources

in many coastal regions has been noted in several publications (e.g. Protection of the...1992, 3;

Communication from the...1995, 19). On the other hand many peripheral coastal regions, including

small islands, are faced with such socioeconomic problems as unemployment and migration. Strik-

ing the balance between environmental and development concerns in coastal areas has become an

urgent challenge to planning and decision-making system.

Conflicts over the allocation of resources in coastal areas are increasing. Although estimates about

the global human population living on the coasts vary considerably, it is clear that population densi-

ties and thus pressures on the use of resources are significantly higher along the coasts than inland

(e.g. Gommes et al. 1998). According to one frequently cited estimate, more than half of the world’s

human population lives within 60 km of a shoreline (Protection of the...1992, 3). It has also been

estimated that the number of people living on coasts will double within the next 20-30 years. There-

fore, globally, there is an urgent need for systematic analysis of coastal planning systems and prac-

tices that appear to have successfully tackled the complexities of coastal resource use.

In this study the focus is on planning practices related to environmental and development issues on

islands. Small islands are a special type of coastal area which are often characterized by relative

isolation, high ratio of coastline to land area, and a limited resource base (e.g. Griffith and Ashe

1993). They are especially interesting to social science research on environment and development

because they often form coherent social, cultural, economic, geographic, and administrative units.

Agenda 21 in Chapter 17 ('Sustainable development on small islands’) states that: “Because small

island development options are limited there are special challenges to planning for and implement-

ing sustainable development” (Protection of the...1992).

1. Introduction

10

Three newly established biosphere reserves in the Baltic Sea Region have been selected as case

study areas. These are the ‘West Estonian Archipelago Biosphere Reserve’, the ‘Archipelago Sea

Biosphere Reserve’ in Finland, and the ‘Rügen Biosphere Reserve’ in Germany. Due to their geo-

graphic location they can be characterized as coastal, island, and archipelago biosphere reserves.

The zonation and the administrative structures of these three areas are rather complicated and differ

from each other. For this reason, only one constituent island (Hiiumaa) of the West Estonian Archi-

pelago Biosphere Reserve is selected for closer analysis. The selection and delineation of the case

study areas of this study is discussed in more detail in Chapter 4.1. The location of the case study

areas in the Baltic Sea is presented in Map 1.

The case study islands represent areas with national and international importance, because they

belong to the international network of biosphere reserves. The main advantage of biosphere reserves

as case study areas in comparison to normal coastal areas is that they bring environmental considera-

tions more explicitly into discussions about resource use and development options. Biosphere re-

serves are designated by UNESCO within the Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Programme, and they

provide an international framework for research on relationships between society and the environ-

ment. In October 1997, there were 352 biosphere reserves in 87 countries (UNESCO Man and the

Biosphere Programme WWW-homepage: http://www.unesco.org/mab/activity/bios.htm).

The three case study areas chosen for this study are intended to become model regions for sustain-

able development (e.g. Post 1994; Kokovkin 1995; Timmel 1995; Weigelt 1995; Öhman 1996). For

example, plans and concepts with emphasis on sustainable development have been produced by

various actors (Kestävän kehityksen...1995; Programme of Sustainable...1993; Development Con-

cept...1993; Vorschläge zur...1993). Their designation as intended models also represents a chal-

lenge for planning and decision-making system. One difference between these islands and the ‘nor-

mal’ coastal areas of these countries is that all three biosphere reserves have an administration which

has different roles in the planning system. Irrespective of its formal and juridical status, the basic

objective of the biosphere reserve administration is to promote a cross-sectoral, integrated perspec-

tive in environment and development issues (Biosphere reserves... 1996).

Two of the biosphere reserves were designated during turbulent times of political and social change

in the end of the 1980s and in the beginning of the 1990s. The designation of the Rügen Biosphere

Reserve in the former German Democratic Republic and of the West Estonian Archipelago Bio-

sphere Reserve in the former Soviet Union, as well as the planning activities during the first years,

must be viewed in the broader context of a complete change in the political, administrative and

Introduction

11

planning systems. In Finland such dramatic changes did not occur, despite the fact that it became a

member country of the European Union in 1995. On the one hand, such profound and fast societal

changes can be seen as hindering any prospect for rational planning. Adequate legislation had yet to

be developed, administrative responsibilities clarified, and some degree of socio-economic security

established. On the other hand, such a situation can be considered as a possibility to introduce new

and innovative planning arrangements: young people with fresh ideas entered the public administra-

tion and the political and social life; old structures in the public administration, albeit not com-

pletely to be ignored, could not hinder new ideas to the same extent, as in a situation where agencies

have their deeply entrenched interests to protect. Finally, there was a strong social movement de-

manding profound change. This movement soon diminished, however, as many people had to devote

themselves to securing their own economic situation.

A major deficiency in planning in general, identified in numerous studies and publications, is

sectoralization, which in coastal areas is especially characteristic and problematic (Protection of

the...1992, 2; see also Kapp 1993). With more intensive and conflicting demands on coastal re-

sources, a more holistic approach to environmental and development issues has become essential.

Administrative arrangements are usually inadequate to cope with the complexity of economic, envi-

ronmental and social interactions in coastal areas. For example, management of water resources is

usually carried out by an administrative body apart from the management and planning of land

resources. Also, different levels of government (local, regional, national, international) with differ-

ent interests and policies are involved in the management of coastal areas. According to Gachelin

(1992, ref. Communication from the...1995, 16), “the impression is that of lack of coherence of the

actions in areas which more than any other require it. Consequently, the coast appears like one of the

places where contradictions in the management of the national territory are revealed in the most

acute fashion”. The establishing of these three biosphere reserves can be regarded as an international

and national attempt to introduce a more integrated approach to coastal planning.

In addition to the lack of coordination among various sectors and government levels, public par-

ticipation is considered to be inadequate in coastal management and planning (e.g. Brookfield 1990;

Macelli 1990). In most cases the objective of participation involves informing or collecting infor-

mation on issues which the planning agency considers important. Citizens seldom have the opportu-

nity to take part in the early stages of a planning process, when the issues and problem-solving

strategies are chosen. Public participation is also emphasized in the management of biosphere re-

serves (e.g. Biosphere reserves...1996).

12

How can complex coastal resource use issues be discussed in a more systematic way and simulta-

neously accord with the desire for transparency and openness of planning? What experiences have

been made within the fields of environmental and development planning in the three case study

areas, and what can we learn from these? These are questions that can be answered with an analysis

of selected planning processes, which takes into account differences in historical background, social

and economic structures, administrative practices and ways of communication.

1.2 Objectives of the studyLittle comparative research has been carried out on coastal planning practices. In particular the

aspects of participation and cooperation, which are regarded as prerequisites for the integration of

environmental and development planning, have received little attention. Some EU-funded demon-

stration projects, for example, provide the possibility to exchange experiences and transfer knowl-

edge, but ‘normal planning practice’ and the perceptions of different actors are seldom analyzed

rigorously. The analysis of planning practices requires a broad perspective of societal and political

processes. Planning is, according to Bourne (1984, 151) as much an integral part of a particular

political system and institutional fabric in a given country as is the specific process which it seeks to

guide. Bourne (1984, 151) concludes that “researchers must expand their study horizons beyond the

narrow confines of planning practice to encompass the operation of the political system and policy

making environment in which that practice has evolved”.

The study is simultaneously a cross-national and a cross-regional comparative case study. Al-

though the differences among the three case study regions (in this case islands and archipelagos) are

in the focus of inquiry, national legislation, administrative structures and national policies all have a

major impact on planning practices. With the help of a comparative study (cf. Yin 1994), it is possi-

ble to analyze the extent to which planning in different historical, cultural and socio-economic envi-

ronments contains elements of cooperative and participatory planning.

Earlier cross-national comparative studies have shown that a search for policies or procedures

which can be transferred directly to other countries is unlikely to be very fruitful, because of differ-

ences in the cultural and institutional environment (Masser 1984, 143). Crucial for the transfer of

experiences is to understand how and why certain processes have evolved. Without such informa-

tion, the question of potential transferability of policies and planning practices remains unsolved

(Bourne 1984, 150). Proposals for the development of the planning system have to be made with the

existing system in view.

Introduction

13

The present study can be described as an evaluative administrative study (Ahonen 1985). The

focus is on communication and relationship between different public agencies and citizens within

the existing planning system. Planning practice in the case study areas is to a greater or lesser extent

influenced by the biosphere reserve administration, which may have formal administrative duties or

informal ways of influencing planning. According to the resolution 2.4 of the UNESCO General

Conference in Seville in November 1995, biosphere reserves “...are also demonstration sites and

hubs of action in the context of regional development and land-use planning” (Biosphere re-

serves...1996, 2).

The objectives of this study are to analyze:

1) How do the newly established biosphere reserves relate to the existing planning system? What

are the different roles of the biosphere reserve administration?

2) To what extent and in which ways is intersectoral cooperation and public participation part of

planning practice in the case study areas? Is a comprehensive approach adopted in coastal plan-

ning? Is feedback enabling a learning process within the planning system?

3) How can planning practice be improved to better respond to increasing and conflicting multiple

uses in coastal areas, and especially on small islands? What role can the biosphere reserve admin-

istration play within such efforts?

The emphasis is on planning practice, and especially on the communicative aspects of planning.

Legal matters also play a critical role in the progression towards integrated coastal management

(Ballinger et al. 1994, 46). The focus of this study is, however on strategic level planning and the

day-to-day management of coastal areas primarily by local bodies. The main emphasis is on the

perception of planners and other people involved in planning about planning practice. The study is

structured so that the Chapters 5, 6, and 7 each intend to find an answer to the respective set of

questions presented above in objectives 1, 2, and 3.

1.3 Applying the resultsAn improved understanding of the necessary institutional prerequisites for achieving sustainable

development in coastal regions and on islands can be regarded as the main outcome of the study. The

results of the research project may be used to improve planning practice in the three biosphere

reserves. Although the international network of biosphere reserves has already existed for over 20

14

years, to date little comparative social science research has been done. The results may be used, for

instance to set up management plans or programmes for biosphere reserves.

The results can also be used in coastal areas which are not designated as biosphere reserves. On the

European level there are currently several efforts to introduce an integrated approach to coastal plan-

ning. One of the most recent efforts is a proposal made by the Committee for Spatial Development

offering common recommendations for spatial planning of the coastal zone in the Baltic Sea Region.

These refer to earlier HELCOM (Helsinki Commission) recommendations on coastal planning. In ad-

dition, the European Union has initiated a demonstration programme on Integrated Management of the

Coastal Zones. This study will contribute to these international efforts, which are presented in more

detail in Chapter 2.2.6. The results of this research can be used to further develop and initiate ‘inte-

grated coastal management’ programs and to improve existing guidelines for coastal planning.

Many of the existing 352 biosphere reserves, particularly in former east-bloc countries, are in fact

strictly nature reserves and do not fulfill the development function (see Chapter 3.1). Efforts have

been made to enlargen the reserves to include areas where people live and work. Many biosphere

reserves also lack an adequate organizational or administrative structure. This research provides

insights into alternative zonations, administrative structures, and possible administrative roles. Many

of the former east-bloc countries are still undergoing radical changes in their social, political and

administrative structures, as did the former GDR (the new ‘Länder’) and Estonia, which in many

respects set precedents concerning these changes.

There have not been many reports of and analysis on experiences in strategic level planning. One

reason may be that analyzing more complicated strategi-

cally oriented processes soon would hamper analytical

tools. Olsen et al. (1997) have noticed the lack of analysis

on ICM efforts. According to Olsen et al. (1997, 2), “the

absence of a common language or explicit conceptual

framework makes it difficult to compare across projects

and draw conclusions with any analytical rigor”. This

study outlines a theoretical framework for analyzing and

comparing experiences in coastal planning practice, and

it thus provides possibilities for improved exchange of

experiences within the field of coastal planning and man-

agement.

On the isle of Vilm is one of the few remaining oldgrowth forests in Germany. The last forest cuts herewere made in 1527. Today the beech forest is one ofthe core areas of the Southeast Rügen Biosphere Re-serve. Photo: Martin Welp

15

In the following different planning styles are identified. These characterize the degree and empha-

sis given on public participation and interagency cooperation. In Chapter 2.2 the main characteris-

tics of ‘integrated coastal management’ (ICM) are discussed. Current efforts to promote its applica-

tion especially in the Baltic Sea Region are presented. ICM is approached from the angle of different

planning theories and the implications for especially public participation are discussed. Based on

these considerations a set of key characteristics for good coastal planning practice is elaborated in

Chapter 2.3. Research approach, outline and methods are discussed in two last chapters.

2.1 Four styles of environmental and development planningPlanning can be defined as preparation of decision-making within a public organization (e.g.

Leskinen 1994, 5). For the purposes of this study, a planning system will be defined as the totality

of planning and administrative procedures in a given country carried out by different sectoral

public agencies and levels of government. The planning system is a part of the overall political

and administrative system. There is no sharp distinction between planning and decision-making,

as many crucial decisions are made in the early phases of the planning process, for example when

choosing the options which are to be considered (Leskinen 1994, 5).

Different authors within the field

of policy analysis have defined

various styles of policy making

(e.g. Ricken 1995) and cultures of

decision-making and politics.

These may vary from country to

country, depending on each coun-

try’s history, institutions, power

structures and the actors’ patterns

of interaction. Similarly, different planning styles can be found within planning systems. In the

following four planning styles are identified: ‘routine planning’, ‘sector-based participatory plan-

ning’, ‘social and environmental engineering’, and ‘planning as mutual learning’. They character-

2. Framework of the study

Figure 1. Four planning styles reflecting the degree and emphasis given toparticipation and intersectoral cooperation.

PARTICIPATORYAPPROACH

EXPERTAPPROACH

mw

Social andenvironmental

engineering

Routineplanning

Planning asmutuallearning

Sector-basedparticipatoryplanning

INTEGRATEDAPPROACH

SECTORAL APPROACH

16

ize two important aspects of planning: the emphasis given on public participation and intersectoral

coordination (Figure 1)1 .

‘Routine planning’ characterizes the planning style where experts of different sectors work out

plans and programmes without much communication with other sectors. In decision-making situa-

tions, social consensus is held to be the norm (Leskinen 1994, 48; see also Hahtola 1990a). Partici-

patory elements may be included in sectoral plans (‘Sector-based participatory planning’), but the

outcome still remains fragmented and uncomprehensive. Broader issues ranging across sectors and

disciplines are not systematically discussed, and different bodies of knowledge (ecological, social

and economic) do not meet. ‘Social and environmental engineering’ represents cases in which ad-

ministrative bodies cooperate intensively, but where the values and knowledge of local populations

are not considered. No attempt is made to transmit expert knowledge in ordinary language to citi-

zens. Citizens are uninformed about decisions affecting their lives, and their role in policy-making

remains passive. The ‘technocratic approaches’, as Forester (1993, 29) terms them, “...may neglect

or even preempt citizens” autonomous actions: their learning, their abilities to act responsibly, and

their knowledge of their own political world”. If decisions are controversial and have the potential

for conflict, this planning style may lead to lack of common responsibility (or accountability) and

legitimacy of planning. In such cases, the implementation of plans and programmes is likely to be

ineffective or the outcomes temporary. ‘Planning as mutual learning’ characterizes the ideal condi-

tion for communication, where activities of different sectors are coordinated and participation is

regarded as central element already in the beginning of planning processes (problem formulation).

Expert knowledge presented in an understandable way provides well-informed citizens an active

role in the democratic process (Stauch 1992, 349). Thus the entire planning system is more transpar-

ent, accountable and legitimate (Leskinen 1994).

The environmental and development problems that planning seeks to solve typically include am-

biguous or conflicting goals. Also highly uncertain are the means-ends relationships. Combining

environmental and development goals can thus be characterized as an ‘unstructured policy problem’

(Friedman and Abonyi 1976, 928). There are considerable differences in the problem-solving capac-

ity of different planning styles in face of complex and unstructured policy problems. In this context,

planning as learning seems to be a promising approach, similar to that of human science. This ap-

proach stresses pluralism, interdisciplinary work, and participative democracy, treating a complex

1 The four planning styles are elaborated with reference to the distinction made by Leskinen (1994, 48-52), according to whichroutine planning and planning as learning are two main alternatives for environmental planning and decision-making.

Framework of the study

17

web of problems concerning ecological, economic, social and cultural environment. These problems

cannot be solved one at a time by individual organizations or disciplines (Leskinen 1994, 48). The

conflict-solving forum is a learning, participatory democracy (Stauch 1992, 353-354, ref. Leskinen

1994, 48). Instead of ‘finding out the facts’ about nature and society, human science-based planning

helps to define problems and to find different options and ways to implement decisions. Planning,

decision-making, and implementation are thus integrated in the management process. Besides in-

forming and information exchange, this approach calls for systematic and public negotiation in which

basically everyone can take part, usually through representation (Leskinen 1994, 48).

Public participation can be divided into participation via representative political organs, which

include parliament or local councils (indirect institutional participation), participation organized

by public authorities or private companies (direct institutional participation), and self-organized

citizen activity (non-institutional participation), which may mean demonstrating, campaigning, or

setting up alternative plans (Paldanius 1994a, 1). In the following, objectives, methods, and levels of

direct-institutional participation are discussed.

The objectives of institutional participation may include some of the following: to inform the

public, to educate the public, to initiate public interest, to improve the quality of planning and,

decision-making, to gain legitimacy and support, or to resolve conflicts (Figure 2). While these

objectives are closely related to democratic principles, participation can also have other objectives,

like cost-saving and expediting the planning process.

In Figure 2, the degree of public participation is illustrated by the opposing ‘expert’ and ‘participa-

tory’ approaches. Between these extremes lie intermediate levels of manipulation, therapy, inform-

ing, consultation, negotiation and delegated power. The two first ones are efforts that can mislead or

calm affected groups, and as such they may not be regarded as public participation. (Paldanius 1994b,

10-11.) These levels imply whether the flow of information comprises mainly one-way or two-way

information exchange, or if negotiation strategies are used.

manipulation therapy informing consultation negotiation delegatedpower

EXPERT PARTICIPATORY APPROACH APPROACH

Figure 2. Levels of participation (cf. Arnstein 1969; Osallistuminen ja yhteiskunnallisten...1986, 23; Crosby et al. 1986, 173).

18

Similarly, different levels and intensities of interagency cooperation exist: fragmented, informing,

consultation, coordination and integration (Figure 3).

fragmented informing consultation coordination integration

SECTORAL INTEGRATED APPROACH APPROACH

Figure 3. Levels of interagency and intersectoral cooperation (cf. Cicin-Sain 1993b, 26)

In more concrete terms, what is the so-called ‘integrated approach’ illustrated on the vertical axis

of Figure 1? What does it mean in coastal environments? These questions are discussed in the next

chapter along with the concept of ‘integrated coastal management’ (ICM), which has emerged in the

last two or three decades as a distinct management approach. Although the importance of public

participation is often stressed in coastal management literature, it is explicitly discussed along with

different planning theories.

2.2 The concept of ‘integrated coastal management’ (ICM)2.2.1 ICM - a response to sectoralized management

The sectoralized, competing, and sometimes overlapping jurisdictions of different public agencies

make it difficult to deal with complex and competing human activities in coastal areas. Increasing

pressures in coastal areas demand that they be treated more systematically. The driving force behind

the call for more integrated planning is the emergence of a number of environmental problems in

coastal areas. ‘Integrated coastal management’ (ICM) is a response to these shortcomings within the

public administration. Although the need for a more integrated approach in coastal planning has been

widely recognized, including in the Agenda 21 Action Plan, there is no agreement on what this means

for coastal zones, nor on its implementation (Kenchington and Crawford 1993, 110; Clark 1992).

The objective of this chapter is to give an overview of the evolution of ICM and describe its main

characteristics. ICM has in recent years been adopted and implemented both in developed as well as

developing countries, where the various pressures on coasts and direct implications on the well-

being of people are most severe. As indicated, however, the emphasis of this study is the context of

developed nations, with special interest given to the need for ICM principles and the possibility of

their implementation in the Baltic Sea Region.


19

ICM has much in common with a number of related approaches, which (1) share an ecosystem or

watershed basis for management of natural resources, (2) rely on cooperation, partnership and nego-

tiated conflict-solving between different agencies, stakeholders and the public at large and (3) in-

tend to generate a common understanding of problems and a consensus for action in order to find

ecologically, economically and socially sustainable development options (cf. Cortner and Moote

1994; Armitage 1995). Closely related approaches include ‘ecosystem-management’ and ‘integrated

area development’ (cf. Born and Sonzogni 1995, 168). Although the extent to which they are com-

prehensive varies, other approaches also seek a consensus among affected parties; these include

‘collaborative management’ (Selin and Chavez 1995), ‘adaptive management’ (Imperial et al. 1993),

and ‘locally responsive management’ (Reed 1994).

2.2.2 Evolution of the conceptIntegrated coastal management (ICM) is a relatively new field or ‘discipline’. The terminology

appears to have its beginning in the 1980s when several nations began to develop coastal manage-

ment efforts (Knecht and Archer 1993, 184). So-called comprehensive coastal zone management

was already initiated in the 1970s, particularly on the west coast of the United States (Godschalk and

Cousins 1985). The obvious need for an intersectoral approach promoted the adoption of the word

‘integrated’. In recent years integration has increasingly referred to the integration of environmental

and social considerations into economic decision-making. The concept is also often referred to as

‘integrated coastal zone management’ (ICZM) (e.g. Sorensen and McCeary 1990) or ‘integrated

coastal area management’ (ICAM) (e.g. Schröder 1993). Other alternative terms that have been used

over the years include ‘coastal area management’ (CAM), ‘coastal area management and planning’

(CAMP), ‘coastal zone management’ (CZM), ‘integrated coastal resources management’ and ‘coastal

management’ (Sorensen 1993, 49; Clark 1992, 105, Knecht and Archer 1993, 183-184).

One of the early definitions of ICM was developed at a 1989 workshop in Charleston, South Caro-

lina, by a group of scientists from 13 different countries (Sorensen 1993, 48-49), as follows:

“[ICM is] a dynamic process in which a coordinated strategy is developed and im-

plemented for the allocation of environmental, socio-cultural, and institutional re-

sources to achieve conservation and sustainable multiple use of the coastal zone”.

The concept of ICM gained greater prominence as one of the principal recommendations in the

Agenda 21 Action Plan, agreed by all nations in the 1992 Earth Summit of the United Nations Con-

20

ference on Environment and Development, UNCED (Cicin-Sain 1993b, 17-18; Knecht and Archer

1993, 184). According to section 17.5 (Protection of the...1992) of the declaration,

“Coastal states commit themselves to integrated management and sustainable devel-

opment of coastal areas and the marine environment under their national jurisdic-

tion. To this end, it is necessary to, inter alia: provide for an integrated policy and

decision-making process, including all involved sectors, to promote compatibility

and a balance of uses...”.

The declaration implies that integrated management and sustainable development are closely in-

terrelated. ICM is alternately perceived as a way to achieve sustainable development or as a neces-

sary element of sustainable development (Cicin-Sain 1993b, 17). Because the argumentation of the

natural sciences gives only limited guidance to what sustainable development is (Brösse 1994),

sustainable development may more preferably be regarded as a moral and ethical construct which

changes over time as peoples’ values change. People are thus left to decide what kinds of losses in

environmental quality are acceptable in order to achieve other benefits. ICM is essential in order to

be aware of these changes and to provide a forum for discussion and learning in a more holistic way.

I prefer to use the term ‘sustainable use of resources’, which is less abstract than ‘sustainable devel-

opment’ and implies that resources can be used to many different development paths. Given the

limited base of resources, there is not only one ‘sustainable development path’, but many from which

to choose.

2.2.3 Main dimensions of integrationAs stated above, there is no agreement on what ICM means in the coastal zone, nor how it should

be implemented (Kenchington and Crawford 1993, 110). Furthermore, the terminology and approaches

vary with education and

professional background

(Cicin-Sain 1993a, 2).

The concept of ICM can

still be considered to be

in a phase where differ-

ent actors try to deter-

mine its content (Knecht

The typical landscape characteristics of Southeast Rügen are beech forests, grasslands, saltmarshes, and bays. The interaction of land and water areas gives special character to the land-scape. Source: Leaflet of the Southeast Rügen Biosphere Reserve


21

and Archer 1993, 185). The lack of an appropriate typology has been identified as a problem in the

application of ICM (Thia-Eng 1993, 82). An accepted body of theory and methods is still emerging.

A certain agreement on common elements characterizing ICM can however be found (Sorensen

1997). Also handbooks and guidelines on the subject have been published in recent years (Noordwijk

Guidelines for...1993; Clark 1995; Graham and Pitts 1996; Post and Lundin 1996; Guidelines for

integrated...1995; Methodological Guide to...1997).

There are many definitions on ICM. For example, Clark (1992, 5) has defined ICM as a planning

and coordinating process which deals with development management and coastal resources and

which is focused on the land/water interface. The locus of ICM within planning systems is thus the

interface of marine and terrestrial environments which are affected by human activities and lie within

the control of planning systems (Figure 4).

Another definition of ICM is provided by B. Bower (1992. ref. Knecht and Archer 1993, 186), who

describes it as follows:

“At minimum, any definition should include the integration of programmes and plans

for economic development and environmental quality management, and more spe-

cifically the integration of cross-sectoral plans for fisheries, energy, transportation,

waste disposal, tourism, etc. ICM should also include the vertical integration of re-

sponsibilities for management actions among various levels of government - inter-

national, national, state, and local - or between public and private sectors. It should

include all the components of management - from planning tasks of analysis and

Terrestrial HumanEnvironment Activities

Coastal zone

Locus of ICMMarine Planning

Environment Systems

Figure 4. Locus of ICM within the planning systems (Adapted from Thia-Eng 1993, 83; Dutton and Saenger 1994, 22).

22

design, to the implementation tasks of installation operation and maintenance, moni-

toring and evaluation of strategies over time. ICM should be cross-disciplinary among

sciences, engineering (technology), economics, political science (institutions), and

law. In practice, it is all of the above.”

Inherent to this definition are four dimensions of integration2 . The first is the integration of envi-

ronmental and development planning. This means that environmental considerations are taken more

strongly into account in economic activities and that, reciprocally, socio-economic issues are taken

into consideration in environmental planning (e.g. in the designation and management of protected

areas).

A second dimension is the integration of different sectoral activities and plans related to them.

Sectors where integration is needed may include spot and non-spot pollution control, tourism, agri-

culture, forestry, industry, fisheries, energy, traffic and marine transportation. Horizontal integration

is especially relevant to different sectors in the public administration. In many cases competencies

are not oriented to the complexity of environmental, economic, and social problems, and the narrow

view of sectoralized administration is insufficient. ICM efforts may also aim to reduce duplication

of (or overlapping) responsibilities (Coastal Zone Management. Integrated policies. 1993, 103). It is

essential that ICM simultaneously address the coastal waters and coastal lands as a single unified

whole (Clark 1992, 10; Hägerhäll 1994, 3; Siirala 1990, 174-176). Some authors, e.g. Knecht and

Archer (1993, 187-188), consider this as possibly the distinguishing character of ICM.

The third dimension of Bower’s definition refers to vertical integration between policies on dif-

ferent levels of government. This aspect is also stressed by the European Commission which states

in regard to the intermeshing of policies and actions carried out at various levels of authority that

“over-zealous application of the subsidiarity principle too often leads to a parceling out of responsi-

bilities, which are simply distributed between the levels of competence, with no scope for taking

account of the numerous interactions between them” (Communication from the...1995, 15). An in-

teresting question is to what extent and under what procedural arrangements can local governments

secure sustainable use of coastal resources, and in which issues is the involvement of a higher gov-

ernmental level needed? Obviously conflicts can arise between the wish to decentralize decision-

making power and responsibility and the need for stronger coordination.

2 According to Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (tenth edition), to integrate is to «form, coordinate, or blend into afunctioning or unified whole».


23

The fourth dimension is the integration of different disciplines, which poses a challenge to the educa-

tional system as well as to science. According to Leskinen (1994) two philosophical concepts known as

atomism and holism involve different attitudes to the boundaries and cooperation between disciplines.

Atomistic thinking typically breaks down problems into economical, social, technological and biologi-

cal components and seeks their solutions within each corresponding discipline. According to a holistic

viewpoint “...society forms a whole that is other than the sum of its parts... Individually optimizing

parts of society within specialized disciplines and then trying to combine these results is impossible, as

changing a single component changes the whole” (Leskinen 1994, 16). Three separate concepts can be

distinguished related to research and groups of researchers: multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary and

transdisciplinary. In multidisciplinary research different disciplines work on a topic each from its theo-

retical foundation. Interdisciplinary research is based on a theoretical framework which combines dif-

ferent disciplines. Transdisciplinary research represents the highest level of integration: a common

theoretical framework truly integrates natural and social sciences into a new type of science, for exam-

ple on society-environment relationships. It has been discussed whether it is actually possible or even

needed (Rannikko and Schuurman 1997). So far there is no well developed theoretical framework for

inter- or transdisciplinary research within ICM, nor in other fields.

In addition to the four dimensions identified in Bower’s definition of ICM, a few other aspects

should be given special emphasis. The plurality of values in society should be a primary point of

departure in coastal management efforts. The word ‘integrated’ should not lead to the misunder-

standing that unified values, goals and objectives pre-exist in society and must merely be found.

Rather ICM efforts should be seen as a forum for mutual learning, conflict solving, cooperation and

coordination. Kenchington and Crawford (1993, 111) emphasize the value-ladenness of coastal

management efforts. Thus, the concept of integrated coastal management

“...involves combining, co-ordinating or integrating, at a number of scales, values,

interests and goals, many of which are in competition”.

Values and interests change over time, which also makes it necessary to redefine the stated goals

and objectives. ICM does not only aim to produce a blue-print plan of the desired state of affairs in

coastal areas. ICM should be a continuous process, in which monitoring is carried out on the imple-

mentation of plans and the fairness of the processes themselves. Knecht and Archer (1993, 186; see

also Fuavao 1995, 84) have characterized integrated coastal management in the following terms,

putting emphasis on the dynamic process-oriented nature of ICM:

24

“Integrated coastal management is a dynamic process by which decisions are taken for

the use, development, and protection of coastal areas and resources to achieve goals

established in cooperation with user groups and national, regional and local authorities.

...[It] is multiple purpose oriented, it analyzes implications of development, conflicting

uses, and interrelationships between physical processes and human activities, and it

promotes linkages and harmonisation between sectoral coastal and ocean activities”.

According to Clark (1992, 6), ICM initiatives are usually a response to a perceived use conflict, a

severe decline in a resource, or a devastating experience with natural hazards. This reactive, ad-hoc

management approach, particularly when dealing with multiple use conflicts and decline in resource

base (e.g. water quality, loss of biodiversity) should be replaced by proactive and anticipatory re-

sponses that monitor and anticipate change, avoid conflict and prevent environmental damage, thus

maximizing economic and environmental benefits derived from multiple use activities (Vallejo 1993,

176). Thus an anticipatory approach is an important characteristic of ICM.

Depending on the specific situation, the role of ICM can be regulatory or promotional in nature

(Cicin-Sain 1993b, 36). The regulatory role can include regulating new developments, zoning and

designating protected areas. The promotional role can include economic aspects like encouraging

the development of local economy or building of coastal infrastructure, as well as educational as-

pects. In the developed nations context ICM efforts have had an emphasis on resource conservation

and restoration. However, there seems to be a need for increased attention to the long-term

sustainability of existing coastal zone uses (Knecht and Archer 1993, 194). Social and economic

problems, especially in developing countries, emphasize the point that coastal management efforts

must address the broader development needs of coastal populations (Olsen 1993, 206).

The importance of public participation is usually mentioned in ICM literature. In ICM public

participation has been implemented to various degrees. In many cases the emphasis is on informing

the general public, while forms of two-way exchange of information and opinions are rare. One

problem related to intensive participation procedures is that when issues become complicated the

number of affected interest groups increases considerably. Because of pressures associated with

increasing use, considerable effort is being expanded on conflict resolution approaches, most nota-

bly in the United States (Knecht and Archer 1993, 195; Turtiainen 1996).

In summary, integrated coastal management efforts are means of integrating environmental and de-

velopment policies, in order to collaboratively find sustainable ways and intensities to use coastal


25

resources. In essence this means maintaining options for future uses of resources. ICM is ideally char-

acterized by an anticipatory and more comprehensive approach than might otherwise be employed in

sectoral planning or in solving a specific problem. Ideally land and water areas are jointly managed.

ICM intends to combine knowledge, values and interests in a process, which includes various sectoral

agencies, levels of government, various user groups, enterprises and the general public.

2.2.4 Definition of the management areaThere is no general consensus on how far inland and how far out to sea coastal management efforts

should be extended. Five zones can be identified in the coastal/marine spectrum: inland areas, coastal

lands, coastal waters, offshore waters and high seas. They often vary with regard to the nature of

property, nature of governmental interest, and nature of existing government institutions (Cicin-

Sain 1993b, 30).

The ‘European Code of Conduct for Coastal Zones’ suggests the following typology, which seems

to be applicable in most coastal environments (Rigg 1997, 4). More clear definitions are, however,

necessary when going into management practice.

• Coastline - the boundary between land and sea

• Coastal Zone - an area including both land and sea, of indeterminate width, depending upon a wide

variety of definitions currently in use

• Coastal strip - a narrow strip of land bordering the coastline, extending perhaps a few hundred

meters up to one kilometer inland

• Coastal area or region - a general term describing places that are influenced by the proximity to the

sea

Regarding the inland boundaries, a watershed approach is usually suggested. In many coastal man-

agement programmes arbitrary distances from coastlines or baselines, administrative boundaries or

jurisdictional limits are the most frequent elements on which delimitation is based (Vallega 1993,

157). A somewhat arbitrary boundary has also been recommended by the Helsinki Commission:

According to the Recommendation 15/1 a coastal planning zone of at least 3 kilometers landwards

from the mean water line should be established in countries around the Baltic Sea.3

3 The recommendation suggests also the establishing of a generally protected coastal strip outside urban areas, extending at leastfrom 100 to 300 m from the mean water line landwards and seawards. Most countries around the Baltic Sea have included thisin their national legislation (Nordberg 1994). The 3 km planning zone has so far not been introduced in any of these countries.

26

The boundaries of coastal waters seawards are even more difficult to define. The report of the

OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) on coastal zone management

suggests the following boundaries (Coastal Zone Management. Integrated Policies. 1993, 22): in the

case of estuaries, the management area should cover the whole area of estuarine waters and outside

the estuary to the extent that activities have mutual impacts. A similar consideration would apply to

lagoons and inland seas. Similarly, in the case of coastal stretches, the mutual impacts of in-land and

off-shore activities could be treated as the outside limit of the coastal zone.

Obviously a meaningful definition of the management area depends on the issues at hand. With regard

to fisheries, it is common to limit the coastal zone to territorial waters as defined in the UN Convention on

the Law of the Sea, although this limit does not correspond to any distinct biological or management unit

(Communication from the...1995, 5). If issues extend far seawards, then the Exclusive Economic Zone

(EEZ), which can extend up to 200 miles seawards, might be included (Clark 1992, 11).

Islands comprise a special type of coastal region (e.g. Hess 1990; Brookfield 1990). Characteristic

of small islands is the relative isolation and the high ratio of coastline to land area (Bass 1993, 157).

Small islands have no interior hinterland that is essentially distant from the sea, so that coastal

resource planning and management are essentially synonymous with island resource planning and

management (Griffith and Ashe 1993, 279; Fuavao 1995, 107). Thus on small islands, integrated

coastal management should encompass the whole island (cf. Cicin-Sain 1993b, 30).

2.2.5 Alternative methods and strategies for introducing ICMICM efforts can be differentiated according to the size of the planning and management area. At

least five groups exist: international, national, state-provincial, regional and local level (Sorensen

1993, 61). Consequently, the methods of ICM vary. Action is often needed on several or all levels,

encompassing international agreements, changes in national legislation, or plans and programmes

created at the regional or local level. In the following chapter I shall present some of the various

methods of ICM, discuss strategies to introduce ICM, and illustrate the advantages and disadvan-

tages of two alternative approaches to interagency cooperation.

ICM efforts often take the form of a programme launched on an international, national, or sub-

national level. National level programmes may aim to encompass all coastal areas under national

jurisdiction. Subnational units such as states and provinces may also have the authority to initiate

4 Institutions referred to here include legal structures, organizations in a society or culture, entrenched patterns of behavior, orsignificant practices.


27

ICM programmes. ICM programmes may involve different institutional changes4 , for example, in

legislation, responsibilities of agencies, forms of cooperation between different agencies, and budg-

eting within organizations. So called ‘special area plans’ are usually created; for example, an estua-

rine or some smaller coastal area on the regional or local level (Sorensen 1993, 48).5

Promoting cooperation between sectoral agencies and other interest groups is an essential part of

ICM. The process of defining the goals and objectives of an integrated coastal management strategy

and the subsequent selection of appropriate methods requires intensive interagency cooperation. Coop-

eration might take the form of a council, committee, multi-agency steering group, working group or

roundtable (Coastal Zone Management. Selected case studies. 1993; Hartig and Law 1994). Besides

cooperative administrative arrangements, an ICM effort essentially should include active mobiliza-

tion, education and involvement of local interest groups and the general public.6 In disputes on coastal

resource use, principles of negotiation and mediation should be used (Susskind and McCeary 1985).

Methods used in ICM may not essentially differ from methods used in other sectoral environmental and

development planning and management. The essence in ICM is to coordinate the various methods in order

to create a coherent coastal resource use policy or strategy. This requires regular communication between

various sectors and levels of government. Healy and Zinn (1985, 303) have categorized tools used to strike

a balance between environmental and development concerns. The following methods have been used in

the United States in coastal management: regulatory permit systems, comprehensive planning, land-use

designations by zoning and subdivision ordinances, selective land acquisition and restoration, promotion

of desirable coastal development, negotiation, and federal/state consistency. Other methods may include

environmental impact assessment (EIA) and social impact assessment (SIA).

One possible step in building ICM capabilities on the national level is identifying the most press-

ing needs for improved management of coastal areas. Multidisciplinary studies and assessments on

coastal resources have been prepared in many coastal countries (e.g. Our Sea, Our Future 1995).

5 In Sweden, the Planning and Building Act (PBA) contains regulations on the planning of land and water areas. According tothis act, it is the municipality’s responsibility to plan the use of both land and water areas. Each municipality shall draw up anup-to-date comprehensive plan covering the whole municipality’s area extending to the territorial boundary. The comprehen-sive plan shall indicate the main ways in which land and water areas are to be utilized and how physical development shouldtake place. The municipal comprehensive plan is not binding to either authorities or individuals, but it gives guidelines fordecision-making in accordance with the Natural Resources Act (NRA) legislation, which is a umbrella-like act coveringregulations how land and water areas should be used (Johansson 1995, 3-4). One well-documented Swedish example is thecomprehensive coastal plan for the municipality of Lysekil, which also included a municipal action programme aimed atreducing the strain on the marine environment (Johansson 1995).

6 In Finland, interesting pilot projects have been carried out in the field of participatory planning for water pollution control. Inthree joint planning processes, representatives of various interest groups and of inhabitants formed an advisory group discuss-ing different alternatives for water pollution control. The effects of water pollution control measures on regional economy andwell-being of the inhabitants were assessed. The project proposed the establishment of regional development organizations inorder to promote cooperation between different authorities. (Kosola 1990; Kosola et al. 1990.)

28

A possible strategy for introducing ICM at the national level is to start with localized demonstra-

tion programmes, such as special area management plans, then, if successful, to expand them nation-

wide (e.g. Olsen 1993, 221). High-level support for local initiatives is important, both in terms of

financing as well as intellectual and political support. Future national legislation may require that all

subnational units prepare and implement local coastal management plans (Sorensen 1993, 46). One

example of this ‘scaling up’ process is the initiation of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and

Development Commission seven years before the enactment of California’s Coastal Conservation

Act in 1972, which is regarded as one of the first efforts to introduce comprehensive coastal manage-

ment. Special area management plans are becoming increasingly popular because of their prolifera-

tion as pilot or demonstration projects before committing energy and political capital to a nation-

wide effort (Sorensen 1993, 61-63; also Thia-Eng 1993). The European Union has initiated this type

of demonstration programme (see Chapter 2.2.6).

There are different approaches to improving interagency cooperation. An ICM effort may seek to

replace existing sectoral and fragmented structures by creating a new agency or by naming a leading

agency. Alternatively an ICM effort may seek to assist and support existing administrative struc-

tures by improving institutional linkages and cooperation.

The report of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development on coastal zone man-

agement (Coastal Zone Management. Integrated Policies 1993, 83) identifies two institutional link-

ing mechanisms: the ‘complementary administration model’, which is based on closer cooperation

between agencies, and the ‘joint regulation model’, in which a new agency may be created or a

leading agency named.

An example of the complementary administration model is the management plans developed in

the Netherlands for different parts of the Rhine-Meuse estuary. The joint regulation model is repre-

sented by the State of California in the US. California created the California Coastal Commission in

1972 to regulate developments in the coastal zone, and work with local jurisdictions to prepare

Local Coastal Plans, which it had to approve.

In the complementary administration model implemented in the Netherlands, authorities agreed to

coordinate their actions (and subordinate these to a jointly accepted plan), while retaining their

decision-making power. Cooperation was therefore voluntary, and took the form of multi-agency

steering groups. In the joint regulation model in the case of the California Coastal Commission, all

authority over a specific area (or policy arena) was transferred from those government agencies

which had partial authority to a new agency (Coastal Zone Management. Integrated Policies. 1993,


29

83). The commission and regional commissions were set up by local representatives and included

intensive participation of local inhabitants.

The OECD report cites the advantages of the complementary administration model in its relatively

easy implementation and in the fact that by involving all parties at interest and extensive public partici-

pation, the process generates wide support for the resulting plan (Coastal Zone Management. Inte-

grated Policies. 1993, 83). The report views the slow pace of the process, which is cumbersome and

leads to ‘passive management’, as a disadvantage. However, voluntary agreements and consensus,

while lacking any legally binding character, do have informal power (Leskinen 1994, 109).

The OECD report suggests that in comparison to complementary administration models, the joint

regulation model better solves the problems of intervention and administration deficiencies. The

joint regulation model can, however, be confronted with other problems in the long term which are

illustrated by the same example. Rinken (1990, 537-550) has analyzed the institutionalization of

environmental interests in the context of California Coastal Commission and observed that after a

prosperous phase in the seventies, the commission became more weak from the environmental point

of view. This happened even though it was under the control of the legislative body and several

environmental NGOs were actively involved. One reason seems to have been that public funding for

intensive participation was reduced. Secondly, Rinken suggests that the regulation of coastal activi-

ties got more weak partly because its work was controlled by central political powers who are close

to economically viable actors.

The California example illustrates two problematic aspects of methods where considerable power

is concentrated to one agency. The danger of ‘agency capturing’ means that powerful interest groups

may dominate the work of such an organization. Secondly, the case emphasizes the role of publicity

in planning efforts. Participation and its precondition, access to relevant information, has a control

function which should not be underestimated. Public participation may bring together local knowl-

edge with scientific and sectoral knowledge. The involvement of local interest groups, initiatives,

and NGOs plays a viable role in controlling the use of political and economic power.

Integrated coastal management efforts may in practice face a number of barriers, related to accus-

tomed ways of planning and decision-making. This holds true even if existing institutional arrange-

ments are not intended to be substituted, and the ICM-process rather seeks to assist and supplement

existing structures. Sectoral boundaries are within public administration generally well respected,

which tends to make cooperation difficult (Temmes 1988). Fear of loosing power, increased amount

of work, trouble of adopting new approaches may be reasons for resistance within bureaucracies.

30

Integrated planning arrangements may be considered to weaken the power of administrative units,

which for example have to accept jointly made decisions. Such planning arrangements might appear

to be in contrast with the reflexive (self-sustaining) goals of an organization (see Mohr 1973).

Politics plays a role in the sense that powerful constituencies associated with important coastal

uses will strongly resist the incorporation of ‘their’ coastal activity into a broader management con-

text (Knecht and Archer 1993, 197). The existing single use constituencies have to be convinced that

a broader, better integrated approach is essential to their long-term interests or, in the alternative,

new constituencies for integrated management have to be created.

Many important decisions concerning the use of coastal resources are made on the local level.

Local authorities might have strong antipathy towards coordinated decision-making, for example

concerning land use. Although decentralized decision-making inherents several advantages, a paro-

chial view to coastal management is not sufficient in issues requiring coordination between local

authorities (cf. Leschine 1990, 300-301; also Cortner and Moote 1994, 171). Lack of political com-

mitment among local leaders may be a serious threat to more integrated planning arrangement. On

the other hand also missing awareness and support among stakeholders may be a hindrance.

2.2.6 Efforts to introduce ICM within the European Union and the Baltic Sea RegionAgenda 21 has probably been the most important international agreement enhancing the adoption

of ICM on international and national levels. Although it has brought ICM greater prominence, it

does not provide a clear definition of integrated management and does not specify what integration

means (Vallega 1993, 150-151). Also a number of other international agreements have been struck in

order to directly or indirectly improve coastal management. Among them are the Paris Convention

(1974), the Oslo Convention (1972), the Bonn Agreement (1981), the MARPOL Convention (1973),

the Barcelona Convention (1976), the Helsinki Convention (1974 and 1992), the UN Convention on

the Law of the Sea (1982), the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands (1971), and the SPREP Convention

(Coastal Zone Management. Integrated Policies. 1993, 13).

There are currently several attempts on the European level to introduce a more integrated ap-

proach to coastal planning. As a response to the commitments entered into by the European Union

(EU) with respect to Agenda 21, the EU initiated a demonstration programme on integrated manage-

ment of the coastal zones (Communication from the...1995). It includes 35 demonstration projects,

four of which are located in the Baltic Sea Region (Finland, Latvia, Lithuania and Denmark). The

objective of the programme is to test models of cooperation for the integrated management of the


31

coastal zones. The lessons to be drawn from the programme will serve as a basis for elaborating and

discussing possible additional measures at EU level.

The demonstration programme on integrated management of coastal zones is the first concrete out-

come of the European Commission’s many efforts in this field since the early 1980s. The European

Commission published a paper in 1986 which discussed possible community actions towards inte-

grated coastal management (Integrated planning of...1986), and in 1992 the European Council adopted

a further resolution on a European policy for coastal zones. The resolution was intended to stimulate

the drafting of a European strategy for integrated coastal zone management by the Commission, but

there was no continued progress. The Fifth Environmental Action Programme (1993-2000) singled out

the sustainable management of coastal zones as a priority field of action. On this basis, in 1994 the

Council reiterated a resolution on a Community strategy for integrated coastal management.

The paper on the integrated management of coastal zones (Communication from the...1995, 19)

notes that progress in the protection and integrated coastal management has been inadequate mainly

due to two factors: first, a new approach takes time to implement; secondly, politically and in terms

of available instruments, conditions then were less favorable than they are today. Three reasons are

given for the Union’s interest in ICM. For one, many problems are of European dimension and

cannot be solved by single member countries separately. This holds especially true for the transfer of

pollutants, tourist flows, maritime safety, and common natural and cultural heritage. Further, the

European Union’s sectoral policies and actions (transport, fisheries, environment, agriculture, en-

ergy and industrial policy) have an impact on the coastal zone. Finally, there is a need for exchange

of experience and know-how. A historical overview of the efforts to introduce more integrated coastal

planning and management on the European Union level is presented in Figure 5.

The coastal waters of Hiiumaa are rocky and shallow. Tahkuna, thenorthern tip of the island. Photo: Mart Mõniste

The church of Reigi in the northern Part of Hiiumaa.Photo: Mart Mõniste

32

Year Instrument Objectives Specific measures1982 Council Resolution Integrated policy reconciling

on the European development and protectionCoastal Charter of coastal zones

1986 Commission Communication Application of existing oron the Integrated Management planned measures takingof Coastal Areas coastal aspects into account

1992 Council Resolution on the Future Invitation to the Commission toCommunity Policy Concerning draft a strategy for integratedthe European Coastal Zone coastal zone management

1993 Fifth Environmental Sustainable development ofAction Programme coastal zones and their resources

1994 Council Resolution on the Restatement of the 1993 resolutionIntegrated Managementof Coastal Zones

1995 Commission Communication To test cooperation models for Demonstration programmeon the Integrated the integrated management of on the integratedManagement of coastal zones; to provide technical management of coastalCoastal Zones results to foster dialogue between zones, making concerted

European institutions and use of existing instrumentscoastal stakeholders and programmes

Figure 5. Historical overview of coastal zone management policy at the EU level (Belfiore 1996, 223).

The first Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area was

signed in 1974 by the coastal states of the Baltic Sea. In 1992, a new convention was signed by all the

countries bordering the Baltic Sea and those within the European Economic Community. The gov-

erning body of the Convention is the Helsinki Commission - Baltic Marine Environment Protection

Commission (HELCOM). The conventions and the Helsinki Commission are examples of interna-

tional efforts designed to protect the Baltic Sea from pollution (Rijsberman 1993), but whose scope

has been widened in recent years to include spatial planning issues. The Helsinki Commission

(HELCOM) has financed pilot projects especially directed toward the Baltic States (Estonia, Latvia

and Lithuania). These include special area management plans prepared for coastal lagoons (e.g.

Kokovkin 1996 ). Also the EU-Phare-programme has funded demonstration projects in the eastern

countries of the Baltic Sea Region (‘Integrated Coastal Management in the Baltic States and Po-

land’).


33

An important step was taken in March 1994 when general rules were adopted for the protection of

the coastal strip (HELCOM Recommendation 15/1). These rules still await translation into national

legislation and corresponding implementation. In the same year, recommendations concerning the

system of ‘coastal and marine baltic sea protected areas’ (bspa) were adopted (HELCOM Recom-

mendation 15/5). The Helsinki Commission together with all the states in the Baltic Sea Region is

also implementing an action programme, the Baltic Sea Joint Comprehensive Action Programme

(JPC), which was launched in 1992. JPC introduced concepts and elements which were new to

HELCOM, but in line with the ICM approach. HELCOM has also supported special area manage-

ment plans for a number of bays, estuaries and lagoons, especially in former east bloc countries (e.g.

Kokovkin 1996).

A further example of international cooperation between countries fronting the Baltic Sea has been

in the field of spatial planning. ‘Vision and Strategies around the Baltic Sea, VASAB 2010’ (1994),

a publication prepared for the Third Conference of Ministers for spatial planning and development

in the Baltic Sea Region, revealed considerable differences among the spatial planning systems of

the Baltic Sea states regarding definition, legal basis, procedures, responsibilities and instruments

(Vision and Strategies...1994. Annex III). The need for cooperation, exchange of experience and

adjusting planning systems where necessary was addressed in the paper. One of the first planned

common actions included the “elaboration of guidelines for spatial planning in the coastal zone”.

The 4th conference of Ministers responsible for spatial planning agreed on ‘Common recommenda-

tions for spatial planning in the coastal zone of the Baltic Sea Region’ (22 October 1996, Stock-

holm). These recommendations refer to earlier HELCOM (Helsinki Commission) recommendations

on coastal planning (Presidency Declaration of the Visby Summit).

Closely related to the VASAB 2010 report and cooperation of ministers responsible for spatial

planning, the Interreg II C programme for the Baltic Sea Region intends to promote the establish-

ment of a joint integrated strategy in the field of spatial planning (Community Initiative concern-

ing...1997). Also the Interreg II C programme, which relates specifically to the demonstration

programme aims to promote integrated management of the coastal zones and islands (Better Man-

agement of...1997, 20). The Interreg II C Baltic project covers the coastal zones of the Baltic Sea

as well as a number of larger cities and the hinterland. The strategy is intended to focus on devel-

oping spatial planning as a tool to encourage multi-sectoral integration and cooperation taking

physical, economic and environmental aspects into consideration. Among the five priorities is

“tourism, islands and coastal zones (environment)”. (The other four are: city and urban networks,

34

trans-baltic networks, communication, transport and human resources development and explora-

tive projects.)

The European Code of Conduct for Coastal Zones prepared by the European Union for Coastal

Conservation (EUCC) is an effort to develop guidelines that are applicable in various types of coastal

systems. It is also envisaged that a Baltic Coastal Code of Conduct and a Mediterranean Coastal

Code of Conducts be elaborated (Rigg 1997).

Several non-governmental organizations (NGOs) also put forward the idea of ICM. Within the

Baltic Sea Region the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) has been actively involved in promoting

the concept of integrated coastal management through articles in the WWF Baltic Bulletin and by

organizing seminars on the topic (e.g. Hägerhäll 1994; Hägerhäll 1995; Lützenkirchen 1995).

2.2.7 ICM from the perspective of planning theoryIntegrated coastal management has in coastal areas emerged as a response to conventional plan-

ning, where agencies jealously guard their own administrative sector. Such planning practice has

increasingly proved to be ineffective in tackling the complex problems in coastal areas. The need for

ICM has been widely recognized, but it lacks a coherent body of theory as well as a common vocabu-

lary. There is, however, a certain amount of agreement in the literature which suggests that ICM may

be characterized as a distinct management approach. To a great extent, the development of ICM as a

distinct approach to coastal planning has been pragmatic and practice-oriented to date. The need for

ICM and the agreed characteristics have arisen from management tasks in the field. Little research

has been done on the theoretical basis of ICM.

The apparent lack of a coherent theoretical basis for integrated coastal management is partly due to

its status as a relatively new discipline with only 25 years of practical and scientific experience. It is

also due to the interdisciplinary character of ICM. Competing paradigms exist within each single disci-

pline relevant to ICM (natural sciences, social sciences, planning, economics, etc.). Thus, the lack of a

unifying theoretical basis is not surprising. Perhaps the next step in the theory-building of ICM would

be a set of theories that are mutually consistent to a reasonable extent. The need to improve theoretical

concepts and research methodologies for effective interdisciplinary coastal management was one of

the principal recommendations of the ‘call to action’ of an international workshop on building educa-

tion and university capacity for ICM held in the spring of 1995 (Crawford et al. 1995).

Systems theory has often been suggested as conceptual basis to stimulate ICM (van der Weide

1993; Vallega 1993). Systems thinking was introduced in the 1950s to facilitate cooperation be-


35

tween various scientists and disciplines. A major deficiency concerning systems theory, however, is

that it does not explicitly address the question of how goals are being defined in a management

process (cf. Weiland 1996, 126). Other questions, such as, what impacts a possible concentration of

decision-making power in coastal issues has for the transparency of planning have so far remained

unaddressed.

Often, the terms ‘management’, ‘planning’, and ‘programme formulation’ are not explicitly de-

fined in ICM literature. For the purpose of this study, management includes legislation, organiza-

tional arrangements, planning, decision-making, and implementation. Planning is understood in a

broad sense. The outcome of the planning process may be an agreed strategy for management in-

cluding different sectors, or a plan for the use and protection of a certain land and water areas.

Planning is an essential component of any coastal management system. There seems to be a need to

approach ICM from the aspect of planning theories, neglected thus far (cf. Crawford et al. 1993, 322-

323; Dorcey 1993, 36). Planning theories alone can not constitute a theoretical basis for ICM, but

they may contribute to its theory-building. Here planning refers especially to strategic and policy

level planning. Social theories, organizational theories, theories on communication, and theories of

knowledge are in varying degrees explicitly or implicitly included in different planning theories.

There is a variety of planning approaches and traditions which rely on different theories of society,

rationality, and political action. Accordingly, the planner can alternately assume the role of technical

expert, mediator, advisor, facilitator, bureaucrat-administrator, or even ‘midwife’. Planning has been

influenced by two main intellectual traditions: the belief in natural sciences and rationality, and by

various reform movements which have emphasized the active, value concerned role of planning (Albrecht

1985, 7). The dominant tradition since World War II has been the rational-synoptic approach, which

stresses the ‘scientific method’ and represents atomistic natural science thinking. This approach has

received severe criticism in recent decades. Most other planning approaches are either modifications of

synoptic rationality or reactions against it. Rational-synoptic planning has been criticized both by ad-

vocates of incremental planning and by various reform movements that regard planning to be primarily

a political and social process. In addition to a pluralistic view of society, these planning approaches

tend to seek a more substantial theory. To this tradition belong advocacy planning, transactive plan-

ning, critical planning, and alternative planning (cf. Albrecht 1985, 89; Leskinen 1994, 30). Some

representatives of reform movements have argued that the results of the expanded planning systems in

different countries have been insignificant, primarily due to the lack of a relevant theoretical and politi-

cal basis for planning (Hahtola 1986, 1990a, 1990b, see also Sairinen 1994, 264).

36

The rational-synoptic planning approach is based on scientifically inferable knowledge of the

public interest. Experts are considered to be basically value-free, and the choices made are thus

thought to be objective. Rationality refers to the choice of means to achieve common ends (func-

tional rationality), whereas the rationality of ends is not called into question (normative/substan-

tial rationality). Social consensus about the goals is held to be the norm. The planning organiza-

tion gathers information from citizens concerning matters that it considers important, and in turn

informs them of the administrative decision made. Planning, decision-making and implementa-

tion are considered to be separate tasks (Albrecht 1985, 16-17). In practice, the planning organi-

zation determines the content of the plan, the participants, and the different values to be included.

Priscoli (1993, 43) characterizes this approach, which emphasizes the role of experts, as the ‘de-

cide-announce-defend’ approach. Typical methods used for the evaluation of alternatives are cost-

benefit-analysis, operations research, systems analysis, trend extrapolation, and econometric

modeling (Hudson 1979, 389).

Incrementalists have criticized the synoptic approach as unrealistic, because complete informa-

tion postulated by synoptic planning never exists in practice (Lindblom 1959). Power and authority

is fragmented among interest groups and agencies, which makes comprehensive approaches unreal-

istic. According to the incremental approach, policy decisions are made in a decentralized bargain-

ing process, which is best suited to a free market and liberal political economy (Hudson 1979, 389).

Both the synoptic and incremental approaches are in fact based on an economic theory of consum-

er’s choice, enlarged to include political decision-makers. Thus they are unable to take account of

the unequal distribution of power or historical conditions and changes (Leskinen 1994, 30).

The reform movements have addressed their efforts to the emancipation of decision-making in

society. According to the transactive planning approach, planning is not carried out with respect to

an anonymous target community, but through face-to-face contact with the groups affected by deci-

sions. Transactive planning thus refers also to the evolution of decentralized planning institutions

that help people take greater control over social processes that govern their welfare. (Hudson 1979,

389.) Ideally, this dialogue should be free of domination, and reflection should replace coercive

guides (Albrecht 1985, 89).

Advocacy planning has usually been applied to defend the interests of weak against strong -com-

munity groups, environmental causes, the poor, and the disenfranchised against established powers

of business and government. While it acknowledges the impossibility of planning to serve several

masters (i.e. both pro-development and pro-environmental interests), advocacy planning has been


37

criticized for posing stumbling blocks without being able to mobilize equally effective support for

constructive alternatives.

The communication theories of Habermas had significant impact on the evolution of critical planning

(Forester 1982; 1985). Planning is understood as a communicative, attention-shaping action, in which

communication is intentionally (systematically) and unintentionally distorted. Access to information and

the ability to act on it are unequally distributed. Habermas‘ communication theory of society draws atten-

tion to these distortions and poses an active role for the planner, e.g. in distributing information.

Alternative planning, also referred to as bottom-up planning or radical planning (Hudson 1979,

390), is planning by civil non-governmental organizations, citizen initiatives, and other interest

groups. Like transactive planning and critical planning, it stresses the importance of freedom from

manipulation and the independent role of civic organizations. It can be viewed as a response to the

inability of routine planning to take different world-views and values into account.

In practice, planning is seldom based solely on one of the five approaches. Elements of different

approaches are often mixed in real world planning, and most planning organizations have adopted

elements of the pluralistic approach (Leskinen 1994, 101-104). However it can be argued that the

most popular mixture is a blend between synoptic and incremental planning styles with various

degrees of participation, usually advocacy planning.

2.3 A set of criteria for ‘good coastal planning practice’In order to analyze planning practices in the case study area, a typology or a set of criteria for

assessing management and planning is needed. The four planning styles (‘routine planning’, ‘sector-

based participatory planning’, ‘social and environmental engineering’ and ‘planning as mutual learn-

ing’) presented in Figure 1 are one way to conceptualize planning practice. Olsen et al. (1997) have

presented the following typology for coastal management (Figure 6).

Focuses on a single sector or topicbut explicitly addresses impacts andinterdependencies with other sectors,ecosystem processes, and institu-tional capacity

Multi-sectoral planning andregulation focuses upon thecharacteristics and manage-ment issues within narrow, geo-graphically delineated stretchesof coastline

Expands the cross-sectoral fea-ture of coastal zone management tothe consideration of the closely cou-pled ecosystem processes withincoastal watersheds and oceans

Enhanced Sectoral Management Coastal Zone Management Integrated Coastal Management

Figure 6. A typology of Coastal Management (Olsen et al. 1997).

38

For the purposes of this study, a set of criteria for ‘good coastal planning practice’ is developed.

Ideally, the set should be general enough to be usable in different political and administrative

settings. It is later used as an analytical tool in analyzing and comparing planning practices in

each case study area. The set of criteria is created in reference to the concept of integrated coastal

management (ICM) and critical planning theory, both of which have implications for the adopted

planning approach. The inherent planning style equals ‘planning as mutual learning’, as presented

in Figure 1. Guidelines on coastal management have been consulted and referred to when choos-

ing the criteria (Noordwijk Guidelines for...1993; Clark 1995; Graham and Pitts 1996; Post and

Lundin 1996; Brunckhorst 1994, 94-96). Critical planning theory (Forester 1993), with its em-

phasis on the democratic and communicative aspects of planning, has also played a part. While

ICM literature usually also stresses the importance of public participation in management, criti-

cal planning theory particularly emphasizes the democratic notion of planning. Public participa-

tion is not carried out only to improve the quality of planning or speed up planning processes, but

in order to make the entire decision-making system more transparent and accountable7 . The plan-

ner can have an active role in supporting weakly or not organized interest groups. In this sense,

planning becomes a communicative, attention-shaping action. The criteria cover both procedural

aspects such as the ways to organize the planning and decision-making process, and substantial

aspects such as areas subject to planning.

The World Bank guidelines on coastal zone management note that “Coastal nations should be in

the position to develop an ICZM8 structure that is uniquely suited to the nation - to the nature of its

coastal areas, its institutional and governmental arrangements, and its traditions and cultures and

economic conditions. Nonetheless some currently accepted principles and characteristics associated

with ICZM concept are useful to describe”. The principles described below should accommodate

most coastal planning situations.

‘Good coastal planning practice’ should include all of the following four criteria: comprehensive-

ness, participation, cooperation, and feedback (Figure 7). These can be regarded as necessary pre-

requisites for substantial and sustained integration of environmental and development policies in

coastal areas. They are mainly developed from the perspective of planning on local and regional

levels. Each of the criteria is discussed in more detail below.

7 Priscoli (1997) makes a distinction between the differing contexts of public participation and conflict management. Bothemploy similar techniques but they are often driven by different values. Participation is often driven by the values of empow-erment, creativity, open access to government and building civic culture. Conflict management, while also influenced by suchvalues, is driven by values of efficiency, timeliness, cost/effectiveness of decisions.

8 The World Bank guidelines use the term ICZM (integrated coastal zone management).


39

Comprehensiveness initially refers to the area subject to planning. The planning area should be

based on natural rather than administrative boundaries. A watershed area or eco-region should be the

spatial unit of planning. It is important that plans and programmes for coastal areas include both

land- and water-use issues (Siirala 1990).

1 COMPREHENSIVENESS

• The planning area should be based on natural rather than administrative bounda-ries (watershed area or eco-region as the spatial unit of planning). Plans andprogrammes should include both land- and water-use issues.

• Plans and programmes should be characterized by a more comprehensive ap-proach than has been customary in sectoral planning.

• In strategic and project planning both environmental and socio-economic issuesshould be systematically assessed (such methods as Environmental Impact As-sessments (EIA) and Social ImpactAssessments (SIA) may provide helpful tools).

2 PARTICIPATION

• All stakeholders should have the possibility to take part in problem formulationand the choosing of problem solving strategies. The rules of the planning proc-ess should be agreed in a common process.

• A prerequisite for successful participation is that the planning system and thelanguage used in communication is understandable.

• Citizens and interest groups should have clear access points in the public ad-ministration. Appropriate methods should be used in public participation.

3 COOPERATION

• Different sectoral agencies should cooperate closely. Improved cooperation maybe performed through several institutional approaches.

• Expert-knowledge should be made understandable for non-experts and expertsin other fields.

4 FEEDBACK

• Systematic ways of monitoring are important for the implementation and con-trol, so that decisions are carried out in practice, and in order to learn from pastexperience.

• The plans and programmes should also be subject to evaluation as a way ofcontinually improving the processes. There should be fairness and continuity inthe collaborative planning arrangements.

Figure 7. A set of criteria for ‘good coastal planning practice’.

40

Secondly, plans and programmes should be characterized by a more comprehensive approach

than has been customary in sectoral planning (Post and Lundin 1996, 5). This is in essence achieved

through improved cooperation between sectoral agencies. However, if national legislation and

policies do not provide support for such efforts - for example by unifying sectoral approvals and

planning systems - cooperation may turn out to be ineffective and less rewarding.

In strategic and project planning, both environmental and socio-economic issues should be system-

atically assessed. Methods like Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Social Impact Assess-

ment (SIA) may provide helpful tools for this. Similarly in designating protected areas and in making

management plans for protected areas, socio-economic aspects should be taken into consideration.

Participation should be an essential element in coastal management and planning. All stakeholders

should have the possibility to take part in problem formulation and the selection of problem-solving

strategies. The rules of the planning process should be agreed upon in a common process. A prereq-

uisite for successful participation is that the planning system and the language used in communica-

tion is understandable. Citizens and interest groups should have clear access points in public admin-

istration. Participation should be an essential part both in strategic and project level planning. The

methods of participation should be tailored to the specific planning situation and to the objectives of

public participation (Paldanius 1997, 33).

Public participation should take place in the early phases of programme and goal formulation. The

World Bank guidelines on ICZM particularly emphasize that, “While all phases of the process of

formulating an ICZM programme should be ‘transparent’, it is of the utmost importance that the

policy and goal setting aspects be fully open and easily accessible to the affected coastal stakeholders

and the interested public. Open public meetings that allow for detailed discussion and questions,

supported by clear and understandable documentation, should be part of the deliberations that lead

to the selection of policies and goals” (Post and Lundin 1996, 6).

Separate sectoral agencies should cooperate closely. The same holds true for different levels of

government. Improved cooperation may be performed through several institutional approaches (Post

and Lundin 1996). Meaningful cooperation challenges people working in sectoral agencies to put

stronger emphasis on the language that is used in communication. Expert knowledge should be made

understandable for non-experts and experts in other fields. In some cases simultaneous cooperative

arrangement and participation may become important.

A systematic method of monitoring the implementation of plans and decisions should be included

in the planning system. Monitoring is essential for the demonstrating how effective various inter-


41

ventions and efforts have been (Margoluis et al. 1997). In addition, the plans and programmes itself

should be subject to regular evaluation as a way of continually improving the processes (Post and

Lundin 1996). This should include evaluation on continuity of the collaborative planning arrange-

ments and fairness of the process. The inclusion of monitoring and evaluation stresses the iterative

character of planning. Feedback is important for the control that decisions are held in practice and to

learn from past experience.

2.4 Research approach and outline of the studyNations with coastal areas have substantially different systems of government. This makes cross-

national comparative studies an interesting but difficult field of inquiry. This study makes use of

empirical case-studies. It offers a comparison of three Baltic Sea countries, but even more so of three

regions - in this case islands9 and archipelagos.

The underlying assumption of the study is that the present system of governance does not provide

sufficient potential for mutual learning and for envisaging sustainable development options. The con-

cept of integrated coastal management has much to offer for the existing planning and management

system. However, the ways in which its principles are applied may vary from country to country and

case to case. The research seeks to identify issues, actors, and the need for a more integrated approach.

There have been various efforts in the case study areas to introduce a more integrated approach to

environmental and development issues. These include the designation of a system of protected ar-

eas, the establishing of joint planning committees, and introducing agencies with inter-sectoral re-

sponsibilities. There are many parallels between planning and management of biosphere reserves

and ICM. Therefore coastal biosphere reserves provide excellent demonstration sites for pilot projects

in countries which so far have not used the ICM approach. Establishing the biosphere reserve can be

seen as an international (UNESCO) and national (Ministry of the Environment) effort to introduce a

9 «Island studies» focus on «island issues», which link together a broad range of research approaches and disciplines, encom-passing both natural and social sciences. Some of the main fields of inquiry within social science research include demo-graphic and economic structures caused by remoteness, isolation, and the limited resources base (e.g. Hein 1993; Jansson andZucchetto 1978). Closely related are studies on vulnerability of small island societies caused by such factors as the specializa-tion of economies. In recent years the effects of a rise in sea level and environmental degradation on islands have been givengreater weight in studies on vulnerability. Studies on cultural characteristics of small and remote island societies comprise afurther field of inquiry. Several studies on energy issues have also been made (e.g. Coastal Area Resource...1988; Takahashiand Woodruff 1993). Although islands have always had to deal with limited resources and their sustainable use, a newresearch agenda has been emerging in recent years, due to population growth and increasing pressures on island. Research on«sustainable island development» partly deals with the same issues as previous island studies, but it recognizes the special roleof islands as potential model areas for sustainable development, and includes more overtly environmental considerations (e.g.McElroy and de Albuquerque 1990). Two examples of efforts to strengthen the emerging island agenda are the conference on«Sustainable Development of Small Island Developing States» which took place in Barbados in 1994, and the «First EuropeanConference on Sustainable Islands Development» which took place in Minorca (Spain) in 1997 (Small Islands, Big Issues.1995; First European Conference...1997).

42

more integrated approach to natural resources management on local and regional level. Thus the

process of establishing the respective biosphere reserve in the three case study areas, and the percep-

tion of local governments, sectoral government agencies, and local inhabitants are interesting areas

of inquiry. The biosphere reserve administration is a new actor which may be perceived as threaten-

ing routinized practices, power relations and the like. In each of the three case study areas, the

biosphere reserve has a different role, and there is a different planning approach. This makes com-

parisons even more interesting. Specific research needs related to biosphere reserves are discussed

in Chapter 3.3.

Planning theories as well as literature on planning and management practice have in recent years

emphasized the need for effective communication and cooperation between various government

agencies, levels of government, different interest groups, and the public at large. This often goes

hand in hand with the call for a learning organization, increased flexibility, and responsiveness in

face of changing needs within the society. Environmental problems have become one of the forces

driving such changes.

Environmental and development planning can be perceived as communicative action, which is

organizing and shaping the attention of citizens and bureaucrats (Forester 1993). The establishing of

the biosphere reserve as well as planning processes related to land use, water use and regional devel-

opment are seen as communicative action that shapes attention (Forester 1993). Examples of each

type of planning are selected for closer analysis. The intention is to find out in which ways the

environmental and development debate manifest itself. What issues were thematized? Who did par-

ticipate in the process? What was the response to efforts of introducing a more integrated approach?

The analysis is geared toward determining whether a more integrated approach could provide better

possibilities for mutual learning, and which requirements such planning arrangements would have

to meet in order to be successful.

The intention is not to evaluate a particular programme, because there is no ICM, nor any compre-

hensive programme for coastal management in the case study areas. Nor will the planning system

and administrative procedures be described in great detail. This would be a huge task even if there

was only one single case study country. Focusing on a few illustrative examples of planning practice

seemed to be a more rewarding task. Planning and management is interdisciplinary by nature. In this

research the main emphasis is on the communicative elements of coastal planning, which are im-

pacted by such aspects as legislation and administrative competencies, but the latter are not the main

focus of inquiry.


43

The focus in this study is on a few processes which key persons considered important; in other

words, illustrative examples of planning practice rather than the planning system (see Figure 8).

No comprehensive presentation of the planning system including all aspects of coastal resource

use is made.

One point of possible criticism of the selection of examples is that the planning processes se-

lected for closer inquiry are so numerous and different in nature. One possibility would have been

to focus on a special area management plan and interview the different stakeholders about the

process. But, this would not give a very comprehensive picture of the planning system. The ap-

proach selected here is a sort of a middle way, which has of course its own advantages and disad-

vantages. It gives a comprehensive picture about ongoing planning processes and their relations

and an insight into planning practice. Yet it does not allow the processes to be analyzed in great

detail. Other alternatives - focusing on for example one planning process in each area - would

give a more profound picture about communication, interests represented, and power used. Bal-

anced consideration of both aspects should result in an interesting picture for comparisons be-

tween case study areas.

The spatial units of analysis are the biosphere reserves. However they must be seen in their re-

gional context, as larger economic, administrative, and political entities. In the case of the island of

Rügen, the spatial unit of analysis is primarily the biosphere reserve, yet planning closely related to

regional development policy encompasses the entire island. Similarly, the Archipelago Sea Bio-

sphere Reserve cannot be reasonably analyzed without the main islands of Korpo and Nagu, which

are excluded from the biosphere reserve. For practical considerations, of the four main islands of the

West Estonian Archipelago Biosphere Reserve (Saaremaa, Hiiumaa, Vormsi and Muhu), only the

FOCUS OF THIS STUDY

Unit ofanalysisPossibleresearchobjectives

THE PLANNINGSYSTEMPresentation of theentire planning sys-tem, administrativecompetencies of allagencies, laws thatregulate planning

A SINGLEPLANNING PROCESSIdentification of actors andinterest groups in a certainplanning process, com-munication and the use ofpower within the planningprocess

Figure 8. Research strategy.

Analysis of a few illustra-tive planning processes,perceptions of actors in-volved in environmentaland development plannin

44

island of Hiiumaa has been chosen as case study area. The delineation of the case study areas is

discussed in more detail in Chapter 4.1. 10

The time period analyzed in this study begins with the preparation of the designation of the bio-

sphere reserves in the late 1980s and continues to the end of 1996. During this time the biosphere

reserves were able to confirm their status as an accepted local and regional actor. Literature throgh

1998 is reviewed and included in the references.

2.5 Research methodsThe analysis in comparative case study research is, following Yin (1994), divided into design,

within-case analysis and between-case analysis (see Figure 10). The design of the study comprised

the following steps: developing theory, selecting cases, and designing the interview protocol. The

within-case analysis included conducting first case study and writing the first case report. The sec-

ond and third case studies were then carried out. The between-case analysis included the following

steps: drawing cross-case conclusion, modifying theory, developing policy implications, and writ-

ing cross-case reports. In Chapter 6 the analysis of planning practice is presented in a manner which

to a great extent combines the two forms of within- and between-case analysis.

The method that was used in the ‘within-case analysis’ is called situational analysis, which is a prag-

matic-hermeneutical scheme of analysis emphasizing values, processes, and power structures. The method

of situational analysis used in this research was derived from the model of Kauko Hahtolas (1990a) and

consisted of three phases, which refer to the criteria of ‘good coastal planning practice’ (see Figure 7).

(1) Problem analysis discusses what issues are perceived as problems by different actors and how

the planning system responds to these. The problem-analysis is especially addressed to the value

contents of regional environmental and development policies. The plurality of values and conflict

of interests are given. An essential goal for the analysis is to reveal the value-ladenness and latent

meanings of prevailing mental institutions and institutional practices.

10Hess (1990, 3) suggests that due to the limited resource base, small island futures may be seen as a microcosm of globalfutures. Although islands are typically open systems (migration, import of energy, export of natural resources), the limitedassets of certain resources (especially land) makes the comparison interesting. A model character of islands for other regionson mainland is emphasized in the joint paper by ministers responsible for spatial planning and development around the BalticSea (Vision and Strategies...1994, 11), which states that islands in the Baltic Sea Region “already are and shall even intensifytheir role as spearheads in the search for ways to reconcile environment protection with local development“. On the otherhand, Brookfield (1990, 31) argues that islands can not be regarded as microcosms of a larger world mainly because of tworeasons: isolation and smallness. The geographically disadvantageous location and the subsequent transport problems makeparticipation in the world market difficult. Secondly, the small size and fragmentation of islands in an archipelago generatelimitations of scale, and thus development options are fewer than on mainland areas (Brookfield 1990, 25).


45

(2) Process analysis describes the course of events in selected examples of environmental and develop-

ment planning. Planning may include strategic regional development planning, land- and water-use

planning or the designation of protected areas. Special interest is given to public participation and

cooperation between sectors and levels of government. The objectives, methods and timing of public

participation and cooperation will be part of the inquiry. The forms of institutionalized and informal

cooperation between sectors are analyzed. Further questions include the resources for public partici-

pation as well as the information basis and the language used in communication.

(3) Outcome analysis discusses the outcome of planning processes. Not only are the direct outcomes

analyzed, but also impacts on agenda setting, awareness building, and further planning processes.

Reasons for the possible success or failure of participatory and cooperative planning arrange-

ments were analyzed. One of the central questions was whether monitoring on the success or

failure of planning and policies is ongoing.

Although the research employs a holistic case-study strategy (Yin 1994, 27-60) in which planning

practice is the unit of analysis, selected planning processes are referred to and analyzed in detail.

Two to three processes from each case study area were chosen for closer inquiry. These include

processes concerning strategic regional development planning, sectoral planning, land- and water-

use planning, and biosphere reserve related planning activities. The processes were recent processes

and of special regional importance.

InternationalagreementsLegislation

Powerstructures

Actors’values

Politics

Institutions

IDEAL MODEL forcoastal planning practice

PLANNING PRACTICEComprehensiveness

Participation

Cooperation

Monitoring

Figure 9. ‘Within-case analysis’ on coastal planning practice.

Outcome analysis

Process analysis

Problem analysis

46

In the between-case analysis I sought variations among cases in relation to the ideal model of

planning systems. The between-case analysis looks for variations in the level and in the reasons for

the presence or absence of cooperative and participatory planning arrangements, comprehensive-

ness and monitoring (cf. Alestalo 1992).

RESEARCH DESIGN WITHIN-CASE ANALYSIS BETWEEN-CASE

ANALYSIS

Materials on the case study areas were collected by interviewing key actors and by analyzing

planning documents, newspaper articles and other relevant written sources. As far as possible, pub-

lic events like hearings, seminars and forums were visited and observed. The actors interviewed

included representatives of ministries, state government, federal government, district or county gov-

ernment, local authorities, NGOs, peoples’ initiatives, parties, intellectual contributors, international

actors, and other important groups and organizations.

The interviews were carried out as focused interviews, which allowed the interviewees to respond

to the themes naturally and freely, by enabling deep discussions in a clear but flexible format. Fo-

Conduct 1st

Case StudyWrite IndividualCase Report

DrawCross-CaseConclusions

SelectCases

Conduct 2nd

Case Study

Design DataCollectionProtocoll

DevelopTheory

Conduct 3rd

Case Study

Write IndividualCase Report

Write IndividualCase Report

ModifyTheory

DeveloppolicyImplications

Write Cross-Case Report

Figure 10. Case study method. Adapted from Yin (1994, 56).


47

cused interviews may reveal views that would otherwise be inaccessible to the researcher (Hirsijärvi

and Hurme 1991, 8, 35-41). Also my research work and especially the conducted interviews can be

seen as a form of communicative action, which, at least, to some extent shapes attention.

Computer-aided text interpretation with the help of a Atlas/ti programme, developed at the Techni-

cal University Berlin, was used in analyzing the collected material. The method is based on coding

text-passages, which later can easily be retrieved and compared to other passages on the same issue.

(Muhr 1993; Moilanen and Roponen 1994.)

The final stage in the between-case analysis was to make suggestions for the development of the

planning systems. Practical experiences in each case study area were the primary source of impetus.

There are various ways of drawing ‘lessons’ from cross-national comparative studies. Rose (1991)

has identified five ways of lesson drawing in regard to programmes: (1) copying (more or less intact

adoption of a programme already in effect elsewhere); (2) emulation (adoption with adjustment for

different circumstances); (3) hybridization (combining elements of programmes from two different

places); (4) synthesis (combining familiar elements from programmes in effect in three or more

places) or (5) inspiration (programmes elsewhere used as an intellectual stimulus for developing a

novel programme without an analogue elsewhere).

Because different public planning and decision-making procedures in the case study areas are so

varied, it is impossible to describe even the most important of them. Therefore only two to three

illustrative examples from each case study area were presented and analyzed in more detail. The

examples cover different types of public planning (see Chapter 6.1).

The list of interview themes was made based on theoretical considerations and 23 preliminary

discussions, conducted in autumn of 1995 in the case study areas. A total of 95 focused interviews

were carried out between March and November 1996 among key persons in the case study areas. The

interviews were recorded and subsequently transcribed. Written materials, including newspaper ar-

ticles and planning documents, were collected. Preliminary case study reports were written shortly

after the fieldwork was conducted, in order to preserve first impressions.

Field research on the island of Rügen was carried out in March and April 1996. Altogether 34 focused

interviews were conducted. The interviews were recorded, and the essential parts of the discussions

were transcribed, but not word-for-word. A preliminary case study was written short after the field

work. The case study focused on three recent processes regarded as important by key informants. These

were: strategic regional development planning and the designation of protected landscape areas on

Rügen, land-use planning in the biosphere reserve, and a case of fish farming in the coastal waters.

48

Conducting interviews and collecting written material on the island of Hiiumaa was done in June-

July 1996. Part of the 35 interviews were conducted in either English or Finnish, and part of the

interviews were made with the help of an interpreter in Estonian. A preliminary case study report

was written. Three processes were selected for closer inquiry, namely the Hiiumaa Development

Action Plan 2010, coastal land-use planning (a conflict concerning a house in Sarve peninsula), and

the Käina Bay Integrated Coastal Zone Management Plan.

The field studies in the Archipelago Sea Biosphere Reserve took place in October and November

1996. Altogether 26 interviews were carried out. Special interest was put on land-use planning and

zoning within the archipelago, water-use planning with special emphasis on fish farming, and the

Archipelago programme, which is currently being elaborated in the Archipelago.

Two sub-studies were carried out on forestry planning in the case study areas, namely Hiiumaa and

the Archipelago Sea (Ahde 1998; Pekkola 1998). These were carried out by Ms. Terhi Ahde and Ms.

Sonja Pekkola as their masters thesis. In this study, their research will be cited as an example of

sectoral planning.

2.6 Validity and reliability of the case studiesTwo aspects of validity are critical for focused interviews: concept validity and content validity

(Hirsijärvi and Hurme 1991, 129). Concept validity implies good knowledge of previous research

and the concepts related to the research problem, and is related to problem definition and the con-

struction of the interview protocol. Before material collection, preliminary interviews were carried

out and a tentative theoretical framework for the study was written (Welp 1997).

Content validity, on the other hand, is related to how well the information acquired fulfills the core

of the phenomenon to be investigated. Thus, it is mostly related to the interview situations and the

interview protocol. An interview protocol that is applicable to several countries has to have a rather

general format and focus only on the main social structures and processes. Yet it must also allow for

variation in individual cases. Adding too many details to the protocol may result in a situation where

many of the details that are relevant in one case study area may not be relevant in another, so that

little common basis for comparisons would exist. Alternatively, finding a common basis for com-

parisons may be equally difficult if the interview protocol is too general.

Language problems may occur when dealing with several case study countries. Interviews in Finn-

ish (which is my native language) and in German (which is my second native language) were not

problematic. On Hiiumaa interviews were carried out in either Estonian, English, Finnish (some


49

Estonians speak Finnish fluently). Interviews in Estonian (about two thirds of the interviews) were

conducted with the help of an interpreter.11 Due to the need for interpretation (questions and answers

were translated), the actual time that could be spent on each issue was shorter than when discussing

in the same language. Also some misunderstandings could not be prevented. The interpreter, how-

ever, made the major part of the transcriptions of the interviews and thus most mistakes could be

identified. When conducting interviews in English (about one third of the interviews) the spoken

language was fairly simple, and thus some information requiring more profound language skills

could not be communicated. About one third of the interviews in the Archipelago Sea were con-

ducted in Swedish. The language problems that arose at the start with Swedish speaking interview

partners diminished after a few interviews were conducted.

All of the interviews were carried out in 1996, beginning with Rügen in March and April, Hiiumaa

in June and July, and in the Archipelago Sea during October and November. Issues that were of

topical interest shortly before and during the field visits invariably received greater attention.

The number of interviews seemed to be fairly appropriate to the study. After about 25-30 inter-

views were conducted in each case study area, little new information was gained. On the other hand,

in writing the case study report, it became obvious that further information on certain issues should

be acquired. An opportunity to conduct more interviews and ask questions on certain topics was

provided through additional field trips to the case study islands. Attendance in seminars organized in

the case study areas also provided a possibility for further discussions. The need for an extra field

trip became necessary due to the fact that many processes were ongoing (e.g. the Hiiumaa Develop-

ment Action Plan 2010, designating protected landscape areas), and following these over a longer

period of time was of interest to the research.

In a broad sense, the research, which works with environmental and development issues, faces the

same problems as do biosphere reserves. Although the research focuses on six types of planning

(strategic development planning, forestry planning, land-use planning, water-use planning, coastal

ecosystem management, and biosphere reserves related planning activities) even one type of plan-

ning could have been the unit of analysis. However the research tries to find onsets and stumbling

blocks on the way towards better planning practice in coastal areas. Thus a broad perspective seemed

to be more fruitful in terms of the research objectives.

It became clear that the key characteristics of good coastal planning practice were rather general

and abstract for planning practitioners (Pekkola 1998, 34-35). Thus it was up to the interviewer to

11 The Estonian language belongs to the same Finno-Ugrian family as Finnish, but they are not so close that they could be under-stood without training.

50

formulate questions that were understandable and relevant for the interview partner. The majority of

interviewed persons can be characterized as key persons, hired or elected as political representatives

in local governments, or working for various levels of the state administration. Too little time was

perhaps left to interview people who are less directly involved in planning and decision-making. On

the other hand, the list of interview themes was addressed mainly to people who are engaged in

public planning, or who are involved in some way.

A steam-locomotive train over a century old takes tourists fromthe town of Bergen through the southeastern part of Rügen to thebeaches and bathing resort towns. Photo: Martin Welp

The harbour of Lehtma, Hiiumaa. Photo: Tero Uusitalo

There is a ferry connection from the Orjaku-harbor in Kassari to theneighboring island of Saaremaa, which also belongs to the WestEstonian Archipelago Biosphere Reserve. Photo: Martin Welp

51

3.1 Origins and transformation of the conceptBiosphere reserves have four characteristics that differentiate them from national parks, nature con-

servation areas, or other protected areas (cf. Price 1995, 131). First, people living and working in the

reserve are an integral part of the concept. Second, biosphere reserves are part of an international

network of protected areas recognized by UNESCO, at the request of national governments.12 Third,

their outer boundaries are flexible and not fixed by law (with the exception of the legally protected core

areas). Finally, land and water areas are administered and managed by more than one agency or owner.

The worldwide network of biosphere reserves, totaling 352 reserves in 87 countries as of October

1997, provides an international framework for education, research, and demonstration and imple-

mentation of sustainable resource use (UNESCO Man and the Biosphere Programme WWW-

homepage: http://www.unesco.org/mab/activity/bios.htm). In the last three decades biosphere re-

serves have evolved from conservation sites into model areas for sustainable development.

The biosphere reserve concept emerged from UNESCO’s Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Pro-

gramme of which it constitutes an essential part. The MAB Programme, which officially explicated

the idea of a worldwide network of protected areas, was launched in 1971. It focused on a number of

research areas, with area no. 8 identified as ‘conservation of natural areas and the genetic material

they contain’ (Batisse 1986, 3).13

From the start the concept stressed three roles for the biosphere reserves (Batisse 1986, 2). The

conservation role addressed the need to better conserve genetic resources and ecosystems and main-

tain biological diversity. The logistic role referred to the need to set up a well-defined network of

areas directly related to MAB field research and monitoring activities, including the accompanying

training and exchange of information. The development role related to the need to directly associate

environmental protection and land-use issues within the new programme’s activities. These ideas

were followed by the objectives for biosphere reserves outlined by a task force in 1974.

Biosphere reserves as model areas forsustainable resource use

12Biosphere reserves are designated by the International Co-ordinating Council of the MAB Programme, at the request of thenation concerned. Biosphere reserves remain, however, under the sole sovereignty of the nation where they are situated andthereby submitted to national legislation only. Participation by the states in the World Network of Biosphere Reserves isvoluntary. (Biosphere reserves...1996, 16.)

13There are 14 project areas and 4 research orientations within the MAB Programme. These are classified either under types ofecosystems (e.g. tropical and subtropical forests, grazing lands, and mountain and tundra ecosystems) or research themes (e.g.pest management and fertilizer use, perception of environmental quality, and human investment and resource use). Relevantfor this study is also the MAB project area 7: Ecology and rational use of island ecosystems.

52

The task force also proposed a zoning pattern with three interrelated zones whose objectives and

degree of protection varied (Batisse 1986, 4). These three zones are today referred to as core area,

buffer zone, and transition area (see Figure 11). The core area consists of examples of minimally

disturbed ecosystems. Economic activities are not allowed in these areas. There may be more than

one core area, and they are typically designated as a national park or nature protection area. The

buffer zone adjoins or surrounds the core area. Economic activities within this zone shall not be in

opposition to protection goals. The transition area typically surrounds the core area and the buffer

zone, and is a dynamic area of cooperation. The area may contain settlements, agricultural lands,

managed forests, areas for recreation or tourism, and other uses characteristic to the region. A tran-

sition to environmentally sound resource use (eco-development, sustainable development) is to be

promoted within this zone. A biosphere reserve may also belong to the type of a cluster biosphere

reserve, which constitutes of a number of non-contiguous areas.14

The first biosphere reserves were

designated in 1976, and by 1981, 208

biosphere reserves had been designated

in 58 countries. However, the conser-

vation role dominated, while the logis-

tic and development role was largely

neglected (Batisse 1986, 4). Many of

the areas were already protected as

national parks or nature reserves be-

fore receiving the international label of

biosphere reserves. Research was con-

ducted in these areas, but in most cases it was basic ecological research, without a connection to

resource management concerns. Thus activities concentrated on the core areas.

In the First International Biosphere Reserve Congress in Minsk in 1983 the differences between

concept and practice became obvious, and the potentials of the concept (enhancing cooperation

between local government, local population, state agencies and other interest groups, linking con-

servation to human activities and rural development), which were so far not made use of, were

14The names of the zones may be different in different countries and even in different biosphere reserves in the same country.For example the Archipelago Sea Biosphere Reserve in Finland consists in practice of a core area and a cooperation area(yhteistoiminta-alue), which is used for the transition and development zones. In Germany the terms conservation area,maintenance zone, and development area (Kernzone, Pflegezone, Entwicklungszone) refer to the three terms suggested byUNESCO (Guidelines for the...1995, 16).

CORE AREAS

BUFFER ZONE

TRANSITION AREA

Figure 11. Schematic zonation of a biosphere reserve.

Biosphere reserves as model areas for sustainable resource use

53

discussed. The congress was able to review the overall situation and to lay down general guidelines

for the future (Batisse 1986, 6). In order to meet the objectives of biosphere reserves all three roles:

conservation, logistic and development role should be combined.

Although the need for widening the scope from nature conservation towards sustainable use of

natural resources within the biosphere reserves was acknowledged in the conference in Minsk in

1983, activities continued to concentrate mainly on conservation issues and the task of integrating

them into human activities and rural development. Little attention was paid to the transition zone,

where activities relating to the development role could take place (Batisse 1986, 10). One major

reason for this was the fact that while core areas were usually managed by one authority, the buffer

zones and transition zones were owned and managed by a variety of public and private actors. Little

was done to organize coordination or cooperation among them (Batisse 1986, 10).

However, in Minsk visions were also presented which called for biosphere reserves “to be ex-

panded in size and for greater efforts to be made to support alternative lifestyles in biosphere reserve

areas for the primary objective of developing sustainable human ecosystems for the post-petroleum

age” (McNeely 1984, 497, ref. Price 1995, 133). And since the 1992 United Nations Conference on

Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro, global environmental issues and sus-

tainable development have received greater prominence within the biosphere reserve concept. In

1993 the MAB International Co-ordinating Council demanded that biosphere reserves should pro-

mote the implementation of the conventions agreed in Brazil (International Co-ordinating...1993;

see also Guidelines for the... 1995, 14).

In the International Conference on Biosphere Reserves in Seville in March 1995, biosphere reserves

were envisaged as guides to the 21st century, “showing a way to a more sustainable future” (Biosphere

reserves...1996, 5). These statements indicate a further shift from traditional nature protection towards

integrating global environmental aspects and resource use to the concept of biosphere reserves. In

Seville a “Strategy and the

Statutory Framework of

the World Network” was

agreed on. The statutory

framework confirmed the

three primary functions of

biosphere reserves (Fig-

ure 12).

Conservation to contribute to the conservation of landscapes, eco-systems, species and genetic variation

Development to foster economic and human development which issocio-culturally and ecologically sustainable

Logistic support to support demonstration projects, environmental educa-tion and training, research and monitoring, related to lo-cal, regional, national and global issues of conservationand sustainable development

Figure 12. The three primary functions of biosphere reserves (Biosphere reserves...1996, 16).

54

The advantages of biosphere reserves as model regions seem to focus on at least three aspects.

Biosphere reserves belong to an international network which potentially increases the momentum of

local activities and brings new ideas to local level. The network may help in bringing ecological

considerations more explicitly into discussions about resource use and development options. Sec-

ond, due to their special status funding for exemplary demonstration projects and programmes may

be easier to obtain. A third advantage is that the network provides possibilities for exchanging expe-

riences and knowledge - eliminating the need to reinvent the wheel in each new reserve.

3.2 Biosphere reserve — a local partner or an ‘outside intervention’?The designation of a biosphere reserve is usually an ‘outside intervention’. For example, nature

conservation efforts, like the zonation of core areas or other restrictions in the use of natural re-

sources, may be in conflict with local property rights, commercial interests, or more fundamental

perceptions of the main problems.15 In this sense, biosphere reserves are partly protected against

people, for people, and last but not least, they are protected by people (Kruse-Graumann 1995, 2) .16

Local people usually view nature protection and its consequences very differently than resource

managers or urban interest groups (Carroll and Hendrix 1992, 346). For instance, the chairman of the

working group for small-scale farmers (Arbeitsgemeinschaft bäuerliche Landwirtschaft) from the

Rhön Biosphere Reserve in Germany noted, “Why don’t they designate Frankfurt am Main as a

biosphere reserve? They are the ones who need it.” (Burghoff 1993). In fact, suggestions have been

made to extend the scope of the concept from rural areas to industrial and urban areas.

Nature conservation measures often result in changes in the way local people have used resources

and in the possible reduction of control of private property (Carroll and Hendrix 1992, 346). Making

nature conservation socially and economically acceptable to the population concerned is one of the

big challenges of these areas (e.g. Batisse 1982). The question of public participation seems thus to

be essential for the management of biosphere reserves.

The need for involvement of local people in decision-making concerning the use of natural re-

sources and environmental management has been generally accepted. The themes of public partici-

15Often, protected areas, including biosphere reserves, are faced with the so-called NIMBY-syndrome (not-in-my-backyard),which has usually been used to characterize local opposition to such unwanted land uses as risky or polluting power plants,industrial plants or refuse pits. According to research on acceptancy of the “Bayrischer Wald National Park” (nominated alsoas a biosphere reserve in 1981) the positive attitude towards a protected area increases with the distance from the designatedarea (Rentsch 1988). Rentsch argues that one reason for the negative attitude of local people, directly affected by the park, isthat they lack the possibility to participate in issues concerning the protected areas (also Wolfenden et al. 1994, 45-49).

16The term “biosphere reserve” in different languages may affect the perceptions of local people in different ways. While theFinnish translation biosfäärialue and the Estonian translation biosfäärikaitseala refers to neutral term „area“, the German termBiosphärenreservat carries the connotation of a reservation (cf. Indian reservations in North America).

Biosphere reserves as model areas for sustainable resource use

55

pation and interagency cooperation have received growing emphasis in the discussions concerning

biosphere reserves (Price 1995, 135; see also Batisse 1982, 108-109; 1986, 10; Rajasärkkä 1987, 79-

81). The tasks of biosphere reserves are typically cross-sectoral and link to the responsibilities of

various administrations and institutions (Guidelines for Protection...1995, 80). These include local

government, agriculture and forestry authorities, national park authorities, and administrations for

water management, coastal protection, and land use. To organize coordination and cooperation among

various stakeholders can be considered one of the main tasks of biosphere reserves (Batisse 1986,

10; Kooperationskonzept für die...1994).

3.3 Deficits in researchHuman concerns, although emphasized in the biosphere reserve objectives, have received relatively

little attention in research conducted in biosphere reserves and within the MAB Programme. According

to Kruse-Graumann (1995, 1), “the usual approach to environmental problems and to the notion of

environmental protection was more or less restricted to the analysis of the natural environment, of

ecosystems and of endangered species and was thus dominated by natural scientific thinking”.

The role of the social sciences in the MAB Programme already began to receive attention in the late

1970s, although this was mainly in the context of developing countries (e.g. Social Sciences in...1979).

The deficits in MAB research in northern countries, particularly in biosphere reserves, were first ad-

dressed in the EUROMAB (Cooperation of the MAB National Committees of Europe and NorthAmerica)

meeting in Strasbourg in 1991, where a small group meeting was organized on social research in bio-

sphere reserves (Kruse-Graumann 1995, 3). In the next EUROMAB meeting in Zakopane social issues

received more emphasis, but first in 1995 a working group with social science representatives from

EUROMAB National Committees met in a workshop in Königswinter. The conclusions and recom-

mendations of the workshop on “Societal dimensions of biosphere reserves - biosphere reserves for

people” suggested that social science research should help to make biosphere reserves models of sus-

tainable development but should also advance conceptual and practical knowledge on people-environ-

ment relationships (Conclusions and Recommendations...1995, 10). The aim was to standardize the

methodology of ecological monitoring and natural scientific research in order to make systematic com-

parisons between biosphere reserves possible. There is a significant lack of methods for a systematic

comparison within social science research on human-environment relationships in biosphere reserves.

The limits of research conducted strictly within the confines of one discipline have become obvi-

ous in recent decades. The commitment to learn another”s disciplinary terms has been emphasized

56

throughout the MAB Programme, and a number of interdisciplinary research programmes have been

launched aiming to bring together knowledge about social, environmental, and economic processes

(e.g. Björn et al. 1995; Rannikko and Schuurman 1997).

The special characteristics of coastal biosphere reserves have been the subject of at least two

international workshops. In August 1989 a workshop was organized in San Francisco (USA), and the

materials presented in the workshop were published in the proceedings entitled “Application of the

biosphere reserve concept to coastal marine areas” (Price and Humphrey 1993). A second workshop

was organized in Australia in August 1994, entitled “Coastal Marine Protected Areas and Biosphere

Reserves: ‘Towards a New Paradigm’ ” (Brunckhorst 1994).

Dobbin and Salm (1993, ref. Dutton and Saenger 1994, 21) observe “many parallels between the

planning for coastal zone management and planning for biosphere reserves”. The concept of ICM

can be used for improving management in the existing biosphere reserves, while the designation of

biosphere reserve can be seen as tool for more integrated management:

“During the last few years, the biosphere reserve concept has been receiving more and more inter-

est from scientists and managers working in the coastal zone as a tool for reconciling different

interests of conservation, research, tourism development, industry, traditional fisheries, pollution

monitoring etc. The value of coastal biosphere reserves, encompassing both land and sea parts and

their interface, lies in integrating conservation, research, and development goals in a single publicly

supported, management scheme. This multipurpose management can be achieved through the use of

zoning, in which core, buffer, and transition areas carry different requirements for protection and

human use” (Applying the biosphere...1994).

So far, however, little research has been carried out prerequisites or practical example on inte-

grated coastal management in biosphere reserves.

The small isle of Vilm used tobe the holiday resort of theGDR (German DemocraticRepublic)political leaders andwas not accessible to «normalpeople». Today the Interna-tional Academy of Nature Pro-tection is located on the island.A limited number of visitors perday can visit the island’smagnificient beech forest.

Photo: Martin Welp

57

4.1 Selection and delineation of case study areasBiosphere reserves were selected as case study areas for two reasons: their character as model

regions for sustainable development, and their international dimension, which is gained through

UNESCO. The case study areas selected for this study comprise all island and archipelago bio-

sphere reserves in the Baltic Sea Region. A further biosphere reserve on the Baltic Sea coast, namely

the ‘Slowinski Biosphere Reserve’ in Poland, is thus excluded in this study (see Map 8). This is not

only because my focus is centered on island and archipelago biosphere reserves, but also for practi-

cal reasons. Limiting the number of case studies to three enabled a deeper investigation of each

individual case. Also, it was not feasible for me as a researcher to add a fifth language (Polish) to

those spoken in the three other areas, German, Finnish, Swedish, and Estonian, most of which are

familiar to me, although in the latter I needed the help of an interpreter.

The Rügen Biosphere Reserve is one of thirteen reserves in Germany (see Map 5), and the only one

located in the Baltic Sea. There are three other coastal and marine biosphere reserves in Germany.17

These were established after the Rügen Biosphere Reserve and they are located in the Waddensea on

the west coast of Germany. The West Estonian Archipelago Biosphere Reserve, which is quite large,

is the only biosphere reserve in Estonia (see Map 6). In Finland there is one terrestrial biosphere

reserve in North Karelia in addition to the Archipelago Sea Biosphere Reserve (see Map 7).

The zonation and the administrative structure of each biosphere reserve is diverse and rather

complicated. Therefore, this study required a certain degree of flexibility in order to clearly delin-

eate the case study areas. The biosphere reserve concept, in which the transition area is an essen-

tial element, allows such flexibility. Two aspects were especially important for the delineation of

the case study areas: firstly, the geographic area in which the biosphere reserve administration

effectively acts; and secondly, the attempt to have a coherent social, cultural, economic, geo-

graphic, and administrative unit as case study area. Thus, the delineation of the case study areas,

for the purposes of this study, is not exactly identical with the official delineation of the three

biosphere reserves.

Key characteristics of the case study areas

17They are: Waddensea of Lower Saxony (designated in 1992), Waddensea of Hamburg (1992) and Waddensea of Schleswig-Holstein (1990).

58

The Rügen Biosphere Reserve covers only the southeast part of the island (about 11% of the land area).

In German it is called the Biosphärenreservat Südost-Rügen (the Southeast Rügen Biosphere Reserve).

The shorter version is officially confirmed in the UNESCO certificate and used internationally. In Ger-

many the longer version is used and confirmed in the ordinance, but in the following I will use the more

accurate German name, which translates into English as the “Southeast Rügen Biosphere Reserve”.

The administrative body responsible for the biosphere reserve is since the beginning of 1996 the

Rügen National Park Agency (Nationalparkamt Rügen). It is responsible for all ‘large protected

areas’ (Großschutzgebiete) on Rügen. There are three categories that are considered as large pro-

tected areas, and there is at least one of each category on Rügen. These are: the Southeast Rügen

Biosphere Reserve, the Jasmund National Park, the Vorpommersche Boddenlandschaft National Park

and the Rügen Nature Park. Although the nature park has not yet been confirmed, its final designa-

tion is seen as an essential part and confirmation of the concept of the Rügen model region, which is

promoted by the district government and the Rügen National Park Agency. In essence the idea con-

stitutes an attempt to integrate environment and development policies and to promote sustainable

development on the regional level.

Developments in other parts of the island and the biosphere reserve affect one another recipro-

cally. According to a representative of the Rügen National Park Agency: “The activities of the Na-

tional Park Agency are not restricted to the Southeast Rügen Biosphere Reserve, but cover the entire

island of Rügen to initiate a sustainable development according to the conclusions of Rio 1992”

(personal communication). The biosphere reserve is thus seen in its regional context, while the whole

island of Rügen is considered as case study area in this study.18 This is especially necessary when

analyzing strategic regional planning. (See Map 2.)

The West Estonian Archipelago Biosphere Reserve has three main constituent islands, Saaremaa,

Hiiumaa, and Vormsi, which each have a biosphere reserve center. The three centers work quite

independently. Thus it seemed appropriate to concentrate on the geographic area of only one center.

The Island of Hiiumaa was chosen, because the biosphere reserve center plays an especially active

role there. (See Map 3.)

18 There are good reasons to consider Rügen as one entity, not least because of the provisional designation of Rügen as a nature park.Nature parks in the eastern federal German states (Naturparke neuer Prägung) differ from their counterparts in the westernGerman states (Scherer 1995; Ostermann 1994). Eastern nature parks are basically intended to become identical to those ofbiosphere reserves. While nature parks in eastern states have a broader approach to environment and development concerns,nature parks in western federal states mainly serve recreational purposes and are perceived as scenery for touristic and recreationaluse (Jahresbericht 1996, 5). The main difference between eastern nature parks and biosphere reserves is that the former is solelya national category, lacking international recognition through UNESCO (Weigelt 1995). So far there is only one such case of adesignated nature park with a district-confirmed ordinance, the Schaalsee Nature Park. Rügen still lacks the final designation bythe district as a nature park and the issue has been subject to controversial debates (see Chapter 6.2.1).


59

The Archipelago Sea Biosphere Reserve is located in the municipalities of Houtskär, Korpo, Nagu,

and Dragsfjärd19 , excluding the main islands of the municipalities of Korpo and Nagu. In this re-

search, however, the main islands of Korpo and Nagu, which are sizeable, will be included because

they are important constituent islands in the archipelago. Also, according to the biosphere reserve’s

coordinator, the zonation is not understood in a strict sense — neither by the biosphere reserve

administration nor by the municipalities of Korpo and Nagu. The Archipelago Sea is not as clearly

defined as a coherent geographic and administrative unit as are Rügen and Hiiumaa. To a reasonable

extent, however, it does represent a social and cultural unit. (See Map 4.)

The case study areas differ considerably from each other in terms of geography, population den-

sity, and economy. In the following each case study area is briefly presented. The islands of Rügen,

Hiiumaa, and the Archipelago Sea are presented using the following subtitles: background, people

and the economy, main actors, local media, and problem analysis. In Chapter 4.3 the comparability

of the case study areas is discussed.

4.2 The case study areas4.2.1 The island of Rügen in Germany

Background

The island of Rügen is the north-easternmost district (Kreis) of the federal state of Mecklenburg-

Vorpommern. Until German Unification in 1990, Rügen was part of the German Democratic Repub-

lic (GDR). With a land area of 974 km² it is the biggest island in Germany. Agricultural land com-

prises 61% of the total land area, 15% is forested. A 2.5 km long bridge built in 1936 connects Rügen

to the mainland. Two ferry terminals are located at Sassnitz and Mukran, and efforts are made to

develop the latter as a gateway to the north (e.g. Klaipeda and St. Petersburg).

The southeastern part of the island of Rügen as well as the surrounding water areas were desig-

nated as a biosphere reserve in 1990 and officially added to the international list of biosphere re-

serves by UNESCO in 1991. The land area of the biosphere reserve is 109 km². The water area of the

biosphere reserve is 126 km². Seven municipalities, Baabe, Gager, Göhren, Lancken-Granitz,

Middelhagen, Sellin, Thiessow, and a considerable part of the town of Putbus, are located within the

biosphere reserve. Small areas of the municipality of Zirkow and the town of Binz also belong to the

biosphere reserve. The typical landscape characteristics in the biosphere reserve are beech forests,

19Only a small archipelagic area of the municipality of Dragsfjärd belongs to the biosphere reserve.

60

grasslands, salt marshes, and bays. The interaction of land and water areas gives a special character

to the landscape.

Besides the biosphere reserve and the provisionally designated nature park, there is also the Jasmund

National Park in the north of Rügen and the Vorpommersche Boddenlandschaft National Park, which

comprises parts of the coastal waters of western Rügen. Thus, the system of protected areas is on

Rügen well elaborated and comprises different categories of protection. The Ministry of the Envi-

ronment, Klaus Töpfer, praised the protected areas on Rügen during a visit in 1990 as the “family

silver of German unification”.

The district government has committed itself to the concept of Rügen model region (Timmel 1995).

Various other actors also aim to make all of Rügen a model region for ecologically oriented develop-

ment (Vorschläge zur...1993). There are good prerequisites, since Rügen is a coherent cultural, eco-

nomic, landscape and administrative entity.

People and the economy

In 1996 Rügen had 78,300 inhabitants. Due to migration the number of people has declined by

4100 since 1992. According to some estimates, in the year 2010 Rügen will have only 60,000 people.

The biggest town, Bergen, has 17,000 inhabitants, while 15% of the total population, (11,500) live in

the Southeast Rügen Biosphere Reserve (Erdmann and Nauber 1995, 217).

After German unification the economy of the island faced considerable changes. At present 23,000

people are regularly employed. Most work in service sector jobs, including tourism, construction,

trade, or manufacturing and administration. Agriculture, fishing, small scale food processing, and

tourism were formerly the main sources of income on Rügen. The collapse of state-owned farms and

fishing fleets, as well as the departure of the military, has caused high levels of unemployment and

migration. The unemployment rate in recent years has hovered between 18-19%, slightly higher

than the average in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. Without employment programmes, however, the

unemployment rate would be much higher.

Tourism has played an important role on Rügen since the beginning of the century, and it remained

important during the GDR era. After unification it experienced a short recession, but in recent years

tourism again became a vital economic sector. In 1993, the share of tourism as a source of income

was 10% (Vorschläge zur...1993, 41). The number of visitors reached 750,000 in 1995 and has been

growing constantly. But while tourism is a potential aid to economic development, it is also a threat

to the natural environment (Biosphärenreservat...1994).


61

The southeastern portion of the island has traditionally been one of the touristic centers on the

island. Some of the oldest and most traditional bathing resorts, like Göhren, Sellin and Baabe are

located here. Most intensive touristic development has occurred in this part of the island. More than

40% of overnight stays are concentrated on an area which is only 5% of the total land area of Rügen

(interview).

Main actors

The main actors listed for each of the case study areas below include groups who in some way

participate in environment and development planning. Only organized interest groups are identified.

The list includes the following types of actors: local and regional authorities, state and federal agen-

cies and ministries, political parties, NGOs, local initiatives, intellectual contributors, international

actors, and other important organizations or groups.

Rügen’s district assembly (Kreistag) makes political decisions concerning its development. The

Office of the District Councillor (Landratsamt) is its executive organ. The most important depart-

ments in this study are the Nature Conservation Department and the Building and Planning Depart-

ment. The district of Rügen consists of 42 rural municipalities and three towns (Bergen, Sassnitz and

Putbus). The municipalities, which are grouped into seven offices, are small and offices (Ämter)

were founded to take care of administration and services. The municipalities - rural communities

and towns - possess the main political decision-making power.

Political parties represented in the district assembly of Rügen include the Christian Democratic

Union (CDU), the Party of Democratic Socialism (PDS), the Social Democratic Party (SPD), and the

Free Democratic Party (FDP). The “Alliance for Rügen” (Bündnis für Rügen) is the third strongest

group after the conservative party CDU and the left-wing PDS. It is quite an exceptional coalition of

farmers and ‘environmentalists’ (activists from NGOs and the administration). Rügen is the only

district in the federal state of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern where CDU does not have the majority.

The National Park Office of Rügen is responsible for the management of large protected areas on

the island, including the biosphere reserve. The administrative structure of the biosphere reserve is

presented more in detail in Chapter 5.

Major changes to the jurisdictions of different ministries occurred after the elections in the federal

state of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern in autumn 1994. The Ministry of Environment was dismantled

and the former Department of Nature Protection became a sub-section in the Ministry of Agricul-

ture. Other departments of the Ministry of Environment became parts of the newly formed Ministry

62

of Building, Land Development, and the Environment. Physical planning, which under the old gov-

ernment was a part of the Ministry of Economy, was also transferred to this ministry (Röchert and

Lamp 1995).

There are four regional offices for spatial planning in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. Rügen belongs

to the planning unit of Vorpommern and the regional office is in Greifswald. It carries out land-use

planning at the federal state level (e.g. Raumordnungsverfahren). The State Office for Nature and

Environmental Protection (Staatliches Amt für Naturschutz und Umweltschutz) is responsible for

environmental issues. Other important sectoral agencies are the Road Administration

(Strassenbauamt), the Office for Agriculture (Landwirtschaftsamt Stralsund) and the Forestry Ad-

ministration (Forstbehörde).

Several NGOs (non-governmental organizations) and initiatives have been actively involved in

discussions about development alternatives on Rügen.20 The Citizens’ Initiative for Rügen

(Bürgerinitiative für Rügen), a small group consisting mainly of nature conservation activists and

professionals, was founded to protest against a planned shipyard in 1991. Since then, the Citizens’

Initiative has been very active, taking positions on various environmental and development is-

sues. In 1993, it produced an alternative development concept for the island, called the “Grey

Pamphlet”, which included ideas and proposals for ecologically oriented economic development

(Vorschläge zur...1993). The concept brought ecological consideration more explicitly to the agenda

of regional development on Rügen. The initiative’s ideas have figured more prominently in the

political arena since the last elections. Together with the Farmers’ Union of Rügen (Bauernverband

Rügen), it founded the Alliance for Rügen, whose platform shares the same fundamental princi-

ples as the Grey Pamphlet.

The Rügen BusinessAssociation (Wirtschaftsverein Rügen e.V., formerly the Wirtschaftsförderverein

Rügen e.V.) was founded in the beginning of 1992 to represent the interests of entrepreneurs on the

island. The same year it produced a paper, in which it positioned itself in the development debate

(Wirtschaftliche Entwicklung...1992). The Business Association has been actively involved in the

environment and development debate, organizing seminars and public discussions.

A further association which once actively participated in the debate on development is the Insula

Rugia (Verband zum Schutz, zur Pflege und Entwicklung der Insel Rügen e.V.). Its intentions were

20A small but active environmental movement had already begun during the GDR era. The state was not in the position tocontrol all civilian activities and so people found ways to act independently, especially in environmental protection. Theenvironmental movement as well as the church served as niches for «alternative» unregulated activity. In the eighties “roundtables” emerged from these groups and grew to a social movement. When the state of the GDR collapsed, these movementsalready had a certain structure which enabled them to act effectively.


63

similar to those of the Initiative for Rügen, but it took a more neutral and compromising position on

actual conflicts. It has had considerable importance in promoting and building awareness of regional

culture. Insula Rugia was also intended to become a ‘sponsoring society’ for the biosphere reserve,

and it also had the goal of forming or acting as the advisory board of the biosphere reserve (inter-

view).

Other interest groups are Tourism Association (Fremdenverkehrsverband), Chamber of Industry

and Commerce (Industrie- und Handelskammer). National environmental NGOs that are active on

Rügen are Naturschutzbund Deutschland (NABU), Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF) and Bund

für Naturschutz (BUND), which all have offices or active members on Rügen. In the environmental

debate, NABU and to some extent WWF have a media presence.

Local media

Rügen’s only regional daily paper is the Ostsee-Zeitung. It is circulated with supplements for

different towns and regions along the northern coast of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern by the Springer

publishing house. The Rügen supplement usually has four pages and is edited on the island. The

paper is considered generally neutral.

There are three newspapers, supported by advertising and circulated free of charge to every house-

hold on Rügen: Der Rüganer, Ostsee-Anzeiger and Rügen-Blitz. Der Rüganer is owned by a west

German investor who has worked and lived on Rügen since German unification. After some unpleas-

ant experiences with the local press in a conflict about his illegally constructed house on the coastal

strip (see Chapter 6.2.4), he decided to start his own newspaper (interview). According to environ-

mental professionals and NGOs, the Rüganer systematically blames the nature protection move-

ment for the island’s social and economic problems, mainly in order to generate an atmosphere

favorable to construction and the development of tourism business. The paper tends to polarize and

has had the journalistic style of the ‘yellow press’. The articles might be “flawed and untrue, but

never boring” (interview).

The Ostsee-Anzeiger is a free newspaper published by the same publishing house as the Ostsee-

Zeitung. Unlike its predecessor, the weekly supplement Seekiste, the Ostsee-Anzeiger has a more

journalistic character and its direct competitor is the Rüganer. A smaller advertising newspaper

which is circulated throughout Mecklenburg-Vorpommern in local issues is the Rügen-Blitz. If a

particular group cannot publish its position in other newspapers, it can turn to the Rügen-Blitz,

which is thankful for any ready material it can publish (interview).

64

Nationally, Rügen has the image of an unspoiled island. Besides being the largest island in Ger-

many, it is often considered to be the most beautiful. During his visit to the island in 1991 Richard

von Weizsäcker, the President of the German Federal Republic, uttered his oft-quoted declaration

that “Rügen has a splendor that cannot be found elsewhere in Germany”. Rügen’s national image has

contributed to the widespread media attention the island has received. For example, an environmen-

tal conflict in 1991 concerning the construction of a shipyard near the town of Sassnitz mobilized

national environmental NGOs and media to oppose the project.

Problem analysis

There is no general agreement about the most pressing problems on Rügen. Depending on the posi-

tion of a particular source, such problems might be the lack of better traffic connections to mainland, or

the pressures on environment caused by tourism or construction activities. Generally, there tends to be

great polarization between ‘environmentalists’ and ‘developers’. The origins of this polarization lie in

the past. To understand the present situation and the positions of various actors on Rügen one should

examine the origins of the development debate. The key project mentioned above of the planned ship-

yard near Sassnitz caused heated debate in 1991 and forced different interest groups to organize them-

selves and take position in the public discussions. This project basically initiated the public environ-

ment and development discussion shortly after German unification. Many considered the outcome a

major decision that will affect the future development of Rügen considerably.

The main issues causing conflict today on Rügen are tourism and construction, particularly their

economic importance and impact on landscape and nature. While mass tourism already existed on

Rügen during the GDR era, the negative environmental impacts of tourism, like traffic problems or

conflicts with nature protection were not as serious as they have become recently. The increased use

of the car for individual transportation, new patterns of recreation, and the concentration of tourism

to a few weeks in the summer contribute to increased problems.

There is little agreement on the desirable path of development on Rügen. The idea of the Rügen

model region can be traced back to the “Gray Pamphlet” published by the Initiative for Rügen,

although the Rügen Business Association also claims to have invented the term (interviews). After

the district councillor (Landrat) was elected from among this group and the Alliance for Rügen

became the third strongest political force, the idea of a Rügen model region was promoted and has

been a fixture of the regional political agenda ever since. However, there are many different percep-

tions of the actual character of the model.


65

4.2.2 The island of Hiiumaa in EstoniaBackground

Hiiumaa, the second largest island in Estonia, is situated in the eastern part of the Baltic Sea (Map

1). The shortest distance to the Estonian mainland is 22 km. The Swedish coast lies about 250 km to

the west and the Finnish coast is about 120 km to the north. The total land area of the island of

Hiiumaa is 1023 km². The coastline is 325 km long. There are one town and four rural municipalities

on Hiiumaa, and together they constitute the smallest county in Estonia. (See Map 3.)

The settlements and main roads were built along the coast, leaving the island’s interior sparsely

inhabited. Typical landscapes for Hiiumaa are pine, mixed spruce, and deciduous forests, swampy

thickets, juniper shrubs, coastal meadows, and bogs. Forests cover 70% of the total land area, mak-

ing the county the most forested in Estonia. There are marshy areas in the center of the island (7%),

but 20% of the total land area is agricultural. The landscape has changed considerably in the last few

decades, however; in the 1940s the share of forest land was not more than 20% and more than 60%

was agricultural and extensive pasture land (Hellström 1993).

Hiiumaa was a relatively closed island during the Soviet era, before Estonia regained independence

in 1991. For example, visitors needed a special permit to enter the island. The coast was a military zone,

which was not accessible, and building was not allowed. Because of its inaccessibility, the coast lost its

importance to daily life on Hiiumaa, leaving it in a nearly natural state. Due to the rising of land (3 mm

annually), many older coastal settlements are now relatively far away from the water.

The island of Hiiumaa is part of the West Estonian Archipelago Biosphere Reserve, which was desig-

nated by UNESCO in 1990. It consists of three main islands, Hiiumaa, Saaremaa, and Vormsi, as well as

hundreds of smaller islands. The total land area of these islands comprises 4,040 km², and 11,150 km² of

the surrounding sea is included in the biosphere reserve. A zone of seven nautical miles creates the sea

border of the biosphere reserve. Hiiumaa was chosen as a case study area because of the particularly

interesting efforts that were made to reach an agreement about the island’s future development (see e.g.

Development Concept...1993; Support to the Coordination...1995). Furthermore, the biosphere reserve

is actively involved in the discussions about the island’s future course of development.


Hiiumaa has 11,900 inhabitants, 4,400 of whom live in Kärdla, the capital city and only town on

the island. The highest population level on the island was reached shortly after Estonian independ-

ence in 1918, a total of 17,000, and by the end the 1960s it had declined to 9,700. In the mid-seven-

66

ties there was a new population growth trend, as employment opportunities with good wages at-

tracted people from the mainland. In comparison to other regions in Estonia, the ethnic composition

is very homogenous, and the Russian minority is only 1-2% of the total population.

Historically, Hiiumaa’s economy has always been diverse. Agriculture was its main livelihood, but

never the only occupation. In the 17th and 18th centuries, lumber and carpentry was important. The

island’s shipbuilding industry began in the 16th century, lasting until the beginning of the 20th

century (Development Concept...1993, 11). There has also been industrial production on Hiiumaa. A

glass factory was established as early as 1628, and the capital of Kärdla grew up around a cloth

factory after the mid-1880s. In addition to glass and clothing, artificial silk, hats, bicycles, bricks,

butter, cheese, sausages, roof tiles, lime, and tar were produced for local markets as well as for

export. By the 1930s, Kärdla had become an important export center in Estonia.

During World War II, the industrial sites and the port of Kärdla were destroyed (Tiirinen 1991, 89-

90). This was a hard blow for the island’s industry, and despite the variety of products, since then it

has been rather unimportant to its economy, with the exception of the capital Kärdla. (Development

concept...1993, 11.)

The postwar Soviet period brought more changes to Hiiumaa’s economy. The collectivization of

land put an end to private farms and associations. After the fusion of collective farms in the middle

of the seventies, there were five farms and a collective fishery on Hiiumaa. The processing of meat,

milk, and fish was also centralized. Forestry did not play an important role in Hiiumaa’s economy

during this time. (Development concept...1993, 12.)

Small-scale coastal fishing for subsistence and commercial use, which was one of the main second-

ary occupations on the island, suffered a great setback in the fifties because Hiiumaa was a strategically

important border area. Free coastal navigation was prohibited and small private crafts were even de-

stroyed by the government (Tiirinen 1991, 50, 56). The tradition of small boatbuilding and coastal

fishing was thus put to an end. But during the seventies and eighties, the Kolkhoz period, Hiiumaa was

well-known for ocean fishing (Development concept... 1993, 19). Even today the largest companies on

Hiiumaa are involved in fishing as well as processing and preserving fish products (Hiiumaa - getting

to know. 1995, 36-47). The Hiiumaa fleet fishes the Baltic Sea as well as the Atlantic.

After the re-establishment of Estonian independence in 1991, radical changes again occurred:

land seized in the Soviet era was returned to former private owners, including most of the agricultural

land. In contrast, most of the forest area used to be in state ownership, and thus only small forest parcels

will be privatized. Subsequently, the economic structure also changed rapidly. Fishing, fish-processing


67

and forestry are currently the main sources of income. There are two enterprises which produce canned

fish, one meat factory, and one dairy.

But tourism is looked to for new employment opportunities to the region. (Development Concept...1993,

11.) Currently there are severe social problems, mainly in the island’s rural areas. About 40% of the

rural population cannot find work near home. As a result, half of them are unemployed and half work

off island, mainly in the prosperous capital of Tallinn, where young people seek job opportunities

(Support to the Coordination...1995).

Main actors

Hiiumaa is one of Estonia’s fifteen counties. The head of the county is nominated by the central

government, but must also be approved by the council of municipalities. The most important depart-

ments of the county government for this research are the Regional Development Department

(Regionaalse arengu osakond), the Environmental Department (Keskkonnaosakond), the Economic

Department (Majandusosakond) and the Land Department (Maa-amet), which supervises land re-

form in the county.

The Tuuru Research and Education Center for Hiiumaa used to be part of the Regional Develop-

ment Department, with a mission defined by the county government to “prepare and complete the

action plans for Hiiumaa, initiate development projects, gather, analyze and systemize information

and develop education”. After recent organizational restructuring, it is now a non-profit, non-gov-

ernmental organization providing vocational training. Jobs & Society Hiiumaa Enterprise Agency is

closely connected to Tuuru Center and gives education and training to local entrepreneurs.

Hiiumaa is divided into five municipalities, four rural communities and one town. These are Käina,

Emmaste, Kõrgessaare, Pühalepa, and the Town of Kärdla. Together they founded the Union of

Hiiumaa Local Governments. This voluntary organization, which includes leaders of all the local

governments, coordinates their various activities, publishing essential information decisions made

in local governments in a bimonthly newspaper. Otherwise, political parties have not played an

important role on Hiiumaa to date. Local elections, last held in October 1996, have been more fo-

cused on individual candidates rather than party politics.

The Hiiumaa Center for the Biosphere Reserve of the West Estonian Archipelago, located in the

town of Kärdla, is one of three biosphere reserve centers. It has no regulatory role in natural resource

management except for the preparation of the ordinances of the core areas of the biosphere reserve.

For example environmental permits and controlling tasks are carried out by the environmental de-

68

partment of the county government. The center is actively involved in environmental education,

research, and regional planning, and it cooperates closely with the Environmental Department of the

County Government.

The ministry of the environment supervises land-use planning as well as the biosphere reserve.

There is a minister for regional development, but he does not have his own ministry. Instead this task

has been divided among several ministries. The state administration responsible for the management

of forests is the Hiiumaa Bureau of the Board of Forestry.

Non-governmental organizations on the island include three educational societies and groups be-

longing to the ‘Village Movement’ (Kodunkant). The latter, initiated by village residents and various

ministries, promotes the idea of villages as the centers of development. There are many similarities

between the educational societies and the Village Movement. Other NGOs or people’s initiatives are

not actively involved in environmental and development issues. A club of entrepreneurs was estab-

lished in 1997, but is currently not very active.

The Institute for Island Development is a public research and development institution located on the

neighboring island of Saaremaa. It is currently drawing up and implementing the government’s regional

programme for development and operation of the islands’ infrastructure and system of public services.

Many international actors have been active on Hiiumaa. For example, the United Nations Devel-

opment Programme (UNDP) is involved in financing the Hiiumaa Development Action Plan 2010.

The Center for Extension Studies of the University of Turku in Finland has set up plans for eco-

tourism and sustainable development within two project management courses. And the Helsinki

Commission has financed a management plan for Käina Bay.

Hiiumaa has taken part in various networks and other forms of cooperation with other islands. The

largest islands in the Baltic Sea have formed a common interest group, “The Islands of the Baltic

Sea”, also called “Baltic Seven Islands”, or just B7. Both Hiiumaa and Rügen have joined this group.

Cooperation within the seven largest Baltic Sea islands intends to strengthen the position of these

islands in policy making both nationally and internationally. In the future, ways to exchange of

knowledge and experience within the fields of environmental protection, tourism, businesses and

democracy are being commonly sought.

Another network in which Hiiumaa participated was the ‘Eco-islands network’, which supported

projects encouraging environmentally conscious tourism and the ‘Eco-islands Newsletter’ and semi-

nars provided a forum for exchanging experience. On Hiiumaa, for example, a “Green Label” was

launched for environmentally friendly tourism enterprises by the biosphere reserve center.


69

Local Media

There are two local newspapers on the island, Hiiumaa and Hiiu-Leht. There is also a broadcasting

station called Hiiu Radio. In radio, however, news is brief and broadcast three times a day, and it can

not be heard all over the island.

The Hiiumaa newspaper had two thousand subscribers in 1996, and five hundred were sold on

newsstands. Thus the paper reaches the majority of Hiiumaa’s 3600 households (interview), even

though the price of the paper is currently relatively high compared to larger national newspapers.

People with low-income levels can thus not afford it (interviews). Hiiumaa is published three times

a week and Hiiu-Leht appears once a week.

At the end of 1995, the union of local governments decided to establish its own newspaper, called

Hiiu-Teataja. In the beginning it was delivered free of charge to every household once a month.

Currently it is printed twice a month and costs a little less than Hiiumaa. While Hiiumaa is generally

favorable towards the county government (interviews, HT 16.8.1996), Hiiu-Teataja, which appears

only twice a month, is more sympathetic to local governments. This is one indicator of the conflict

between these levels of government, an aspect which will be further discussed in Chapter 6.2.2.

However, because they appear at different intervals, these papers compete to a limited extent.

Problem analysis

Different actors have different perceptions about the most acute problems on the island. However,

there seems to be quite a broad social consensus about the most desirable kind of development

scenario on the island. There is no strong polarization between ‘environmentalists’ and ‘developers’

as there is on Rügen, and on a basic level the need for environmentally sound economic development

is generally accepted. The main reason for the few conflicts is obviously the low level of investment

in the public infrastructure as well as in private businesses. Additionally, tourism development is

generally on small scale. For example, no big hotel projects have been so far planned or carried out.

None of the interview partners deemed it appropriate to have such large scale industries or mass

tourism on the island.21

From the socio-economic point of view the most severe problems on the island are related to

unemployment, transport, and education. The official unemployment rate is currently 2-3%, but not

21Two larger development projects have been rejected because of insufficient environmental standards. Permission for waterpolluting activities are given by the Environmental Department of the County Government. The construction of a shrimp-processing plant in Kassari was rejected due to insufficient treatment of sewages. Another rejected project was planned peatextraction for export. It was argued that the project would have a negative impact on ground water. In addition it was unclearif an Environmental Impact Assessment was needed (interview).

70

all of those seeking jobs are registered, and many of them work on the mainland. In addition, small

scale farming, hunting, and fishing provide a limited means of making a living. (interview.)

The transport problems were mentioned by several interview partners. The high price of the ferry

tickets and long waiting times due to the small capacity of the ferry are major obstacles for economic

development. Insufficient support for transport from the central state government is a main object of

criticism. The absence of possibilities for higher education was also considered problematic. Voca-

tional training is provided by the Hiiumaa Research and Education Center Tuuru, but in the country-

side the education provided is particularly insufficient.

Environmental problems are not highly prioritized in the public discussions, but on the other

hand, the risks related to future economic development are generally well known. In comparison

to many other islands in the Baltic Sea, the environment is well-preserved. This is mainly because

during the last fifty years Hiiumaa lay behind the ‘iron curtain’, and was virtually closed to visi-

tors from outside (Kokovkin 1993, 44). Although big changes in land use and landscape were

made in the Soviet era (e.g. intensification of agriculture and drying of wetlands) the Soviet sys-

tem also kept the island relatively untouched. Hiiumaa’s coastline remained in natural condition,

diversity of natural landscapes (forests, certain types of wetlands, coastal landscapes and islets)

increased due to little exploitation (Hellström 1993). After the breakdown of the Soviet system,

the nutrient runoff caused by municipal sewage, cattle farming, and industry decreased remark-

ably due to the collapse of agricultural production and the reduction of industrial production.

Also several treatment plants have been constructed with the help of foreign funding. However,

water pollution remains a problem in the vicinity of sewage treatment plants and the small food

processing industry.

Future economic development will undoubtedly bring more conflicts with environmental protec-

tion. Several interview partners estimated that when coastal land is returned and a real estate market

is created, the number of conflicts will increase. One of the first examples of coastal land-use con-

flicts is discussed in Chapter 6.2.4.

4.2.3 Archipelago Sea in FinlandBackground

The Archipelago Sea is situated in the Southwest of Finland. Hundreds of thousands of small

islands and islets extend over an area of about 50 x 50 km between the Finnish mainland and the

autonomous Åland islands. The landscapes have been strongly shaped by human activity, since the


71

coast and the islands were among the first areas to be inhabited in Finland. Today people mainly live

on the bigger islands, leaving the outer archipelago without permanent population.

The Archipelago Sea Biosphere Reserve was designated by UNESCO in February 1994. The land

area is 360 km² and sea area 3,840 km². The biosphere reserve is located in the municipalities of Houtskär,

Korpo, Nagu, and Dragsfjärd, although the main islands of the municipalities of Korpo and Nagu are

excluded. Only a small archipelagic area of the municipality of Dragsfjärd belongs to the biosphere

reserve. However, as stated earlier, in this study the main islands of Korpo and Nagu will also be

included as they, due to their size, are important constituent islands in the archipelago. (See Map 4.)

The core areas of the biosphere reserve consist of the Archipelago Sea National Park, which is

located in the outer archipelago, close to open waters of the Baltic Sea. The park was founded fol-

lowing an Act of Parliament passed already in 1983. The islands and rocky islets belonging to the

park are scattered in the archipelago between privately owned islands. Since 1983, the state began to

purchase privately owned land in order to gradually enlarge the park area, which currently com-

prises 22 km² of land and 220 km² of water22 . The land area of the park is intended to be enlarged to

30 km² (Nurmela 1994, 40). The first management plan for the park was published in 1990

(Saaristomeren kansallispuiston...1994).An update of the management plan is currently being drafted.


There are 1,200 people living in the biosphere reserve, but together with the main islands of Korpo,

and Nagu, the number of people living in the case study area reaches approximately 3,300. The

number of permanent inhabitants has been relatively stable in recent years. Some migration from

outer archipelago to the main islands has occurred. Leisure housing boosts the population, espe-

cially in the summer months. There is approximately one summer cottage per one permanent local

inhabitant in the municipalities of Houtskär, Korpo, and Nagu (Kestävän kehityksen...1995, 6). The

Archipelago Sea has great importance for tourism, especially motor boating and sailing.

The majority of the local population (80%) speaks Swedish. The municipalities have two offi-

cial languages, Swedish and Finnish (only Swedish is spoken on Houtskär).23 The population

along the northern boundary of the Archipelago Sea Biosphere Reserve is mainly Finnish-speak-

ing. In terms of social interaction and cooperation between municipalities, this border has tradi-

tionally been rather clear.

22The regional authorities were empowered with the right to purchase land. At present the newly established Southwest FinlandRegional Environmental Center has taken on this task.

23Finland has two official languages: Finnish and Swedish. The Swedish speaking minority (4%) is concentrated on the southand west coast.

72

The most important sources of livelihood are services, agriculture, fish farming, fishing, and to

some extent forestry and tourism. The state administration and services (e.g. seafaring administra-

tion, coastguard, naval defense, and the mail) is an important employer on several small islands and

also on the main island of the Korpo municipality (Lehtilä 1994, 9; Hokka 1992, 4). Local govern-

ments employ also a considerable number of people. Tourism is particularly intensive in the munici-

pality of Nagu. The unemployment rate in the region is relatively low in comparison to many other

rural regions in Finland. For example, the municipality of Houtskär, the most isolated due to its

geographic location, nevertheless has an unemployment rate of 10% (summer 1995).

Main actors

There are no branches of government at the county or district levels. The Archipelago Sea belongs

to the Province of Turku and Pori. The provincial government cooperates both with the authorities of

the state district administration and with the municipal administration. The provincial government

is not elected through public elections. The size and number of provinces will be subject to change in

the near future.

Together with other Swedish-speaking communities, the municipalities with land and water areas

within the biosphere reserve (Houtskär, Korpo, Nagu, and Dragsfjärd), founded an organization

called Åbolands Kommunalstämma to promote their common interests within the Archipelago Sea.

The strongest local political party in all municipalities is the Swedish Folk Party (Svenska

folkpartiet). In Houtskär it is the only party represented in the municipal council, while in Nagu and

Korpo, a non-aligned group has some strength. In Dragsfjärd, which is industrialized, the Social

Democratic Party (Sosialidemokraattinen puolue) and the Left Alliance (Vasemmistoliitto) play sig-

nificant roles. In the latest local elections of October 1996, no major changes occurred in compari-

son to the previous election in 1992 (Saaristomeren biosfäärialueen...1994, 5-7).

The administration of the biosphere reserve functions within the context of the Southwest Finland

Regional Environment Center located in the town of Turku. The only full-time employee is supported

jointly for three years by the environment center and the Finnish Forest and Park Service. The Archi-

pelago Sea National Park is managed by a separate Archipelago Park District Office, which is a part of

the Finnish Forest and Park Service. In 1997 the two moved to the same building, although they re-

mained separate entities. The administrative structure is presented in more detail in Chapter 5.1.2.

The Regional Council of Southwest Finland is the authority responsible for regional development

planning and land-use planning on the regional level. The council is an organization of the munici-


73

palities, whose representatives serve on its executive board. There is an Archipelago Board

(Saaristolautakunta) and an Agent for the Archipelago who is dedicated to archipelago issues.

The Southwest Finland Regional Environment Center was founded in 1995 and is responsible for

environmental protection on the regional level. Its tasks include confirming land-use plans, desig-

nating protected areas, and carrying out monitoring on water quality. The Ministry of the Environ-

ment has overall control, but the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry controls the use and manage-

ment of water resources.

The most important ministries for this study are the Ministry of the Interior, the Ministry of the

Environment, and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. The Ministry of the Interior has a con-

sulting board on archipelago issues (Saaristoasiain neuvottelukunta), which is involved in archi-

pelago development through various campaigns (e.g. promoting more intensive use of leisure houses).

Important sectoral agencies of the state administration are the Defense Force, the Coast Guard, the

Archipelago Shipping Authority (Saaristomeren merenkulkupiiri) as well as the Turku district of the

Finnish National Road Administration (Turun tiepiiri). Other important organizations are the For-

estry Board of Southwest Finland, the Turku Rural Business District, the Farma Rural Center, Åbo

Handelskammare and Åbolands Turistförening.

There are few non-governmental organizations in the Archipelago. For example there are no Vil-

lage Associations, as in many other places in Finland. There are however “Home Area Associations”

(Hembygdföreningar), who focus on the conservation of the local cultural heritage. The Lions Club

and the Rotary Club also have local branches. A Swedish-speaking environmental NGO with head-

quarters in Helsinki, the Finnish Society for Nature and Environment (Natur och Miljö), has been

actively involved in environmental debates in the Archipelago Sea, but it has no locally based group

and there are few members in the archipelago. A Finnish speaking environmental NGO, Finnish

Association for Nature Conservation (Suomen luonnonsuojeluliitto) has been involved in land-use

planning in the archipelago, although it is not as active in marine issues. It has a local group in

Parainen (Paraisten luonnonsuojeluyhdistys), a nearby municipality on the mainland. On the na-

tional level, both the Finnish Society for Nature and Environment and the Youth Organization of the

Finnish Association for Nature Conservation have demanded that the government should launch a

crisis programme to fight the ongoing pollution of the Baltic Sea.

There are numerous organizations involved in regional development in the Archipelago Sea.

One of the intellectual contributors in the region is the University of Turku, which provides adult

education, often combined with development projects. It has had specific archipelago programmes

74

(currently rural programmes). Also Houtskärs Kyrkliga Folkhögskolan has offered courses to

entrepreneurs. The Center for Extension Studies of the University of Turku has been involved in

the biosphere reserve by setting up a plan for sustainable development. The Archipelago Institute

of Åbo Akademi carries out research and publishes a quarterly journal called Skärgård (Archi-

pelago) in Swedish language. Kompassi is the name of an information center for the environment

established as a joint effort by the biosphere reserve and the nature studies school of the Archi-

pelago Sea (ÅU 10.10.1996). There are also organizations for international cooperation, includ-

ing among others the Archipelago Cooperation of the Nordic Council of Ministers (Nordiska

Ministerrådets Skärgårdssamarbete).

Local media

The most important regional newspaper is the Åbo Underrettelser. Another important newspaper

in the Swedish language is the Hufvudstadsbladet, which however has no regional editor in the

Archipelago Sea. It thus concentrates more on issues with national importance and is published in

Helsinki. The Ålands Tidningar, which is the regional newspaper of the autonomous Swedish-speaking

province of Åland, located west of the Archipelago Sea, is important for the Swedish speaking popu-

lation. The regional broadcasting station in Swedish is called Radio Åboland.

Two Finnish newspapers gain importance only in the summer months, when Finnish-speaking

‘summer folk’ (owners of summer cottages, boaters and tourists) arrive.24 These are the Turun

Sanomat, a regional newspaper, and the largest Finnish newspaper, the Helsingin Sanomat. The

regional broadcasting station in Finnish language is Meriradio.

Problem analysis

In the following I will describe what socio-economic and environmental problems are considered

to be most important. The observations are based mainly on interviews and newspaper articles. Be-

cause problems are perceived differently by various actors, I also analyze the relative importance

they assign to each issue, and the interrelationships thought to exist between perceived socio-eco-

nomic and environmental problems.

From the socio-economic point of view, the idea of a ‘living archipelago’ was stressed by most

interview partners. As a nation, Finland has maintained a strong regional policy to keep the archi-

24Permanent inhabitants of the Archipelago Sea often use the words “summer folk” for this group of people. The year-round useof cottages as second homes makes the distinction between permanent inhabitants and visitors increasingly difficult.


75

pelago as well as other peripheral and distressed areas inhabited (e.g. Andersson 1997). The Archi-

pelago law has secured good traffic connections and additional financial support for archipelago

municipalities. But due to the economic crisis in the beginning of the 1990s, state subsidies were

reduced, and simultaneously savings and privatization in the public sector had negative effects on

services and employment in small municipalities. These included post office closings and relocations

of banks and other services to the mainland, which have understandably caused irritation and fear

about the future provision of services.

The importance of employment opportunities provided by the state (piloting, coast guarding, ferry

traffic) has traditionally been important in the Archipelago Sea. On the other hand traditional eco-

nomic sectors, like agriculture, fishing and forestry employ less and less people, and under current

EU and national agricultural policy the situation is not likely going to improve. Tourism is being

seen as one of the growing economic sectors in the archipelago, but currently it employs only a few

people. The migration of young people in particular to other areas and the change to traditional

economic structures have caused fear about the future. There seems to be a clear trend towards a

decrease in the role of primary and secondary production, while the importance of the Archipelago

Sea for recreation increases.

There are sharp conflicts of interest between permanent residents and ‘summer folk’. People liv-

ing permanently in the archipelago are worried about the area becoming a summer paradise for the

leisure class. In the two summer months (mid-June to mid-August), the population greatly multi-

plies when people come to visit their summer cottages by boat or car.

Meanwhile, nature protection is often considered a hindrance to economic activities in the archi-

pelago. Conflicts are mostly related to fish farming, construction, and forestry. Perhaps even more

important are the conflicts between traditional rights, ownership rights, and nature protection. Is-

sues that were most hotly debated in a recent seminar in Nagu on the biosphere reserve included

fishing rights, hunting rights (especially the right to hunt migratory birds during springtime), and

restrictions caused by the ‘Natura 2000’ -programme.

Many interview partners considered the most urgent environmental problem to be the eutrophication

of the Archipelago Sea. This issue is difficult because it is caused by air pollution, agriculture,

forestry, and sewage from industry and dwellings. It has been difficult to address this problem on a

local level due to the fact that the municipalities are economically dependent on fish farming, which

has raised heated debates in local and national media. To some extent fish farming is a taboo theme,

which is simply not taken up: “It is one economic sector which you can not wipe away just like that.

76

But you can not just pretend it does not exist” (interview). The local effects of fish farming are

clearly visible, yet there is no agreement on its role in the total nutrient load.

There are other environmental issues that may cause even more serious conflicts in the future,

however. They include wind power and sand-dredging from the sea bottom. So far these issues have

been raised in discussion only on a limited scale.

4.3 Comparability of the case study areasCommon features of the case study areas include the island or archipelagic conditions, the geo-

graphical position relatively close to mainland, the sources of livelihood, and their important role in

nature and landscape protection nationally and internationally. There are however also significant

differences among the areas. Firstly, the density of the human population varies considerably. While

the population density on Hiiumaa is around ten persons per km², it is the eightfold on Rügen. In the

Archipelago Sea, there are approximately five persons per km², although the geographic character

with scattered islands makes this figure rather arbitrary.

Secondly, traffic connections are different. There is a bridge from mainland to the island of Rügen,

while the two other areas are accessible by ferry. Thirdly, while Hiiumaa and Rügen are geographi-

cally coherent islands, the Archipelago Sea consists of a great number of smaller and bigger islands.

Figure 13 shows some key figures of case study areas and the biosphere reserves.

BR established Population Land area Water area(Km2) (Km2)

Rügen - 78,300 974 -Southeast Rügen BR 1991 11,500 109 126Hiiumaa - 11,900 1,023 -West Estonian Archipelago BR 1990 ca. 52,000 4,040 11,150

(7 miles zone)Archipelago Sea(with main islands) - ca. 3,300 ca. 620 -

Archipelago Sea BR 1994 1,200 360 3,840

Figure 13. Key figures of the case study areas and the areas that are actually designated as biosphere reserves(Sources: Key facts 1996; Biosphärenreservate in Deutschland 1995; Post 1995; Kestävän kehityksen...1995; Pank et al. 1996).

The case study areas also differ in regard to political background. Both Rügen and Hiiumaa were

once islands belonging to socialist countries (until 1990 and 1991 respectively), while the region of


77

the Archipelago Sea has a longer democratic tradition. In socialist countries such basic democratic

structures as free elections were non-existent, and non-governmental organizations were either not

allowed or under state supervision to a greater or lesser extent. Currently there are local elections

and other democratic institutions in all case study areas. But the former political systems seem to

have a strong impact on the attitudes towards planning and politics.

For example, the local population of Hiiumaa is generally very skeptical towards local and state

administration and politics in general. Even on the municipal level, the amount of trust in political

representatives and public administration is low. According to a survey initiated by the Hiiumaa

Biosphere Reserve Center and carried out in 1994, 70% of Hiiumaa residents were convinced that

they cannot participate in decision-making on the local level (Island and Mainland Views...1995, 8).

A point of comparison is provided by a survey conducted among one thousand adult citizens in

Finland in the same year (1994). According to this study, the majority of Finns (53%) believed

themselves to be able to influence decisions made on the municipal level. Voting in local elections,

personal contacts to representatives, and replying to public-opinion polls were considered to be the

most effective ways of influencing public decision-making. Obviously the different historical back-

ground plays a significant role in this respect, and therefore poses a serious challenge to any effort to

improve possibilities for public participation in planning and decision-making.

Only Rügen maintains an elected district administration encompassing the whole island. Although

Hiiumaa also has a county government, its members are not directly elected but nominated by the

central government. In theArchipelago Sea, no political body encompasses the respective geographical

area. The Turku and Pori provincial government represents the upper level governance above the

municipal level and encompasses the whole of southwestern Finland. It acts as a mediator between

the central government and municipalities.

The former political system also has direct implications on the holding of land and housing in the

case study areas. Land used to be state property on Rügen and Hiiumaa, while in the Archipelago Sea

most of the land is in private ownership, including the coastal strip. Small family farms on Rügen

and Hiiumaa were collectivized during the socialist era, and they were run by large state-owned

agricultural enterprises. On Rügen and Hiiumaa, land is being returned to former owners, but this

process is slow and cumbersome. Unresolved questions of ownership cause many difficulties, not

only for agricultural enterprises; they sometimes hinder needed investments.

The intensity of tourism differs significantly among the three case-study areas. The rapid growth

of the tourism industry on Rügen has encouraged a great deal of speculation in land and property

78

(Petschull 1993; Preller 1993). Critics have claimed that in many cases the local population has

benefited little from this development, and subsequently unemployment is still high (Preller 1993).

Hiiumaa and the Archipelago Sea also hope to benefit from increased tourism, but similar pressure

as on Rügen cannot be expected in the near future. The level of outside investment, particularly in

tourism, is currently high on Rügen, while it is rather low on Hiiumaa and in the Archipelago Sea.

The type of conflict between environmental and economic goals can be characterized as latent in

the Archipelago Sea and on Hiiumaa, while it is overt in the conflict on Rügen. Main reasons for this

seem to be the intensive pressures (mass tourism, investments, construction) and the presence of

Characteristiclevel of economicdevelopmentpolitical system

distribution ofwealth and worklevel of outside invest-ments in touristic and othereconomic developmentmain socio-economicissues

type of conflict betweenenvironmental and eco-nomic goalsrelationship between en-vironmentalists and devel-opers

number of organized inter-ests groupsenvironmental NGOs ac-tively involved in the region

Rügen- high

- until 1989 part of a social-ist country (GermanDemocratic Republic)

- political system adoptedfrom West-Germany

- short democratic tradition- not even

- high

- high unemployment- migration

- open conflicts,- campaigning

- strong polarization- conflict between privateproperty rights, outside in-vestors and nature andlandscape conservation

- high

- several

Hiiumaa- low

- until 1991 part of a social-ist country (Soviet Union)

- short democratic tradition

- not even

- very low

- high unemployment- poverty in rural areas- migration- latent conflicts

- mainly consensus- appearing conflictsconcerning land use

- low

- almost none

Archipelago Sea- high

- western democracy- long democratic tradition

- even

- low

- preservation of eco-nomic stability

- mostly latent conflicts;occasionally open

- mainly consensus- conflict between privateproperty rights and na-ture conservation

- quite high

- few

Figure 14. Some characteristics of the case study areas.


79

active environmental NGOs and the well-defined system of protected areas, which have direct con-

sequences for land use.

Rügen in particular has experienced a ‘boom’ of development plans and concepts. Numerous sectoral

plans and concepts have been set up. Similarly, in the Archipelago Sea various actors have initiated

archipelago projects aiming at enhancing local employment and entrepreneurship. Figure 14 com-

pares some essential characteristics of the case study areas.

One may argue that since the case study areas are quite clearly at different ‘stages’ of develop-

ment, comparisons are likely to be irrelevant. Yet the differences can actually provide a justification

for comparative study. Rose (1973, 70) has pointed out that “as some nations [in this study regions]

are ‘ahead’ in their problems or solutions, then comparisons can provide a prospect of a future to be

sought or avoided”.

The international framework of the case study

areas is strongly influenced by the European Un-

ion, whose member countries include Germany

and Finland. Finland joined the EU in 1995

along with Sweden and Austria. Estonia is one

of seven former East-bloc nations conducting

negotiations with the EU and it is currently

making strong efforts towards membership. The

country has already begun adapting its legisla-

tion to the requirements of the Union, and in

February 1998 the Association Agreement be-

tween Estonia and the European Union came

into effect (Estonian Review 1998)25 . The agree-

ment created a markedly wider framework for

Estonia to conduct relations with the EU, and

was meant to help prepare it for membership.

European Union-funded projects (e.g. PHARE

- Programme) in Estonia are one form of coop-

eration already taking place.

25The Association Agreement came simultaneously into effect also in the other two Baltic countries of Latvia and Lithuania.

Fishing now provides a source of income to only a few inhabitantsin the archipelago Sea. The importance of coastal fishing began todecline in the 1950s (Eklund 1994). Fishing for subsistence is stillpopular. Here nets for Baltic herring are being cleaned.

Photo: Martin Öhman

80

Not all archipelago inhabitants were fishermen or farmers. The shipping routes of com-mercial vessels and the navy plied the Archipelago Sea in the Middle Ages and a chainof pilot stations was established. The profession of pilots was passed on from father toson. The picture shows the staff of the pilot station in Utö (ca. 1910). Today pilot serviceis provided centrally from Pärnäs in Nagu. Photo: Martin Öhman

Nomadic seal hunters were probably the first people in the Archipelago Sea area. Ar-cheological excavations on the island of Kökar indicate that intensive seal hunting tookplace as early as the Bronze Age. A bag made of seal skin from the turn of the 20th

century. Photo: Martin Öhman

81

5.1 Designation of the biosphere reservesRügen

The addition of the Southeast Rügen Biosphere Reserve to the international list of biosphere

reserves was approved by UNESCO on March 6, 1991. In the same year, the biosphere reserve

administration started its work. The process of designating the reserve was brief and took place

during a period of great political change in the German Democratic Republic (GDR). The desig-

nation of the biosphere reserve was part of the National Park Programme. The preparation of the

programme started in 1989 and it was adopted by the Council of Ministers of GDR in March 1990.

On September 12, 1990, only three weeks before the unification of East and West Germany, the

areas designated in the National Park Programme came under official protection. Altogether the

programme comprised five national parks, six biosphere reserves and three nature parks. Four of

these were located completely or partly on Rügen: the Southeast Rügen Biosphere Reserve; the

Jasmund National Park, which was designated in the northern part of the island and includes the

area around the famous “Königsstuhl” cliff; the Vorpommersche Boddenlandschaft National Park,

which covers a small part of the coastal land and waters in the western part of the island; and

finally the Nature Park, which covers the whole island (excluding the other protected areas). The

nomination of the nature park was provisional and has not yet been confirmed by the district

government.

The initiative for the national park programme originated from the ranks of the nature protec-

tion and environmental movement in the GDR. During turbulent times of political change in the

GDR, activists from these groups saw the possibility of establishing new protected areas. It soon

became apparent that the unification of East and West Germany would take place, and in order to

have the areas designated, action had to be taken quickly. The process of designating protected

areas within the legal system of West Germany was perceived as much more complicated and

time-consuming due to intensive consultations with various government agencies, municipalities

and interest groups. This lengthy process was not necessitated by GDR legislation and the politi-

The biosphere reserves of SoutheastRügen, the West Estonian Archipelago,

and the Archipelago Sea

82

cal will for designating such areas already existed. Inclusion in the Unification Treaty made it

possible to safeguard the protection provisions even after the unification of East and West Ger-

many (Guidelines for the...1995, 19).26

The underlying assumption of the initiators of the biosphere reserve (as well as other protected

areas) was that the areas would be exposed to high pressures caused by increased tourism, recreation

and construction. Thus the protected areas were established among others in order to be able to

hinder unwanted developments. A number of older protected areas already existed on Rügen.

In the following I will concentrate on the designation of the Southeast Rügen Biosphere Reserve.

Municipalities that would be affected by the biosphere reserve were consulted and agreed to be part of

the biosphere reserve. According to interviews with heads of municipalities the biosphere reserve was

at that time seen as an opportunity, so that not much time was spent analyzing what the ordinance of the

biosphere reserve could mean in practice. Also the legislative arrangements evolved only after the

reserves had been designated, as for example the building law. Thus, the practical implications of the

designation were clear to perhaps no one at that time. According to one head of a municipality:

We had other things to do too. We were told that the biosphere reserve would be something that

takes care of nature. After the political change we neither had the time nor the interest to study the

biosphere reserve concept. Our daily work occupied us completely. We did not even read the bio-

sphere reserve ordinance through. We just looked over it and said: ‘This is for nature protection,

this must be good’. Afterwards it turned out that considerable restrictions accompanied it.

A representative of the biosphere reserve has a similar understanding of the process of designating

the biosphere reserve:

When the heads of the municipalities agreed to give their signature and seal, they of course did

not know what would come about. They did not have any concrete ideas about it, only that it is an

international program, which was thought to provide help in local development. What resulted was

a nature protection authority which denies construction permits. Now they are not at all keen on it,

some of the heads of municipalities are actually making war against us.

The criticism that no extensive public participation took place when the biosphere was established

was raised in several interviews. In fact the whole legal basis of the biosphere reserve was later

questioned in a lawsuit (see Chapter 6.2.4).

26The national park program of the GDR gave a push for designating new protected areas also in the western federal states. Thedebate regarding the designation of protected areas has involved considerable conflict, and in many Länder it has becomehighly political (Hellström and Welp 1996). Discussions have also been very lively concerning the objectives of nationalparks, biosphere reserves, and nature parks (e.g. Kaether 1994, Großschutzgebiete als strukturpolitische...1995).

The biosphere reserves of Southeast Rügen, the West Estonian Archipelago, and the Archipelago Sea

83

Hiiumaa

There were protected areas on Hiiumaa already before the establishment of the biosphere reserve.

The Hiiumaa Islets Landscape Reserve was established in 1971 and is located in the southeastern part

of Hiiumaa. It covers a 15 km long chain of islets in the sea. The Käina Bay Ornithological Reserve, an

important breeding ground and resting place for migratory birds, was also established in 1971. Since

1989 it has belonged to the list of Important Bird Areas (IBA). (Nature conservation in Estonia 1994.)

In the early 1980s there were discussions about establishing a marine park (merepark) around

Hiiumaa. The initiators were mainly representatives of the existing landscape reserve. Zoning was

contrived so that the proposed marine park would have included coastal areas extending inland up to

the main roads. Due mostly to the opposition of local residents and some members of the district

government, however, the park was not established. (interview.)

In the middle of 1980 there were discussions among nature protection professionals about estab-

lishing a biosphere reserve. The first proposal presented in 1987 was to designate only the island of

Saaremaa as a biosphere reserve. But there was interest among nature protection professionals on

Hiiumaa to include Hiiumaa in the reserve. A research group was established to prepare a more

concrete proposal to establish the biosphere reserve. After one and a half years, preliminary zonation

was ready, including, in addition to both islands, the surrounding islets, the sea, and coastal areas on

the mainland as well (Matsalu Bay and Haapsalu), while the areas on the mainland were excluded

from the final proposal. (interview.)

The West Estonian Biosphere Reserve was founded on a declaration plane in the Supreme Soviet

of Estonia in December 1988. In practice, however, it was established after the completion of pre-

paratory studies and creation of provisory zonation through an ordinance passed by the Government

of the Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic in December 1989. UNESCO approval to add it to the list

of biosphere reserves was confirmed in March 1990. In August of the next year Estonia re-estab-

lished its independence. The Hiiumaa Biosphere Reserve Center was established in the summer of

1990 (Uljas et al. 1996, 31).

The district governments played an important role in establishing the reserve, and initially fi-

nanced the activities as well. The main motivation for the efforts of establishing a biosphere reserve

was, according to one of the initiators and nature protection professionals, to protect Saaremaa and

Hiiumaa against Russian ‘megaprojects’ (interview). Further military activities, port development,

and subsequent clearing of land were considered to be major threats to the islands’ environment.

There was no significant local opposition against the biosphere reserve:

84

It was the time of the singing revolution and freedom. People had a positive attitude.

There is little documentation about the process of establishing the biosphere reserve. One of the

interview partners criticized the fact that there was no broad discussion about the reserve during the

initial phase:

The reserve was established during Soviet era when nobody asked the people for their opinion.

Through successful lobbying the initiators achieved the establishment of the biosphere reserve.

Despite the fact that no there was public participation, the biosphere reserve is generally well

accepted on the island. The legitimacy of the reserve was never seriously questioned, in the media or

elsewhere.

Archipelago Sea

There are currently two biosphere reserves in Finland: the Archipelago Sea Biosphere Reserve and

the North Karelian Biosphere Reserve in Eastern Finland, which belongs to the boreal woodlands

ecosystem type and is sparsely populated. The process of designating the two biosphere reserves

took just under ten years.

For some time UNESCO had repeatedly urged Finland to establish biosphere reserves, until the

national MAB-Committee (within the Academy of Finland) eventually launched the process (inter-

view). It began in 1985-86 with a pilot study for selecting sites for inclusion in the international

biosphere reserve network (Vickholm 1986). Statements concerning the pilot study were solicited

from various parties, including the newly established Ministry of the Environment. On the basis of

this study, a seminar entitled “Establishing a biosphere reserve in Finland” was organized in Febru-

ary 1987. Thirty representatives of research institutes and public administration took part in the

seminar and a report was published (Rajasärkkä 1987). The establishment of one or two biosphere

reserves was suggested, one in the Archipelago Sea and possibly one in North Karelia.

The Scientific Committee for the Environment (within the Academy of Finland) proposed that the

Ministry of the Environment should establish a working group to prepare the designation of bio-

sphere reserves. In 1988 the Biosphere Reserve Working Group under the Ministry of the Environ-

ment begun its work to determine the applicability of the existing Archipelago National Park (estab-

lished already in 1982) and surrounding areas as a biosphere reserve, and to evaluate the need for

another biosphere reserve in the mainland of Finland. Representatives of the Forest and Park Serv-

ice, Ministry of the Environment, and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry were permanent

members. In addition there were two permanent experts from the Association of Finnish Local and


85

Regional Authorities and the Finland’s Svenska Kommunförbund. The working group had 15 meet-

ings. The municipalities affected were included in the planning process in 1988 when the working

group visited the proposed sites (Biosfäärialueiden perustaminen...1989). The working group car-

ried out discussion with representatives of the municipalities of Nagu, Korpo and Houtskär. Also the

University of Turku and the Archipelago Development Project were consulted.

A few months later, a seminar was organized in Turku to inform about the biosphere reserve and to

get feedback from the local people and the administration. Besides research institutes and govern-

ment agencies, representatives of municipalities were also present, and local newspapers wrote arti-

cles about the seminar. Municipalities demanded clear statements that no further restrictions for

land use would be introduced by the biosphere reserve (ÅU 1.12.1988). Regarding the perception of

local residents, the same paper wrote that they were to some extent afraid of further regulations. The

statement of one inhabitant was cited as follows: “We do not want to live in a reservation and behave

according to other people’s expectations, like Indians are forced to do in North America.” In general

the role of research was emphasized (TS 1.12.88, see also Helle 1990).

The municipality of Houtskär, the only municipality whose entire land and water area were to lie

within the biosphere reserve, accepted the proposal under following conditions: (a) the majority of

representatives in the advisory board of the biosphere reserve should be local people, (b) the status

of being part of a biosphere reserve shall not restrict economic activities, and (c) there shall be no

restrictions in land-use planning; in other words the municipalities shall retain their monopoly on

planning (Statement of the municipality council to the Ministry of the Environment concerning the

establishment of the biosphere reserve, dated 15.3.1989).

The basis for the zonation was the ‘area of cooperation’ already existing in the Archipelago Sea

National Park, which was extended to cover areas north of the main islands of Houtskär, Korpo and

Nagu. However, the main islands of the municipalities of Korpo and Nagu were excluded from the

biosphere reserve, by request of these two municipalities. The obvious reason for this was the fear that

economic development would be restricted.There were discussions about whether to exclude the northern

parts of the municipalities, but the final zonation proposed in the working group’s report included these

areas (Biosfäärialueiden perustaminen...1989). In addition the report presented an overview of research

needs and a proposal for setting up the administration and the advisory board.

The Finnish MAB Committee sent the nomination forms of the North Karelian Biosphere Reserve

and the Archipelago Sea Biosphere Reserve to UNESCO. The former was established in 1993 and

the latter on May 24, 1994.

86

The process of designating the biosphere can be characterized as a relatively open and well-docu-

mented process that included discussions with representatives of various organizations, seminars

and reports. However, many interview partners reflected that they knew very little about the bio-

sphere reserve. For example, municipalities wanted to exclude the main islands in order to diminish

the risks involved in the effort. The municipalities had also had certain expectations related to new

working opportunities, research and funding.

5.2 Structure and tasks of the administrationRügen

The responsibility for the protection, maintenance and development of the individual biosphere

reserves in Germany lies within the Länder. This includes the safeguarding of the reserves’ legal

status and the provision of administrative back-up. Subsequently there are considerable differences

between administrative structures as well as financial and human resources of biosphere reserves in

different Länder. Biosphere reserves are in most cases supervised by the Länder ministries for nature

conservation and landscape management. The MAB National Committee has an advisory role. It

publishes MAB reports, which provide information on national and international contributions of

the German National Committee for MAB-program. Among the items developed by the committee

are the “Guidelines for the Protection, Maintenance and Development of German biosphere reserves”.

(Guidelines for the...1995, 21, 29-30.)

The state of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern has established a National Park Agency which coordi-

nates the National Park Programme of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern on the level of the federal state

(Guidelines for the...1995, 30). In the beginning all protected areas on Rügen had their own sepa-

rate administrations, which were branch offices of the National Park Agency of Mecklenburg-

Vorpommern.

In 1993 the administration of the Southeast Rügen Biosphere Reserve had twelve employees (four

of whom were serving as conscientious objectors) (OZ 13.7.1993). The administration of protected

areas on Rügen was reorganized in the beginning of 1996 (OZ 1.6.1995). The ‘Rügen National Park

Agency’ was established to manage all large protected areas on Rügen, including the Jasmund Na-

tional Park, the biosphere reserve, and the nature park. In 1997 the administration had 55 permanent

workers, most of whom were working as rangers. There is still local representation in each of the

protected areas, but the main office carries out administrative duties, including issuing statements

on land-use plans and other sectoral plans. At the same time the previous overlapping jurisdictions


87

of the forestry administration and National Park Agency in the national park was eliminated by

integrating the forestry administration and the administration for protected areas27.

Administrative functions of biosphere reserves in Germany may range from official opinions to

participation in formal public planning and approval procedures, and may even include independent

sovereign and regulatory functions (Guidelines for the...1995, 33). On Rügen the National Park

Agency is the lower nature conservation authority for the biosphere reserve. In addition it can be

considered as an administrative body promoting sustainable land and water use within different

sectors, including agriculture, forestry, and tourism. It supports the district government in imple-

menting the concept of a Rügen model region. The National Park Agency has a strong regulative role

in land-use issues. The promotive role of the biosphere reserve is currently not as strong. The admin-

istration manages a state programme for the extensive use of pasture land28 and has, for example,

taken part in the formulation of a LEADER II project proposal for the European Union. More re-

cently it submitted an application to the European Union which intended to combine different pro-

grams to a unified whole, tailored for the specific needs of a region. The idea of the model region was

also strongly anchored in this application.

Since the Rügen National Park Agency manages the three different types of protected areas, the

title ‘national park agency’ may seem misleading (Jahresbericht 1996, 4). It has already caused

confusion, particularly in respect to the different goals in different protected areas (“They want to

make all of Rügen as national park!”). For practical reasons, in the following discussion the National

Park Agency shall also be referred to as the biosphere reserve administration, especially when com-

paring the three case study areas, in order to avoid unnecessary confusion surrounding the term

‘national park’. The name obviously originates from the national programme of the GDR, which

included national parks as well as nature parks and biosphere reserves.

Much of the work of the biosphere reserve administration consists of formulating statements on

municipal land-use plans (kommunale Bauleitplanung) and on individual construction applications

within the biosphere reserve (interview; Erdmann and Nauber 1995, 218-219). In the southeastern

27Changes within the competences of different ministries have also brought change to the administrative structures of protectedareas in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. Previously both the forestry administration and the national park office managed thenational parks. Serious conflicts about competencies and management principles took place. Only after the administrationswere combined were conditions in place for constructive dialogue. In biosphere reserves, the dual arrangements continued toexist. This is however not considered to be problematic because forestry is still practiced in biosphere reserves, and theprincipal question of not interfering with natural processes did not arise, as it did in national parks.

28A clearly promotional task is to manage the state program for the extensive use of pasture land (Förderprogramm zurnaturschutzgerechten Grünlandbewirtschaftung im Land Mecklenburg-Vorpormmer). Within this program, agreements aremade between the land Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and farmers to reduce the number of animals on pasture land. Compensa-tion is paid according to the terms of the agreement.

88

part of Rügen, the importance of the tourism industry has been growing fast since unification. At the

same time, construction has also been increasing steadily. During the first three years the number of

statements on different plans issued by the biosphere reserve administration doubled annually (see

Figure 15). The amount of statements stabilized from 1995 to 1996.

Year 1990/1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

Number of statements 49 151 291 540 489 502

Figure 15. Number of statements issued for various types of planning (Flächennutzungspläne, Bebaungspläne, Vorhaben- undErschliessungspläne, Grünordnungspläne, Landschaftspflegerische Begleitpläne, Planfeststellungsverfahren, Bauvoranfragen,Bauanträge, Abbruchanträge, Widersprüche, Wegebau/Versorungsleitungen, Sonstiges) in Southeast Rügen Biosphere Reserve

(Jahresbericht 1994, 14; Jahresbericht 1996, 38).

Although the activities of the biosphere reserve are usually restricted to regulatory functions, the

ordinance of the Southeast Rügen Biosphere Reserve places a strong emphasis on the role of devel-

opment. To date it is the only biosphere reserve ordinance in Germany that articulates the goal of

developing practical models for ecological land use in agriculture, forestry, fishing, tourism, and

traffic (Verordnung über die...1990, Weigelt 1995, 16). It also states that research conducted in the

biosphere reserve shall have the goal of developing models for its sustainable use, and that public

relation work and education shall enhance awareness on environmental issues.

To fulfill the goals of the biosphere reserve, the biosphere reserve ordinance (§5 (2)) further stipu-

lates that “a maintenance and development plan shall be set up considering ecological, social, eco-

nomic and cultural aspects”. Due to lack of funding, no detailed maintenance and development plan

(Pflege- und Entwicklungsplan) has been set up so far. However, a framework management plan is

currently being prepared (Guidelines for the...1995, 58). The federal government is also funding a

project focusing on “Landscapes with national importance” (Gesamtstaatlich repräsentative

landschaften). However, this project covers only part of the biosphere reserve and concentrates solely

on traditional issues of nature protection. According to the representative of the biosphere reserve,

social and economic issues are the most difficult, and they should be given greater emphasis. Yet the

main concern of the federal government project remains traditional nature conservation.

What we need is what is written in the ordinance: a management plan which takes into consid-

eration the ecological, economic, cultural and social aspects. This cannot be made within the

framework of this project from Bonn, because they still are stuck to the old style of nature protec-

tion and they are only dealing with biotype protection. They do not believe us that other problems

are more urgent, namely everything that has to do with socio-economic aspects. This we have to


89

tried to do with Länder funding, but there are few resources available, much too few. (Representa-

tive of the biosphere reserve.)

Although the biosphere reserve administration does not have a clear coordinating function, in

many cases it has been able to influence sectoral decision-making through negotiations and by as-

serting its legal status as the nature protection authority.

Hiiumaa

The territory of the biosphere reserve occupies portions of three separate administrative districts.

There is a ‘Center for the Biosphere Reserve’ for each one. The centers are located in Kärdla (Hiiumaa),

in Kuressaare (Saaremaa), and in the town of Haapsalu on the mainland (responsible for the island of

Vormsi). In 1996, six people were employed at the Hiiumaa center, and only one at Haapsalu. The

staff policy of the Saaremaa center differs from that of the Hiiumaa; for instance, it makes use of

fewer full-time employees, relying more on outside expertise, mainly from universities, to carry out

various projects (interview).

The intention during the phase of establishing the reserve was to have a functioning coordinating

body with decision-making power to make policy decisions about the development of the biosphere

reserve. Members were intended to be: heads of the county governments, representatives of local

municipalities, and representatives of the biosphere reserve centers (interview). Although a ‘Coun-

cil of the Biosphere Reserve’ exists nominally, it never really got underway. More or less regular

meetings take place between representatives of the biosphere reserve centers. But there is no institu-

tionalized mechanism equivalent to an advisory board, either for the whole biosphere reserve, or for

individual islands. Cooperation takes place within other forums and through informal channels.

The biosphere reserve centers are under the supervision of the Ministry of the Environment, which

also finances them. Since the re-establishment of Estonian independence, the national MAB-com-

mittee has not been active and does thus not play an important role in the management of the bio-

sphere reserve.

According to the ordinance of the rules of the West Estonian Archipelago Biosphere Reserve (Lääne-

Eesti saarestiku...1994) the overall tasks of the Center include:

• elaborating nature management plans,

• protecting core areas and natural landmarks,

• elaborating and carrying out environmental monitoring,

• participating in regional planning,

90

• ecological education,

• disseminating knowledge about nature protection,

• controlling the impact of tourism,

• soliciting local participation in nature protection programmes,

• promoting traditional uses of nature.

Representatives of the biosphere reserve Center of Hiiumaa see their main role in education and in

creating and transmitting knowledge. A regulatory or controlling function is not desired (interviews).

In a leaflet on Hiiumaa (Hiiumaa - getting to know. 1995) the biosphere reserve Center presents

itself in the following way:

“Five questions to the Hiiumaa Centre of the Biosphere Reserve

1 What kind of a nature reserve is this here, where people work and are busy with their everyday

activities like everywhere else? Nothing special strikes the eye.

So it has to be. A biosphere reserve is not a conventional nature reserve but something principally

new and different. While on a common nature reserve the restrictions and supervision are the prior-

ity issues, then on the biosphere reserve the aim is to achieve that people in their everyday activities

are nature friendly and would plan their future so that relations of man and nature remained friendly

and supporting each other.

2 Could it be understood then that there are wise men in the biosphere reserve willing to bring

Hiiumaa people to reason?

It is an old fashioned notion that somewhere wise men make the right decisions and then pour them

down on people. On a biosphere reserve it is done on a quite new way - the decisions come from

below. Every family, village, community and the county should be entitled to the right and responsi-

bility to take care of the ecological situation on their territory. Why should we consider Hiiumaa

people not to be sensible enough to measure twice and then cut. Our responsibility is to help Hiiumaa

people acquire the up-to-date knowledge, information and technologies, but they themselves make

the decisions. (...)”

Without addressing more explicitly problems and inequalities within the existing decision-mak-

ing system and the question of different levels of governance, the self-presentation inherits a strong

commitment to participatory planning and management. The biosphere reserve center clearly wants

to distance itself from a ‘command-and-control’ approach to managing protected areas, preferring

instead a more consultative approach (cf. Post 1998).


91

Indeed, the Biosphere Reserve Center is generally accepted as a neutral partner on Hiiumaa. For

example, when a conflict on regional development and land reform occurred between the county gov-

ernment and the municipalities in the summer of 1996 (HT 5.7.1996), a meeting was organized to settle

the conflict. This meeting was chaired by the director of the Biosphere Reserve Center (HI 13.7.1996).

The biosphere reserve Center has published articles in local newspapers on environmental and

development issues on the island. A monthly biosphere reserve supplement (2-4 pages) is published

in the newspaper Hiiumaa. Also a weekly radio programme was broadcasted in the past, but cur-

rently the local radio station broadcasts only short local news. Also several school projects on nature

protection have been carried out (View from the lighthouse...1995, 9).

The biosphere reserve Center has been able to create good contacts abroad and has been successful

in finding partners for various projects. Thus it has also a logistical role. One form of international

project is the cooperative network, such as the Eco-Islands Network and the Seven Baltic Islands

Network (B7). Through the Eco-Islands network, the biosphere reserve has been involved in tourism

development. In cooperation with several tourist enterprises and the county government, the bio-

sphere reserve Center launched a Hiiumaa Green Label Campaign for travel agencies, hotels, and

restaurants. It has also promoted cooperation among businesses with the German island of Pellworm

(import of wool and export of handmade wool-wear).

The biosphere reserve carries out and supports research on the island. The office initiated a social

survey among Hiiumaa people which was carried out in 1994 together with the University of Tarto.

The results were published in numerous articles in the local newspaper and in various publications

(e.g. Uljas et al. 1996). An own biosphere reserve publication series, “Pirrujaak”, has presented

among others research results on nature resources and bird fauna, as well as a “Nature bibliography

of the island of Hiiumaa”. An environmental laboratory in Kärdla was also established by the Bio-

sphere Reserve Center. The laboratory is used for both internal research activities and for visiting

research teams.

The biosphere reserve carries out mapping and zonation of nature conservation areas, which will

become core areas of the biosphere reserve. The office identifies certain areas to be considered for

protection, proposing them to the Ministry of the Environment, which makes the final decisions.

Archipelago Sea

Preceding the Archipelago Sea Biosphere Reserve was the Archipelago Sea National Park, established

in 1983. The agency responsible for managing the park is the Forest and Park Service. In 1990 the local

92

national park office had three full-time employees, four part-time rangers and one secretary (Saaristomeren

kansallispuiston...1994, 30). The tasks of the office primarily involved managing the state-owned park

sites (nature protection, recreation, environmental education); they did not include for example develop-

ing the local economy in the surrounding areas (Saaristomeren kansallispuiston...1994, 7).

The designation of a biosphere reserve which would also entail development issues was first planned

and discussed in the 1980s. The biosphere reserve was finally established in 1994. For the two years the

Academy of Finland financed one researcher at the Turku University to build up the biosphere reserve

administration and to inform local people. There was no representative in the Archipelago Sea and thus

the biosphere reserve remained quite unknown. In September 1995 a full time employee was hired and

placed in the municipality of Nagu. The biosphere reserve functions within the context of the South-

west Finland Regional Environmental Center, since biosphere reserves in Finland do not enjoy a posi-

tion of independent administration. In the following I will, however, refer to the biosphere reserve

administration, even though it remains a part of the Southwest Finland Regional Environmental Center.

The post of the biosphere reserve coordinator was initially limited for three years. It intended to be a

provisional solution until a more permanent organizational model was found (interview). Its juridical

and administrative status, as well as financing, were discussed in various seminars.

The administrations for the national park and for the biosphere reserve were not consolidated, but

remained separate. In practice, however, they work together intensively and since 1997 they occupy

the same office building. A logistics center for environmentally related activities, called Kompassen

(the compass), was established in Nagu in 1996. The same building houses the national park office,

the biosphere reserve administration, the Archipelago Nature School, and the booking center for

tourists, which both helps to save money and enables close cooperation among the different actors

(ÅU, 10 & 11.10.1996).

Finnish biosphere reserves are not managed by one single ministry. The Ministry of the Environ-

ment had a central role in designating the biosphere reserves, but it currently does not fund the

administration of the biosphere reserve directly. At present the administration is jointly financed by

the Southwest Finland Regional Environment Center and the Finnish Forest and Park Service (the

Archipelago Park District Office). The core areas are under the protection of the Ministry of the

Environment, but managed by the Finnish Forest and Park Service.

The Ministry of Education has authority over the national MAB-committee and the Finnish

UNESCO-delegation, as well as its natural sciences section. The importance of the commitment of

local governments to the biosphere reserve concept has been often stressed. Local governments are


93

under the supervision of the Ministry of the Interior, but so far it has taken not taken an active role in

promoting the idea of biosphere reserves. There have been discussions of whether one ministry

should have a leading role, or whether biosphere reserves should be jointly managed and financed,

possibly by the three ministries named above.

The Advisory Committee for the Archipelago Sea with two sections, one for the national park and

one for the biosphere reserve, was established in 1995. The new committee replaced the former

Advisory Committee of the Archipelago National Park, which already existed since the mid-1980s.

The establishment of the new committee caused heated debates in the local press. This shall be more

closely analyzed in Chapter 6.2.7.

Short after the approval of the Archipelago Sea as a biosphere reserve by UNESCO, the special

researcher for the biosphere reserve wrote, “Hopefully the biosphere reserve can be an instrument

of cooperation. Also (it could be helpful) in conflict situations between nature protection and

economic activities, whose solutions require various channels for discussion and cooperation”

(Lehtilä 1994, 37).

From the beginning the biosphere reserve was oriented towards improving cooperation in the area.

This meant acting simultaneously as a link between people and the state administration, and as a

coordinator of research activities. The latter role has received greater emphasis. In fact, one inter-

view partner stressed the need for every single agency must maintain direct contact with the local

population (interview).

Some problems have occurred between the biosphere reserve and the existing organizations, in-

cluding groups within the tourism industry (interview). The coordination efforts of the biosphere

reserve have to some extent been perceived as a threat to existing organizational structures. It has

been suggested that the biosphere reserve could also bring environmental considerations more ex-

plicitly into regional development planning.

5.3 Adequate zonation?One criterion for an area to qualify as a biosphere reserve is its size. Precise criteria do not exist on

the international level. According to the Statutory Framework (Biosphere reserves 1996, 17), bio-

sphere reserves “...should have an appropriate size to serve the three functions of biosphere re-

serves” (conservation, development and logistic support). Each country may however have specific

national criteria for biosphere reserves that take into account the special conditions of the country

concerned. Not many countries have done this, although it is encouraged in the statutory framework.

94

Rügen

Germany has set up national criteria, according to which the size of a biosphere reserve should be at

minimum 30,000 ha of land area and not bigger than 150,000 ha (Kriterien für Anerkennung...1996, 7).

With a land area of only 10,900 ha the Southeast Rügen Biosphere Reserve would not meet this criteria.

Prior to its designation as a biosphere reserve, Southeast Rügen was protected by two nature con-

servation areas and one protected landscape area. The protected status of the designated biosphere

reserve is still gained through several nature conservation areas and one protected landscape area,

which covers the whole area of the biosphere reserve. The zonation of the biosphere reserve was

partly based on the old categories of nature and landscape protection and on historical borders,

including an old railroad line. The nature conservation areas comprise the core areas (1.5% of the

total area), buffer zones (13.6%), and the protected landscape area in the transition zone (84.9%).

(Fünf Jahre Nationalparkprogramm...1995.)

The Southeast Rügen Biosphere Reserve is clearly too small to fulfill the tasks defined in the ordi-

nance (Fünf Jahre Nationalparkprogramm...1995, 52, interview). Therefore it can hardly be regarded as

a regional unit in which new sustainable models for resource use can be developed. There are however

at present no intentions to make the biosphere reserve larger. It would currently be hardly possible to

gain political support from surrounding municipalities for such an effort, mainly because the nature

protection authority would gain a stronger position in land-use issues (interview). Instead of a long and

cumbersome process of designating a larger area as a biosphere reserve, the biosphere reserve adminis-

tration sees better possibilities to promote sustainable development through the concept of Rügen model

region. The intention to ultimately designate Rügen as a nature park is seen as an essential step towards

creating the model region. According to the biosphere reserve administration, “It is the same thing,

only with different license plates” (interview). According to the annual report of the Rügen National

Park Agency (NPA), “The policy of the district government and activities of numerous other institu-

tions, especially NGOs, are oriented [towards the Rügen model region]. Thus the Rügen NPA sees as

the first and foremost task to be involved in such regional development and to support the county

government’s role within it” (Jahresbericht 1996, 6). The report further states that “In fact all activities

of the Rügen NPAmay be understood as a contribution to Rügen model region” (Jahresbericht 1996, 6).

The variety of protected areas on Rügen and the broad approach adopted by the Rügen NPA have

made it possible to also extend the range of activities beyond the existing zonation. But for an indi-

vidual citizen, the variety of protected and programme areas (national park, biosphere reserve, na-

ture park, model region, protected landscape area) often appears confusing.


95

Hiiumaa

The delineation of the zones for the West Estonian Archipelago Biosphere Reserve was begun

towards the end of 1980s. The first zonation was rather general and outlined about ten core areas.

More detailed zonation of the biosphere reserve was carried out in the 1990s, totaling 43 core areas.

These core areas were defined by the requirement that no economic activity is allowed within their

boundaries.

The current zonation includes also protected land- and seascapes. The five major protected land-

scapes serving as buffer zones for core areas are the Kõpu Peninsula and Õngu areas in the west, the

Tahkuna peninsula in the north, the Sarve peninsula in the southeast, and an area in the middle of the

island. There are three main groups of natural objects under protection: nature reserves, natural

landmarks, and habitats for rare plant species. Among them are the Käina Bay bird sanctuary and the

landscape reserves of Kassari and Sarve. In addition there is a total of 33 protected parks, avenues,

groves, and old unique trees, and 27 remarkable boulders which are protected due to their size or

attraction. (Kokovkin 1996.)

One of the tasks of the biosphere reserve is to set up the rules for protecting core areas.

For a long time, the legal status of the cores as protected areas was not very clear. Proper protection

was gained only after completion of the protection rules for each area. A major problem was to unify

the different zones of the biosphere reserve (core areas, buffer zones, and transition zones) and

current categories of protection with the new categories listed in the Law on Protected Areas, Spe-

cies and Natural Monuments (1994). The biosphere reserve center prepared the rules of protection

for each area using the new categories, which were eventually confirmed by the Ministry of the

Environment. The work was difficult because to a large extent questions of land ownership remained

unresolved. If a landowner gets land back in an area where protection rules exist, he or she can

decide to exchange this particular land for vouchers which can be used for buying land elsewhere.

Compensations are paid in the form of tax reductions in areas with special regulations.

The West Estonian Archipelago Biosphere Reserve is one of the largest biosphere reserves in the

world. It is also exceptional because it includes large areas of the sea. The biosphere reserve is large

enough to become a meaningful region for promoting sustainable resource use. The larger islands

constitute coherent geographic, cultural, administrative and economic entities. Therefore it is im-

portant that both larger islands have their own biosphere reserve centers.

The issue of whether coastal areas on the mainland should have been included in the reserve, as was

proposed in a draft zonation for the reserve, is currently not topical. In coastal planning and manage-

96

ment efforts, however, these areas should be included, depending on specific concerns. An important

wetland area, the Matsalu Nature Reserve, for example, is located close to the biosphere reserve.

Archipelago Sea

The Archipelago Sea Biosphere Reserve includes land and water areas of the municipalities of

Houtskär, Korpo, Nagu and Dragsfjärd. The zonation can not be regarded as appropriate, since the

main islands of the municipalities of Korpo and Nagu are excluded. Because of their size, they are

important constituent islands in the archipelago. Although the boundaries of the biosphere reserve,

particularly with the exclusion of the main islands, do not confine the day-to-day work of the bio-

sphere reserve administration (interview), the present zonation does not substantiate the idea of

biosphere reserves as model regions. Most of the population and most of the economic activity

concentrate on the two largest islands.

The main reason for excluding the islands was that municipalities wanted to proceed cautiously

and leave the economically important areas outside the reserve. In addition, within the Ministry of

the Environment and the working group there were opinions that considered the main islands ‘too

urbanized”, and thus not suitable to be included into a biosphere reserve. But if these islands are

compared with areas included, for example in the Southeast Rügen or the West Estonian Archi-

pelago Biosphere Reserve, the argument is not very convincing. One should also bear in mind that

there have been discussions to include urban and even industrialized areas within the international

network of biosphere reserves.

The division into three interrelated zones suggested by UNESCO has not been applied in the Archi-

pelago Sea Biosphere Reserve. The area is divided into core areas, which simultaneously creates the

Archipelago Sea National Park, and a cooperation area (yhteistoiminta-alue), which more or less equals

the ‘transition area’. Under current agendas and legal arrangements this division seems to be appropriate.

5.4 Biosphere reserves in national legislationRügen

Nature conservation and the designation of protected areas in Germany is largely a responsibility

of the individual states (Länder). The Federal Nature Conservation Act from 1976 is a framework

law which includes the following categories of protection for nature and landscape: national parks,

nature conservation areas, protected landscape areas, and nature parks. Biosphere reserves are not

one of the categories of this legal framework, but in connection with the proposed amendment of the


97

Federal Nature Conservation Act there are plans to incorporate biosphere reserves into this Act as an

independent category for the protection, maintenance and development of representative natural and

cultural landscapes (Guidelines for the...1995, 31).29

The nature conservation laws of some eastern Länder, including Mecklenburg-Vorpommern,

Brandenburg, Saxony, Saxony-Anhalt, and Thuringia, incorporate legal regulations on biosphere

reserves. These Länder thus already treat biosphere reserves as one category for protected areas.

(Guidelines for the...1995, 31.)

The Southeast Rügen Biosphere Reserve was established the 12. September of 1990 with an ‘Ordi-

nance on nature and landscape conservation areas’ (Verordnung über die...1990). It lays down the

goals of the biosphere reserve, defines the zonation as well as the orders (Gebote) and prohibitions

(Verbote) in each respective zone. It is the only biosphere reserve ordinance in Germany which

clearly defines the goal of environmental protection by developing models for ecological land use

within the sectors: agriculture, forestry, fisheries, traffic, and recreation (Weigelt 1995, 16). Juridi-

cally the ordinance gives however only vague support for the fulfillment of the goals. Some changes

to the ordinance were made in 1992 (Erste Verordnung zur...1992).

The biosphere reserve of Southeast Rügen is recognized in regional planning on the state level.

The first spatial plan on this state level (Erstes Landesraumordnungsprogramm Mecklenburg-

Vorpommern) includes biosphere reserves and other protected areas as special areas.

Hiiumaa

Biosphere reserves are not explicitly mentioned in the environmental and nature protection legis-

lation. The Law on Protected Areas, Species and Natural Monuments (1994) defines the following

categories of protected areas: National Park (Rahvuspark), Nature Reserve (Looduskaitseala), Re-

serve (Kaitseala) and Programme Area (Programmiala). Biosphere reserves are covered by the cat-

egory of programme areas, which are “managed under local, national or international programme for

monitoring, investigation or educational purposes as well as combining conservation and manage-

ment of natural resources” (§ 18 (1)). The Biosphere Reserve and one Hydrological Reserve (pro-

tected ground water area) are considered as programme areas in Estonia.

29 There have also been discussions about introducing a category of biosphere parks (Biosphärenparke) rather than biospherereserves into the amendment of the Federal Nature Conservation Act. Biosphere parks would be nationally important culturallandscapes, and selected biosphere parks could also receive the international designation of biosphere reserves from UNESCO(Biosphärenparke. Perspektiven für...1993). One of the main arguments for the biosphere park is that there is a need for a newcategory of model regions for sustainable land use. The designation of biosphere reserve is, however, only possible for uniquelandscapes with international importance. Biosphere parks would thus be a national category which could be given for severalsimilar biomes (major types of natural environment).

98

There is an ordinance establishing the West Estonian Archipelago Biosphere Reserve which was

passed by the Government of the Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic in December 1989. According

to the 1994 decree of the West Estonian Archipelago Biosphere Reserve, the tasks of the biosphere

reserve include the elaboration of nature management plans, protection of core areas and nature

monuments, and the elaboration and fulfillment of environmental monitoring. Further activities in-

volve participation in regional planning, ecological education, dissemination of nature protection

knowledge, control over tourism loads, enlisting local participation in nature protection programmes,

and the promotion of traditional nature uses.

Archipelago Sea

In Finland, various legal and administrative arrangements for biosphere reserves have been dis-

cussed in recent years. These are briefly discussed below. There are no legal provisions for the

management and the administration of Finnish biosphere reserves. Neither the Nature Conservation

Act nor any other act recognizes biosphere reserves as a category of protection or special status.30

The designation of the Archipelago Sea Biosphere Reserve was not based on any new law or decree.

The state-owned core areas of the Archipelago Sea Biosphere Reserve were already protected by the

law (645/82) and the act (1040/82) of the Archipelago Sea National Park. The law and the act also

specify the tasks and the organization of the national park administration. This specification con-

cerning the biosphere reserve is still missing. The national park law specifies the area of coopera-

tion, which is not identical with zonation of the biosphere reserve, however. The biosphere reserve

encompasses additional areas north of the national park’s area of cooperation.

A decree of the Archipelago Sea Advisory Committee was enacted in 1994 (Förordning om

delegationen för Skärgårdshavet 1994)31 . It replaced the former Advisory Committee of the Archi-

pelago National Park. The new committee consists of representatives of local inhabitants, munici-

palities, governmental departments and universities. Two sections have been established under the

committee. The Section for the National Park has been appointed in the decree of the committee and

in addition a Section for the Biosphere Reserve was directly set up by the committee.

This decree defines the tasks of the Advisory Committee thusly: (1) to promote and coordinate

research on the Archipelago Sea Biosphere Reserve, (2) to promote sustainable development in the

biosphere reserve, (3) to keep contact with local population, observe their needs and make necessary

30 The Nature Conservation Act was amended and came into force in the beginning of 1997, but it did not include the categoryof biosphere reserves.

31 In the other Finnish biosphere reserve, no advisory committee has been established by decree. That this forum for cooperationnow exists in the Archipelago Sea is due to the fact that the national park had already had one since the middle of 1980s.


99

initiatives, (4) to keep contact with the municipalities and state administration in the area, (5) to

promote informing about issues related to the biosphere reserve, (6) to take care of other tasks that

have been directed by the Council of State or the Ministry of the Environment. The decree has been

criticized because these tasks cannot be fulfilled by the Advisory Committee alone, but they could

become the general tasks of the biosphere reserve and its administration (interview).

The question of whether biosphere reserves should have a stronger juridical and organizational

status has been discussed on several occasions, including two biosphere reserve seminars organized

in Nagu (10-11.10.1996) and in Mekrijärvi (31.10.-1.11.1996). During the seminars, arguments were

presented for and against a legal codification. On the one hand the present situation gives consider-

able freedom and flexibility for setting priorities among various activities. It also forces the bio-

sphere reserve administration to cooperate with other organizations and groups. One argument that

claimed that the danger of a permanent organizational structure was that it might soon become a

self-sustaining organization which would no longer rely on good cooperation. On the other hand, the

current short term ‘project-oriented’ approach gives no continuity to the efforts and thus no long-

term plans can be made. In the present situation “activities turn out to be opportunistic - money is

applied there where it can be gotten” (interview).

A stronger juridical status has been demanded by representatives of the biosphere reserve and the

national park, who find it problematic that the administration lacks the authority to sign applications

or contracts (interviews). Inclusion in the national legislation, even by means of a relatively general

statement of its status as a model region for sustainable resource use, would probably increase the

attention given to biosphere reserves by different ministries (interview). The argument against a

stronger organizational status was that “if activities are intended to be voluntary and with a bottom-

up approach, the present situation might be better” (interview). Those interview partners who saw

the biosphere reserve primarily as an ‘agreement’ among different actors were reluctant to introduce

a formal and official biosphere reserve administration and legal framework (interview). For exam-

ple, some municipal leaders considered it good that the reserve can now find its own ways of activi-

ties (interview). In addition, because introducing a law would mean a huge administrative effort, it is

important that the benefits be clear.

The organizational structure implies an emphasis on voluntary agreements and cooperation, in

contrast to regulation and control. The decree of the Advisory Committee states in general who is

involved in the management of the reserve, but is not very specific about how the management

framework should be organized. The protection of core areas has been secured by the pre-existing

100

national park. There are however various programmes for nature protection, including the recent

NATURA 2000, which have been heavily criticized for lack of participation. The biosphere reserve

administration has not been directly involved in these efforts.

The Ministry of the Environment has so far been reluctant to commit itself to financing the bio-

sphere reserve, which indicates that biosphere reserves are not high on its list of priorities. Yet if one

ministry alone would finance the costs of biosphere reserves, it would become easier for other min-

istries to withdraw from any responsibility. Administrative competence would again be a hindrance

for successful cooperation. The ideal could be a model of a joint financing agreement of the three

most relevant ministries: the Ministry of the Interior, the Ministry of the Environment, and the Min-

istry of Forestry and Agriculture. Agreeing on certain management principles or developing a bio-

sphere reserve policy could be a fruitful start.

5.5 Comparison of the biosphere reserve’s rolesThe biosphere reserves have adopted a particular role shaped by the legal framework, administrative

system, and institutionally agreed and individual priorities. The three roles suggested by UNESCO (cf.

Fig. 12 in Chapter 3.1), the conservation, development, and logistical support roles are emphasized in

different ways. Ideally the administration of a biosphere reserve should fulfill all three functions

The degree of visibility of some of the roles of biosphere reserve administrations varies. The

perception of the biosphere reserve held by local people and other actors depends much on the

local media and the public image created by the biosphere reserve administration through the

distribution of information.

The different roles of the three biosphere reserves are compared in Figure 16. In simple terms, the

role of the Rügen National Park Agency may be characterized as a regulating agent, the role of the

Figure 16. Different roles of the three biosphere reserves.

Rügen- ‘no’-sayer in buildingpermissions

- nature police (rangers)- guided tours

- promoter of the conceptof ‘Rügen model region’

Hiiumaa- intellectual contributor- environmental educator- project launcher

- makers of international contacts- preparer of the designation ofcore areas

Archipelago Sea- discursive facilitator- role seeker

- research coordinator- coordinator of cooperationwithin the tourism sector

MOREVISIBLE

LESSVISIBLE


101

Hiiumaa Biosphere Reserve Center as an intellectual contributor, and the role of the Archipelago

Sea Biosphere Reserve as a facilitator (Welp 1998a).

Studies of the perception of local people concerning the biosphere reserve have been made on

Rügen and on Hiiumaa. According to the study conducted in Southeast Rügen, about 40% feel indif-

ferent towards the biosphere reserve, 30% have a negative attitude, and 30% have a positive attitude

(Lichtenberg and Wolf 1998). According to the social survey conducted on Hiiumaa in 1994, more

than 50% were not well informed about the Hiiumaa Biosphere Reserve Center. 30% had a positive

attitude, 10% were indifferent, and 10% were critical towards it. However, it should be noted that

these figures are rather old. A study was conducted for the Archipelago Sea National Park in the end

of 1996 and the beginning of 1997, but this was prior to the existence of the biosphere reserve, and

the study was not broadly distributed and remained internal (Linmell 1994a, 1994b).

There are about 41 000 islands and islets in the Archipelago Sea area. Ground-rock,which is almost 2000 million years old, can be seen everywhere and has been wornsmooth by ice and the sea. Source: Leaflet of the Archipelago Sea National Park

102

One of the wooden sculptures, which was made by the Biosphere ReserveHiiumaa Centre for the television program about sustainable development.This sculpture symbolizes different aspects of sustainable development; thehand referring to the technical, the heart to the emotional and the head tothe intellectual dimension. The sculptures are on permanent display at theSoara Farm Heritage Musem close to Kärdla Photo: Mart Mõniste

103

6.1 Selection of illustrative examplesThe aim of biosphere reserves is to integrate environmental and development issues in planning

and management. Therefore a whole range of planning activities in the area concerned is relevant to

the concept of the biosphere reserve. The following analysis is a cross-cut of various planning ac-

tivities in the case study areas. Because different public planning and decision-making procedures in

the case study areas are so numerous and varied, a limited number of illustrative examples have been

selected to highlight certain aspects of coastal planning practice. The following analysis and com-

parison does not include a comprehensive presentation of each country’s planning system (cf. Fig. 8

in Chapter 2.4). Because organizational structures, sectoral planning arrangements, and permit sys-

tems relevant to coastal management are numerous and complex, a comprehensive presentation is

beyond the focus and the scope of this study.

No especially entitled ‘integrated coastal management’-programs or plans have been launched in

the case study areas, except of one estuary management plan on Hiiumaa. Various other efforts have

been undertaken to coordinate sectoral planning (regional councils, planning committees etc.). How-

ever, a broad range of planning activities is carried out by different actors.

There are different ways of categorizing planning into different types: by sectors, by government

level where public planning is carried out (national, regional, local), or by geographic area. A dis-

tinction can also be made between project and strategic level planning. I have for the purposes of this

study identified following types of planning: strategic regional development planning, sectoral plan-

ning, coastal land-use planning, water-use planning, coastal ecosystem management, and planning

activities related to the biosphere reserve.

In addition, the designation of biosphere reserves in the case study areas can be considered as a

special type of environmental and development planning that goes beyond planning for the estab-

lishment of protected areas. Biosphere reserves set down certain goals for future development and

oblige sectoral agencies, local governments, and other actors to take special notice of their objec-

tives. In Chapter 5.1 the designation, administration, and system of zonation for biosphere reserves

Analysis and comparisonof planning practice on Rügen,

Hiiumaa, and the Archipelago Sea

104

were presented. These issues are important in analyzing the present role of biosphere reserve admin-

istration in environmental and development planning.

The selection of examples is based on the following considerations: (a) a recent public environ-

mental and development debate that in some ways manifested itself in the planning process, (b) the

process included some interesting aspects for the course of lesson-drawing, (c) the process was

considered by key informants as having regional (or in some cases even national) importance, (d)

access to information, (e) special relevance of the process for the biosphere reserve and (f) a similar

process was to be found in one or two of the other case study areas. The biosphere reserve adminis-

tration might, but did not necessarily have to, be involved in the planning activities selected for this

study. In most cases it did, however, either formally or informally.

The types of planning and illustrative examples selected in each case study area are presented in

the following figure. The variety of examples illustrates the many issues and planning levels rel-

evant to coastal management and the biosphere reserve.

In the following the planning activities selected for closer inquiry in each case study area are

shortly presented. Strategic regional development planning is increasingly considered important.

Broader analysis and discussion about future development paths has become essential. On Rügen

Type of planning

Strategic regionalplanning

Sectoral planning

Coastal land-useplanning

Water-use planning

Coastal ecosystemmanagement

Biosphere reserverelated planning

Rügen

Designation of protectedlandscape areas and theDistrict Development Plan

Forestry planning

Construction on the coastalstrip: the case of Seedorf

Fish farming

Establishment of an Advi-sory Council of the bio-sphere reserve

Hiiumaa

Hiiumaa DevelopmentAction Plan 2010

Forestry planning

Construction on the coastalstrip: the case of Sarve

Fish farming

Special Area ManagementPlan for Käina Bay

Archipelago Sea

Forestry planning

Fish farming

Establishment of an Ad-visory Board of theArchi-pelago Sea

Figure 17. Examples selected for closer inquiry.

Analysis and comparison of planning practice on Rügen, Hiiumaa, and the Archipelago Sea

105

numerous strategic sectoral plans have been prepared. The district government has been involved in

preparing two strategic regional development plans, which were intended to integrate the sectoral

plans. These plans were not legally binding according to the Planning and Building Act, but they are

political statements about policy on the county government level. The process of designating pro-

tected landscape areas on Rügen caused heated debates and linked it closely to discussions about

Rügen’s future. Also an alternative development plan was set up by a citizens’ initiative.

On Hiiumaa the UNDP (United Nations Development Programme) funded ‘Hiiumaa Develop-

ment Action Plan 2010’ has been selected as an example of strategic regional planning.

Strategic regional planning in the Archipelago Sea has taken the form of a so-called ‘Regional

Plan’. This was set up by the Regional Council of Southwest Finland already in the 1970s and 1980s,

and was thus not topical for this study. The General Plan guides spatial planning on local level.

Numerous development projects have been prepared in the Archipelago Sea. The ‘Archipelago Pro-

gramme’ was a first attempt to coordinate various projects and to integrate them into a strategic

vision of the development in the Archipelago Sea. Because this process was just getting underway as

interviews were conducted for this study, it was not selected as one of the illustrative examples.

However the comparisons below will refer to some of its key principles.

To illustrate sectoral planning, the example of forestry planning was selected. On Hiiumaa and in

the Archipelago Sea, forestry planning was analyzed in two portions of sub-studies, carried out by

Sonja Pekkola and Terhi Ahde. The analysis is based on their Masters’ Thesis at Helsinki University

(Ahde 1998; Pekkola 1998).

Land use is a priority issue in all three biosphere reserves. In this study, land-use planning

includes spatial planning and procedures for construction permits. On Rügen the focus is on land-

use planning within the biosphere reserve. A conflict around the construction of a single house on

Rügen and Hiiumaa is presented. These had the character of a precedent which would strongly

influence future projects. In both cases the biosphere reserve was closely involved in the process.

In the Archipelago Sea the biosphere reserve administration has not directly been involved in

land-use issues.

The two examples of water-use planning focus on planning processes related to fish farming. Fish

farming has been and still is an important issue on Rügen and in the Archipelago Sea. On Hiiumaa,

fish farming has not yet become relevant. The cases are closely connected with concerns of water

quality and tourism development. Other possible important aspects of water-use planning might

have been routes for ships and boats, marine safety, fishing, mining, and marine protected areas.

106

Preparing the Integrated Coastal Zone Management for Käina is an example of coastal ecosystem

management, which took place on Hiiumaa. It is interesting to analyze this specific process, espe-

cially because it is the only planning report in the three case study areas that explicitly refers to

‘integrated coastal management’.

The advisory boards of the biosphere reserves are selected as examples of biosphere reserve re-

lated planning activities. They are established to provide a consultative framework for the biosphere

reserve. There is such an institution in the Southeast Rügen Biosphere Reserve and in the Archi-

pelago Sea Biosphere Reserve, but there is no advisory board on Hiiumaa.

6.2 Examples of planning practice6.2.1 Strategic regional planning and the designation of protected landscape areas on Rügen

Several key projects (see Chapter 4.2.1) and such controversial policy issues as the intensity of

tourism development, land use, and traffic, highlight the need for long-term strategic planning on

Rügen. In the following the focus is on planning at the district level (Island of Rügen). A Structural

Plan for Rügen (Strukturkonzept Rügen) was prepared as early as 1991, shortly after German unifi-

cation, by a consultant from West Germany. The follow-up, a District Development Plan (1.

Kreisentwicklungsplan, 1994-1998) was set up in the mid-1990s, but was never really concluded.

Both plans were mainly guidelines that were not legally binding. Planning at the district level is a

political guideline for the course of the region’s future development.

Regional planning is carried out at the level of sub-regions of the federal state of Mecklenburg-

Vorpommern. Rügen belongs to the northeastern sub-region (Vorpommern), which is one of four

subregions. The Regional Planning Programme (Regionales Raumordnungsprogramm) lays down

the spatial development structure of the region. It is based on the state level spatial planning (Erstes

Landesraumordnungsprogramm 1993) and prepared by the ‘Amt für Raumordnung und

Landesplanung Vorpommern’ in Greifswald.

Several strategic level sectoral plans have been made for the island of Rügen. Probably few other

regions in Germany have been subject to so many planning activities by different consultants (inter-

view). The most important strategic sectoral plans and concepts are: Tourism Concept (Tourismus-

Konzeption Rügen 1993), Ecological Traffic Concept (Ökologisch orientiertes Verkehrskonzept für

Rügen 1993), Energy Concept (Energiekonzept der Insel Rügen 1993), Ecological Supplement to

Regional Planning (Umweltbeitrag zur Regionalplanung für das Gebiet der Insel Rügen 1995),

Agricultural and Fisheries Concept (Konzeption zur Entwicklung der Agrarwirtschaft und


107

Küstenfischerei Rügens 1992), Concept for Waste Treatment (Abfallwirtschaftskonzept Landkreis

Rügen 1995) and Economic Concept (Wirtschaftskonzept des Landkreises Rügen 1992). In addition

a traffic concept was set up specifically for the biosphere reserve (Verkehrskonzept für das

Biosphärenreservat Südost-Rügen). These were set up by different consultants at different times and

thus little coordination took place among them.

None of these strategic level sectoral planning activities, nor the district level plans or the regional

planning gained as much public interest as the designation of protected landscape areas on Rügen.

This will be analyzed in connection with the District Development Plan, which was at the same time

under preparation.

The intended designation of protected landscape areas on Rügen caused a heated debate about

democratic decision making and the content of the concept of Rügen model region. It was foreseen

as one further step to achieve the final designation of Rügen as a nature park and as a planning

instrument for improving the quality of life on the island (RÜ 13.9.1995). The presentation is based

on interviews and more than one hundred newspaper articles and position papers, collected during

the public debate (13.9.1995- 3.3.1996) by two of the interview partners.

Rügen had already several protected landscape areas; for example, the southeastern part of the

island has been under landscape protection already since 1966. The designation was intended to be

made outside the existing national parks and the biosphere reserve, and thus complete the system of

protected areas. The biosphere reserve was already either a nature conservation area (zone I & II) or

a protected landscape area (zone III). The objective of the designation of protected landscape areas

on Rügen was to take a step closer to the final designation as a nature park. According to the Federal

Nature Conservation Act (§16) more than half of the area of a nature park must be either protected

landscape or a nature conservation area. At the time of the proposal, 37.1% of the total area of Rügen

enjoyed some form of protective status, according to the nature conservation legislation (RÜ

28.11.1995).

Nature parks in the eastern Länder are not only areas of intensive recreation and tourism, but they

more closely resemble the biosphere reserve concept. The Ministry of Construction, Regional De-

velopment and Environment of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern published an Environmental Report in

1994 according to which: “nature parks are intended to be developed to model regions for environ-

mentally sound regional development and ecologically oriented land use and recreation”

(Umweltbericht 1994, 14). This definition gives the category a broader scope than is stated in the

Federal Nature Conservation Act (§16), which emphasizes the character of nature parks as places of

108

recreation and tourism. Some Länder have designated considerable parts of their land area as nature

parks: e.g. 32% of the state of Saarland and 29% of the states of Bavaria, Hessen, Nordrhein-Westfalen

and Lower-Sachsony (OZ 15.11.1995).

The preliminary designation of Rügen as nature park dated back to the national park programme of

the GDR. This was also the initial start of the process of establishing more protected landscape

areas. The district councillor in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern has the right to establish protected land-

scape areas. During 1990-93 little was done to establish protected landscape areas or take action

towards the final designation of the nature park. The Christian Democratic Union (CDU) controlled

the district assembly, and neither it nor the district councillor showed much interest. When a new

district councillor came into office in October 1993, discussions were held with the environmental

minister of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (who was also a ‘Rüganer’) and the regional nature protec-

tion authorities. Preparatory planning was initiated by the Nature Conservation Department of the

Office of the District Councillor and the contemporary nature park administration (Aufbauverwaltung).

Representatives of the Nature Conservation Department and the contemporary nature park admin-

istration informed the district assembly about the intended designation of more protected landscape

areas in 1994. Personal discussions were carried out in each of the seven offices and in towns. Dis-

cussions were carried out with some municipal leaders in order to come to an agreement about areas

to be excluded from the protected landscape area, so that more intensive development (housing,

industry, etc.) could take place. The basis for the discussions were the existing land-use plans of the

municipalities. Discussions were also carried out with sectoral agencies like the forestry administra-

tion, road planning administration, and the mining administration. The municipalities were asked to

consult their political representatives and local population. The intensity of the consultations varied

considerably.

The proposal was sent to affected parties (Träger öffentlicher Belange), which according to the

law of administrative procedures includes various sectoral agencies, affected municipalities, and

NGOs. The process of designating protected landscape areas is not legally obliged to include public

participation (Hartmann 1994, 7). The hearing held for sectoral agencies and municipalities was

thus not a public one, as the law does not specifically require it (interview). Only a few sectoral

agencies and two or three municipalities took part.

The process was delayed by the local elections of June 1994, which brought changes in local

government in many municipalities. Some of these then asked for more time to evaluate the pro-

posal. The dead-line was extended to the end of 1994. The nature protection administration offered


109

possibilities for new discussions with the municipalities, and five or six of the municipalities took

advantage of this. Statements were collected and worked out during 1995, and a further proposal for

the ordinance was made. Since 1990, a total of 80 actors with public interests were consulted ,

including 20 municipalities (dpa 15.10.1995). Only two municipalities opposed the project during

this phase.

The revisited proposal included the extension of protected landscape areas to 92,410 ha. Alto-

gether, 69 areas with a total area of 4365 ha were excluded, including industrial sites (Gewerbegebiete)

and larger settlements. A 19-point list of prohibitions included restrictions on construction outside

settlements, and bans on burning and incineration, motor vehicles and horseback riding, christmas

tree-plantations, camping sites, and the establishment of new fish farms in natural or renatured wa-

ters. Many of these restrictions were already contained in existing laws, and were merely consoli-

dated by the ordinance.

Normally, the district councillor would have had the right to pass the ordinance by simply

undersigning it. However, the councillor wished for wider acceptance and therefore wanted the ordi-

nance to also be passed by the district assembly. This took place without any opposition from the

environmental section of the district assembly (Umweltausschuß) but with two opponents in the

district section of the district assembly (Kreisauschuß). In newspaper articles it was stressed that the

ordinance should not primarily bring restrictions and should not be seen as an instrument for hinder-

ing future development, but is rather a policy guideline to protect the cultural landscape on Rügen

(VB 17.9.95).

However, shortly before approval was given by the district assembly, the issue became highly

politicized on the local, district, and state levels - and to some extent on the federal level as well. One

week before the ordinance was to be discussed and passed in the district assembly, the Christian

Democratic Union, which previously held the majority on Rügen and at that time had the majority in

most other districts in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, started an intensive campaign against the pro-

posal. The campaign was obviously discussed and launched in a regional meeting of the party in

Wolgast, which is located close to Rügen.

The main arguments against the designation were: negative impacts on economic development,

exaggerated restrictions on construction, and the danger of making Rügen a “total reserve by putting

a cheese bell over it”. The federal Minister of the Environment (Christian Democratic Union, CDU),

Angela Merkel, who simultaneously had her electoral district on the island, cautioned that “the

designation of more protected areas on Rügen would be a wrong signal for investors”. The CDU also

110

launched a petition drive to gather signatures from those who were against the ordinance. Within

two weeks 4,550 names were collected (OZ 21.11.1995).

During the following weeks, various interest groups positioned themselves in the local media.

Several business organizations and the economic advisers of the CDU published a joint advertise-

ment in the local newspaper against the proposed designation. An initiative called “Pro Rügen”

responded with its own advertisement accusing the CDU campaign of being demagoguery, mislead-

ing, and flawed. Several claims made by opponents of the designation were proved to be untrue.

Struck by the strong opposition and the irritation among the islanders, the district councillor de-

cided to withdraw the issue from the agenda of the meeting of the district assembly. A decision was

made to carry out further discussions with the municipalities, NGOs, and business organizations

(Wirtschaftsverbände).

The heated discussion continued in the local media and the proposed ordinance was printed in the

Rüganer, a commercial advertisement paper, and also in the official information leaflet of the dis-

trict. The local population was encouraged to form opinions on the proposal and write to the envi-

ronmental administration. Only a few statements were received.

Proponents of the protected landscape area accused the CDU of starting a political campaign based

on partly false accusations and demagoguery which successfully instilled fear in the population.

They also claimed that the entire debate was imported to Rügen from the outside, mainly by the head

of the CDU fraction. Statements made by the Minister of the Environment, Merkel, regarding the

establishment of protected landscape areas and a nature park on Rügen, were also harshly criticized

by local politicians and nationwide environmental NGOs, who considered them inappropriate to her

position as a national authority on the environment.

Public discussion of the issue took place in various municipal events. After a few questions were

raised about the protected landscape area, the discussion soon changed to topics related to regional

development. Representatives from the highest political circles, including the district councillor and

the deputy councillor, took part in these hearings, and many citizens made use of the rare opportu-

nity to express themselves. The goals of full employment vs. nature- and landscape protection were

often pitted against one another.

The main conflict had to do with the size and the content of the areas proposed by the ordinance.

Opinions about the appropriate size ranged from 51% to 98% of the island’s total area. The CDU and

various economic actors claimed that 51% was large enough, while the nature protection administra-

tion claimed that 98% of the area deserved protective status. A consultant was commissioned to


111

evaluate this in greater detail. The proposal for the ordinance included several restrictions, but many

were already covered by existing legislation. Questions also arose about whether the development

plan for Rügen should first be completed, or whether this should be done parallel to the designation

of further protected areas.

The claim that the landscape protection area would cause unemployment and hinder the creation

of new jobs was an argument considered flawed by many of those interviewed. The municipalities

had set aside areas for small and medium sized industry and business, often providing recently built

infrastructure. However, a great deal of these areas were not yet in use. “If all the areas designated

for small and medium size enterprises were being used, Rügen would be rich” (interview). The

argument was, according to many, used to create majorities from a population living in great eco-

nomic and social insecurity. On the other hand, certain interest groups clearly would have been

disadvantaged by the designation: obtaining construction permits would have become more difficult

in rural areas. The value of land directly depends on whether or not it can be built up. But no exten-

sive presentation of the benefits and drawbacks for different interest groups was presented in public.

A call for more information about the designation made in a letter to the editor of the Ostseezeitung

(OZ 1.11.1995) is worth quoting here in full length:

“There is a lack of clarity of the terms. The question: ‘Should all of Rügen become a protected

area?’ is currently very heated. The discussion has been partly very emotional, and wrong and inap-

propriate arguments have been used for and against the protection. The needed discussion could be

somewhat calmer, if everybody knew what they were talking about. . . There are such terms as na-

tional park, protected landscape area, biosphere reserve, etc. Could experts once tell the readers

what these and other used terms in fact mean? What is...? Who decides about it? Who controls the

designation? What can citizens do in these areas? What can’t they do? How will noncompliance be

punished? What are the economic and financial implications for Rügen, its people, and its guests?

G.B., Sassnitz”.

Whether this letter was an advertisement for the special issue of the Rüganer on the ordinance

published two weeks later, or if the paper only reacted quickly, is of secondary importance. The

letter expressed the wish of many islanders for more information in order to be able to come to their

own decision about the ordinance. So far they were merely confronted with claims of opposing

parties about false statements, misleading comments, and intentional misuse of terms. Thus, the

Rügen case highlights the importance of public participation, the role of politics in planning, and the

need for integrated consideration of environmental and socio-economic aspects.

112

Alternative planning

An alternative strategic development planning has been carried out by the Initiative for Rügen

(Vorschläge zur...1993).32 It was entitled, “Suggestions for the Economic Development of the Island

of Rügen” and it contained suggestions for ecologically oriented economic development of the is-

land. The paper was prepared prior to the conflict on landscape protection, during a time when the

district government was led by the CDU (Christian Democratic Union). The initiative for Rügen

consisted mainly of people working in the nature protection administration or in the field of environ-

mental research. The content of the idea of Rügen as a model region was with this plan more con-

cretely specified. Emphasis was put on self-reliant economic development, traffic and energy issues,

tourism, and land-use planning, waste and water management.

The plan was discussed in the local media. Representatives of the initiative however criticized that

the local media picked up only the suggestion to introduce a fee for crossing the bridge, which

connects Rügen to mainland and the idea of sheepfarming as a source of local income. Representa-

tives of small and medium size enterprises criticized the plan for economic development as unreal-

istic and not providing enough job opportunities for all people living currently on Rügen. In addition

the expectations of tourists visiting Rügen were thought to be more demanding than was suggested

in the plan: a restrictive land-use policy and emphasis on nature-related tourism would not promote

the growth of tourism, because it would not fully serve the desire of visitors to engage in certain

activities, such as golf or tennis (RÜ 4.8.1993).

The Rüganer published portions of the plan and asked the public for comment. It then published several

letters to the editor, as did other papers. Most letters were critical of the proposal and did not consider it a

viable plan for future development, but rather a backwards-looking policy (e.g. RÜ 8. and 22.9.1993).

The ‘Alliance for Rügen’ used the paper as a basis for its election campaign during local elections

in the following year. The main message was that Rügen is a place too beautiful, exceptional, and

valuable for it to be spoiled by speculators and commercial interests. Eventually it succeeded in the

elections to gain political power in the district assembly and, for example, the councillor of the

district was selected from this group.

6.2.2 The Hiiumaa Development Action Plan 2010On Hiiumaa not many strategic level plans have been made after the re-establishment of independ-

ence. In 1993, however, the County Government of Hiiumaa assembled a working group to derive a

32 Alternative planning refers here to plans, concepts, and studies set up by non-governmental organizations and citizen initiatives.


113

regional development concept for Hiiumaa. The introduction of the planning document stated that,

“The need for making a development concept was recognized when a number of active persons on

Hiiumaa observed radical changes in the environment conditions which affect the present situation

and the future of Hiiumaa. This made them concerned about the future of the island” (Development

Concept...1993, 3). ‘Environment’ was apparently understood in a broad sense including the eco-

nomic, social and ecological environment. One of the main motivations for the concept was the

difficult economic situation on the island. State subsidies for islands were cut and the farming col-

lectives from the Soviet era had serious economic problems. Thus a new economic basis was needed

(interview). The development concept intended to find the answer to the following questions: “What

will the future of Hiiumaa be like? What will be its basis? How will we reach this point?” (Develop-

ment Concept...1993, 6). One of the main principles emphasized in the plan was sustainable devel-

opment: “The whole plan is based on the principles of sustainable development according to the

ambitions of the Biosphere Reserve .” (Development Concept...1993, 6).

In principle, everyone who was interested was able to participate in the process of working out the

concept. In practice, however, only a few active people took part in the work. The working group,

consisting of a chairman, fourteen permanent members, and six experts, met nine times within a

period of six months. Represented in the working group were: the Hiiumaa County Government,

municipalities, the Hiiumaa Research and Education Center Tuuru, the Biosphere Reserve Hiiumaa

Center, the Hiiumaa Association of Small-scale Entrepreneurs, the Hiiumaa Highway Department,

and two companies. The team was instructed by experts of a consulting company (EKE-ARIKO).

(Kokovkin 1993, 46.)

The working group composed a paper entitled “Development Concept for Hiiumaa” which it pub-

lished in 1993. The concept aimed to be a strategic plan for the development of Hiiumaa as a natural,

economic, social and cultural entity. It was also intended to serve as basis for an action plan and

more detailed plans on the municipal level. A form of scenario technique was used and three main

development alternatives were identified. These were based on different emphasis of the economic

sectors of tourism, industry, and agriculture. Tourism was chosen as the most promising alternative

and as a priority sector for future economic development (Development Concept...1993, 25-30).

There was a broad consensus that the goals of the biosphere reserve should be taken into account and

that ‘sustainable development’ should be the guiding principle in all development.

The concept also included proposals for the development of the public administration on the is-

land. The administrative system of Estonia was not yet well elaborated at the time. For example, the

114

roles of county government and municipalities were not clear. The presentations called for a high

degree of self-governance and even for a special status for islands in the Estonian administrative

system. Considerations about linking local and national levels of government were presented, and a

‘Charter’ including long-term policies and priorities was suggested. The establishment of a develop-

ment council was proposed to apply and monitor the ‘Charter’. In addition a ‘Hiiumaa law’ was

proposed, one of whose tasks was to restrict the ownership of land for not-Hiiumaa people (Devel-

opment Concept...1993, 20-23).

The development concept was reviewed by the county government and presented for broader re-

view in two seminars arranged by the Hiiumaa Research and Education Center Tuuru in February

and April 1993. Several articles about the development concept were published in the local newspa-

per Hiiumaa. The concept was subsequently approved by local governments, but it did not have a

very clear role in their decision-making. The purpose of the plan was however clarified in the intro-

duction of the planning document. According to it: “[The] development concept is for advisory

purposes. The process of its creation has been democratic and public. It could be a basis for a

broader social agreement for the development of Hiiumaa” (Development Concept...1993, 3).

Although the development concept was more a compendium of ideas related to the development of

Hiiumaa than a detailed plan or guideline for economic, social, and environmental development, it

showed that it is possible for different actors to work together and agree on a strategic level develop-

ment concept (interview). The concept also drew the interest of various international organizations

and researchers, including myself.

A new alliance, called “Oma saar” (Our Island), originated from this joint effort. It received a

majority vote in local elections in several municipalities, but soon after the elections it fell apart.

Political parties did not play an important role in the elections in 1992.

At least as important as the concept itself was the cooperation between various actors. This proc-

ess orientation was even more strongly emphasized in the follow up of the development concept,

which began taking shape one year after the development concept was published.33 The Hiiumaa

Research and Tuuru Education Center, as part of the Regional Development Department of the County

Government, applied for funding for the “Coordination of the development process on Hiiumaa”

(interviews). This would support the development of the Hiiumaa Development Action Plan 1995-

33 In the meantime, two other studies had been published. The Center for Extension Studies of the University of Turku in Finlandarranged two project management courses in the West Estonian Archipelago Biosphere Reserve. The “Programme for SustainableDevelopment of the Biosphere Reserve of the West Estonian Archipelago” was worked out in 1993 and a development programmewas focused on tourism one year later (Ympäristöä säästävän matkailun...1994). The plans were translated into English language, butnot into Estonian language. Thus these plans did not gain much interest or public discussion on Hiiumaa (interview).


115

2010 in a democratic process. The funding was eventually given by United Nations Development

Programme (UNDP). As it is in the nature of UNDP to support pilot projects, Hiiumaa was chosen as

a region where a model for such plans can be elaborated. Hiiumaa was an ideal site because of the

homogeneity of the population and its compact economic, social and environmental systems (Letter

from Mr. Viik to Mr. Pere, 23.2.1995).

The process started in the beginning of 1996. According to the project information sheet, “The

objective of the project is to support coordinated democratic development process on Hiiumaa”. The

project consisted of seminars, education and training, and the compilation of development action

plans for local governments and the county of Hiiumaa.

Figure 18. Organization of the HDAP 2010 process.

The Hiiumaa Development Action Plan was coordinated by the Hiiumaa Research and Education

Center Tuuru and a small working group, which in addition to representatives from Tuuru, consisted

of officials from the Biosphere Reserve Hiiumaa Center, the county government, the Hiiumaa Union

of Local Governments, and the Estonian Savings Bank in Hiiumaa. Under the management of this

group, documents were drafted to form the basis of development action plans for both local govern-

ments and Hiiumaa.

Expert & theme groupsCooperation between

County Govt. andLocal Govts.

Large workgroup

Education

Town/muncouncil

Town/muncouncil Town/mun

council

Town/muncouncil

Town/muncouncil

Localgroup

LocalgroupLocal

group

Localgroup

Localgroup

Smallwork

groups

116

It was the aim that the action plan should be created in a democratic way, by calling together local

working groups to provide information and ideas to a larger working group representing the whole

island. The larger working group was made up of representatives from the local and special topic

groups. The groups working on specific topics provided supporting material for both local and large

working groups. Both local and topic groups were open to anybody interested in participating.

The process of calling together and activating local work groups has been characterized by the

project manager as cumbersome and slow (interview). In the beginning, local governments showed

little interest in the effort. It took about half a year before the municipal administrators showed any

sign of cooperation (interviews). The leaders of local work groups (who were paid for their work)

were nominated.

The Hiiumaa Development Action Plan, which was dealing mainly with socio-economic analysis

and development strategies, did not include the implementation of spatial planning. Therefore, in a

joint project between the municipality of Gotland and the Hiiumaa County Government, a series of

seminars on regional planning and development was organized. Three seminars devoted to spatial

planning in general, and one workshop concentrated specifically on spatial planning on Hiiumaa.

The seminars were closely linked to the Hiiumaa Development Action Plan. The project was funded

by SIDA (Swedish International Development Agency). (Hiiumaa Development Action...1997.)

Several interviews conducted with municipality representatives showed that there was much

skepticism about planning initiated by the county government. The following citation describes the

position of municipalities: “Planning should start from the municipalities...Local work groups should

be more continuous and systematic. We have not met so much with the Tuuru Center, so we were not

well acquainted with their ideas about Hiiumaa 2010” (interview).

The process of creating the HDAP 2010 plan was affected by a conflict between the local govern-

ment and the Hiiumaa County Government in the summer of 1996. For some time, there had been

conflicts between the municipalities and the county government (e.g. Tiirinen 1991). Only the former

is an elected body. There was once an elected county parliament, but the county director is now

nominated by the central government.

The conflict became public for the first time shortly before the local elections in 1996, which were

to be held only a few months after the fieldwork was conducted on Hiiumaa. Two issues triggered the

conflict: the slowness of land reform measures and the delay in regional development funding, which

was not received on Hiiumaa, but only on other small islands and the neighboring island of Saaremaa.

In fact, these problems activated a discussion about how the island should be governed.


117

In an open letter addressed to the prime minister, and speaking in the name of the Union of Local

Governments, the municipal leaders and their local councils accused the county governor for making

insufficient progress in promoting regional development on Hiiumaa. They demanded his resignation,

arguing that “the county lacks a forum where local authorities and county government could meet and

discuss local problems” (HT 5.7.1996). A further accusation was that the regional development depart-

ment and the Tuuru Center does not deal with the problems of municipalities, but only with education

(HT 5.7.1996). The counter-argument was that at the time of writing the letter, such a forum had existed

for half a year, but the municipalities had not realized it (interview). In fact, municipal leaders and the

county governor met every two weeks. But municipal representatives felt that while this forum may be

good in itself, it is too abstract and does not deal with everyday problems (interview).34

It should be remembered that during the Soviet era, there was no local level government in Esto-

nia, and that it was re-established after independence was regained in 1991. According to the head of

the economic department and the head of the regional development department, the county govern-

ment is trying to delegate decision-making power to the local level (interviews). The conflict indi-

cates that municipalities want to play a more important role in regional development and that they

are not satisfied with the performance of the county government.

When work was begun on the Hiiumaa Development Action Plan, visits to municipal councils were

made by the project coordinator. Obviously the municipalities did not feel the process belonged to

them. Similar problems have been also noticed by the Biosphere Reserve Hiiumaa Center: “It is diffi-

cult to cooperate with the local level if there is no partner who is interested in it” (interview). But local

government is slowly gaining more understanding about its tasks and responsibilities.

The formulation of topics for study to be worked on by special groups was left quite open and no

predeterminations were made about the specific issues that should be thematized. Five topics were

established. These were tourism, rural economy, information technology, education, and culture. The

emphasis and intensity of the working groups has varied. While the rural economy group has mainly

focused its work on establishing a label for Hiiumaa products, the tourism group has been thinking

about such problems as transportation between the island and the mainland, and on the island itself.

The role of NGOs was still somewhat unclear in the process. Local work groups were mainly set

up by municipality workers and elected politicians. The Village Movement wanted to have a more

active role in the process, but it largely remained an outside observer. It also suggested the inclusion

34 Five main reasons were identified for the letter: the coming elections and the demand from people that something should bedone; the fact that state development money was not received on Hiiumaa; underlying personal reasons; the perceived slow-ness of the land reform; and finally, the fact that the county governor is not elected and local governments wish to be involvedin regional development. (interviews.)

118

of Agenda 21 into the process. The project management team was open to such a suggestion (inter-

view). The Kassari Educational Society took part in the educational work group and the local work

groups of the municipality of Käina. It also conducted a questionaire on Kassari. This mainly related

to the need of having a municipal school (interview).

Participation in the process remained confined to a small group of people and was accused of

being too centered on Kärdla (interviews). Taking into account the short period of time the process

has been going on and the small size of the island community, it is no wonder that active people

involved in the process were mainly from the town. However, a planning process had to be started

somewhere and the challenge was to involve more people.

A number of obstacles were revealed through the interviews:

• Some of the municipal leaders were skeptical towards the plan.

• The county government was not involved in a very direct way in the process.

• Most people did not know enough about the process. It was unclear for what purposes the project

funding was used.

• Planning was generally unpopular, and there was skepticism towards the public administration.

• The long-term agenda of HDAP 2010 contrasted expectations of more immediate outcomes.

There was a great need for more publicity about the process itself and the contents of HDAP 2010.

There was also need to train village residents (interview). Education activities were mainly directed

towards entrepreneurs and municipal leaders. The top-down-approach was strong in planning in the

past. Although the project coordinators were committed to providing an opportunity to take part in

strategic regional planning, the top-down approach still influenced the process. People still per-

ceived planning as something removed from their lives. Many of the interview partners emphasized

that people are concerned about everyday problems and that a time frame of fifteen years seems to be

too far away.

The coming local elections did not seem to have any strong impact on the local or theme work

groups. Most interview partners considered the two as separate issues. Some of those interviewed

assumed that the results of certain groups might be used in the programmes of certain political

groups. In general, the role of party politics was small on Hiiumaa and elections had more a personal

character. The project leader complained that there is little knowledge about organizing such a plan-

ning process. The lack of adequate guidelines was considered to be a serious problem.


119

The case highlights the difficulties involved in starting participatory regional development plan-

ning in a society, which has no long democratic tradition and which lacks organized interest groups.

Also the cooperation between levels of governance seemed to be problematic due to poor flow of

information and political profilation prior to elections.

6.2.3 Sectoral planning: Forestry planning on Rügen, Hiiumaa and Archipelago SeaBackground

Forestry planning is selected as illustrative of sectoral planning. Forestry practices can have a

significant impact on other land and water uses. Clark (1995) has in the ‘Coastal Zone Management

Handbook’ identified the following impacts. Firstly, increased sediment loading in rivers is caused

by removal of the forest cover. Water quality is reduced and silting increases, which can negatively

affect such activities as aquaculture, fishing, or recreation. Secondly, coastal erosion may also be

caused when forest cover is removed (landslides on hill slopes may have serious damages for areas

lying below). Of special interest globally are mangrove forests, which are important for fish breed-

ing and represent a separate issue within coastal management literature. There are also other types of

lowland and wetland forests such as tidal swamps.

In the three case studies examined here, no such dramatic interactions with other land and water

uses occur. The issues are rather related to nature and habitat protection, to landscape design, and to

some extent coastal protection. Competition occurs also with other land uses, like construction,

agriculture, and tourism. The forestry sector also contributes to local economic development, which

makes regional development planning relevant. (Welp 1998b.)

Forestry planning in the Southeast Rügen Biosphere Reserve

During the GDR era, the demands of the wood-processing industry largely dictated forestry prac-

tices. In contrast to West-German forestry practices, which were more or less based on the principles

of sustainability and multiple use, forestry in GDR aimed toward maximizing wood yield.

Profound changes have taken place in forestry on Rügen and elsewhere in Eastern Germany since

unification took place in 1991. The forestry administration has been reorganized, various types of

protected areas have been designated within the national park programme (including national parks,

nature parks and biosphere reserves), and the forestry legislation has been amended on the basis of

the federal forest act, which has been the framework law for forest legislation in the old Bundesländer

since 1977.

120

In the federal state of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, a Forest Act was issued in 1993 which laid

down the foundation for a shift towards close-to-nature multiple purpose oriented forestry. Increas-

ing the proportion of forested areas was declared as one of the legislative objectives. A decree for the

implementation of close-to-nature forestry was launched in 1996. Key tasks of the close-to-nature

forestry programme include increasing the share of broad-leafed species, increasing the share of

mixed and not even-aged forests, limiting the use of exotic species, and using natural regeneration as

far as possible. Further objectives are increasing the share of old forests and dead wood in forests,

protecting plant and animal species, designating and managing forest reserves, and increasing na-

ture protection and recreation in forests.

These principles are applied in forestry practices also in the Southeast Rügen Biosphere Re-

serve. Core areas are not managed. For example, the current policy is to transform the coniferous

forests (Norwegian spruce, larch) back to broad-leafed forests (Biosphärenreservate in Deutschland.

1995, 149). The decree of the Southeast Rügen Biosphere Reserve has no detailed regulations

concerning forestry. The ordinance, however, defines the goal of protecting the environment by

developing models for ecological land use within the sectors: agriculture, forestry, fisheries, traf-

fic, and recreation (Verordnung über...1990). In this case it can be said that forestry follows the

policy guidelines of the state. To suggest that new models of ecological land use within forestry

would be developed would perhaps go too far, even though the forestry administration in coopera-

tion with the biosphere reserve takes special notice of nature protection and recreation. An initial

effort towards combining ecological land use, economic development, and increased use of local

resources has been the First Wood Exhibition of Rügen, which was organized in the summer of

1997 (Erste Rügener Holzmesse 1997).

There are three main reasons for problems in promoting ecological land use within the forestry

sector in the biosphere reserve: first, ownership questions have not yet been resolved; secondly the

biosphere reserve is too small (forest area is only 2270 ha, 25% of the total land area of the biosphere

reserve); and finally, there are no markets for timber, nor is there a local wood-processing industry.

Currently little of the forest area is privately owned. However, there are areas where ownership

questions remain. In fact over 60% of the total area belongs to the federal state and will presumably

be privatized. The forestry administration is managing these forests on a year-to-year basis, and thus

no interim or long-range plans can be made.

Various forms of cooperation with other agencies and sectors take place. The forestry adminis-

tration and the biosphere reserve administration, which is the nature protection authority in this


121

area, have reached agreements about the use of forest resources. The protocol of an early meeting

in 1991, before the forest law was passed, clarified the respective competencies and is a rough

guideline for forest management in the area. Accordingly, close-to-nature forestry and special

silvicultural treatments are preferred in coastal forests. Cooperation also takes the form of on-site

visits, and the forestry administration usually informs the biosphere reserve administration about

major cuttings. In making the management plans, the biosphere reserve is involved in the early

phases of planning. The joint cooperative efforts were considered to have worked well by all

partners interviewed. The Biosphere reserve administration has chosen forestry as a central sector

where the sustainable use of local resources for local purposes and employment is demonstrated

in an exemplary way.

Several agencies have a say in coastal protection: the forestry administration, the biosphere re-

serve administration, and the Coastal Protection Division of the Nature Protection Administration

(Staatliches Amt für Umwelt und Natur). These three agencies may have different opinions about

the methodology of coastal protection. For instance, the Coastal Protection Division has a technical

and engineering approach, the forestry department does not want to let forests to be cleared for other

coastal protection measures, and the nature protection authority wants to have natural grasslands

and overflooding.

Conflicts have also emerged concerning tourism and recreation. Often, hotels, clinics, and camp-

ing sites are built too close to the shoreline, which has caused conflicts in coastal erosion control. In

the GDR there was a 200 m coastal strip of protected forests which were managed only for purposes

of coastal defense (erosion control and flood prevention). Currently the 200 m strip has been in-

cluded in the nature protection and construction legislations.

Agricultural land is currently being shifted to other uses. Afforesting these areas has so far been

limited. Conflicts related to forest increase have also emerged. Landscapes should not be signifi-

cantly changed, but on the other hand forest cover should be increased. Finding suitable places for

afforestation has been difficult. The forestry administration is also much involved in land-use plan-

ning because of the amount of construction, so that issuing evaluative statements on construction

permits occupies a great deal of time.

Some statements concerning forestry can also be found in strategic regional plans made for Rügen.

The Structure Concept (see Chapter 6.2.1) which was made in 1991, before the launching of the

forest law, states that: (a) the policy of the district government is to increase forest area from 16% to

18%; (b) no exotic species shall be used, monocultures shall be avoided, forests shall be gradually

122

transformed to appropriate species, clear cuts shall be avoided; (c) recreational needs are consid-

ered; and (d) local atmospheric emissions from industry and animal production shall be avoided.

The draft of the subsequent ‘District Development Plan’ includes all these statements except the

ban of clear cuts. These plans are not legally binding, and the forestry administration is not subordi-

nate to the district government which makes the strategic plans, but is directly under the authority of

the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Nature Protection. The plans are thus policy guidelines for

the district government.

There has been no public participation in forestry planning. If forest cutting takes place in sensi-

tive areas, the public may be informed in advance. Strategic forestry planning is made within the

forestry administration in close negotiations with the biosphere reserve administration. Advising

private forest owners is also a task of the administration. There have been no locally initiated de-

mands for more participation in forestry planning.

Forestry planning on Hiiumaa

Hiiumaa is the most forested county in Estonia. About 70% of the total area is covered by forests.

The share of mires is about 10% and the share of agricultural land is about 20%. Over 80% of

Hiiumaa’s forests are natural in origin. In coniferous forests the most predominant tree species are

pine (47%) and spruce (12%). In broad-leafed forests, the most dominating tree species are birch

(36%) and common alder (4%). (Ahde 1998.)

During the Soviet era, Hiiumaa’s forests were allowed to grow in their natural state and their

utilization was not significant. Timber was mainly used for firewood. Therefore the average age of

Hiiumaa forests is relatively young. As on Rügen, forestry and agriculture were separated: agricul-

ture was practiced by state farms and forestry by state-owned forestry enterprises.

The situation is changing due to the land reform program. Although state-owned forests still com-

prise the biggest share, there is a new group of privately owned forests. Small farm forests are thus a

new phenomenon on Hiiumaa. Therefore the increasing role of private forest owners represents a

significant change in forestry on the island. Since they have owned their forests for a very short time,

however, most do not yet know what to do with their forests. Almost 10% of the forest owners live

off-island. Some are older and are not particularly interested in using their forest resources.

The West Estonian Archipelago Biosphere Reserve has brought new nature protection objectives

to Hiiumaa (Lääne-Eesti saarestiku...1994). Most of the forests classified as core areas with the

formation of the biosphere reserve were already protected under earlier regulations. About 1,300 ha


123

of so-called profit-yielding forests were added to the core areas with the formation of the Biosphere

Reserve. About forty strictly protected areas in the traditional sense of nature conservation are now

included in the core areas of the biosphere reserve. They cover about 7% of the area of Hiiumaa.

There are special regulations concerning the use of coastal forests; cuttings are not allowed on a 20

m strip and limited on a 200 m strip (e.g. no clear cuts allowed).

According to the Estonian Forest Law, the management of all forests is planned and controlled by

the Forests Department. On Hiiumaa, the Forest Department is divided into three forestry districts,

whose task it is to develop the management plans for state-owned and private forests. The depart-

ment is working closely with the Hiiumaa Environmental Department of the County Government

and the Hiiumaa Biosphere Reserve Center.

According to the Estonian Forest Law (§8), forest owners are entitled to take part in drafting the

forest management plans concerning their forests, and have the right to be present when the plan is

up for approval. In practice, taking part in drafting the management plan is not common among

private forest owners. No participatory arrangements have taken place in state forest planning.

So far no demands for public participation have occurred, nor have there been any public conflicts

related to forestry. The process of developing management guidelines for the core areas has met with

some potentially serious conflicts with new landowners, but the biosphere reserve administration

has been able to resolve these disagreements through negotiations.

Occasionally there is disagreement between the Forest Department and the Hiiumaa Biosphere Re-

serve Center about the amount and location of cuttings, but cooperation has been close and regular

communication takes place. In terms of the biosphere reserve, cooperation with private forest owners is

more difficult, because they do not often exactly know what they want to do with their forests.

Education for private forests owners is organized by the Hiiumaa Forestry Department. There

have also been discussions about a green label for forestry (similar to the already existing green

label for tourism enterprises). For example, a Swedish enterprise has offered to pay a higher price

(3%) for eco-labeled timber to motivate forest owners.

In strategic regional development planning forestry has not been the main focus. Within the

preparation of the Hiiumaa Development Action Plan 2010, discussions were carried out to deter-

mine whether a separate forestry working group should be established in addition to the existing

rural economy working group. General problems related to forestry are the lack of local wood-

processing industry and handcrafts, and the separation of agricultural and forestry extension for

small farmers.

124

Forestry planning in the Archipelago Sea Biosphere Reserve

Ownership of forests in the Archipelago Sea is mainly private. Forestry is not a priority economic

sector in the archipelago, but forests are important sources of additional income especially for farm-

ers. Archipelago forests are also important to recreation and nature protection. The archipelago be-

longs to the oak forest zone and is thus unique in Finland. (Pekkola 1998.)

Forestry has never been practiced on large scale, due to the small size of most of the islands.

Nevertheless, one of the first environmental conflicts in the archipelago was about forestry prac-

tices. The conflict concerning forest cuttings on the island on Nötö was given national media atten-

tion. Other forestry conflicts have occurred concerning the national nature protection programmes

as well, regarding such issues as the protection of old-growth forests and groves and more recently

the Natura 2000 areas. The protection of the sea eagle has also been a controversial issue.

There are no specific regulations in the new forest law or nature protection law on forest manage-

ment practices in the archipelago. Due to the small size of forest estates no large-scale cuttings have

been made. No compulsory guidelines exist, but a book on forest management practices in archi-

pelagos has been published in cooperation with a Swedish partner.

The administration of the Archipelago Sea Biosphere Reserve has no specific role related to for-

estry planning. Although it functions within the context of the Regional Environmental Center of

Southwest Finland, it has no regulatory role concerning forestry or other land-use planning.

The Regional Forest Center responsible for the Archipelago Sea is located in Parainen. For ten

years it has been preparing forest management plans for private forests. The plans are of an advisory

nature. Participation by forest owners is allowed but does not often take place in forest management

planning. According to forest planners this is mainly due to the lack of personnel. Forestry planners

however emphasize the need for face-to-face discussions, because the management plans alone do

not influence the decisions of forest owners.

Demands for more public participation have been expressed by forest owners mainly concerning

the designation of protected areas. Obviously informing and consulting forest owners has been in-

sufficient in designating new protected areas. This has created great suspicion towards the nature

protection administration.

Cooperation with other sectors was considered insufficient by most persons interviewed. In particu-

lar, cooperation between nature protection authorities and forestry professionals has been unsatisfac-

tory. So far the designation of protected areas and forestry planning have been separate. According to

the new forest law, however, the forest districts shall make a strategic forest plan (tavoiteohjelma). The


125

plan should be made by the forest district in cooperation with nature protection and other sectoral

agencies and interest groups. Because the law was amended only recently and there have in addition

been major organizational changes, the methods of cooperation have not evolved yet.

There have been several development programmes which to some extent have taken forestry is-

sues into consideration. The overall tenor has been to promote local wood-processing industry and

handcrafting. Also within strategic development planning participation and cooperation procedures

are still undeveloped.

Conclusions

Biosphere reserves are intended to become model regions for sustainable resources use. Often the

biosphere reserve concept is, however, perceived as too abstract and its promotional role as very

limited. Within the forestry sector this model character could be demonstrated in an exemplary way.

Using local wood resources for local purposes (construction, energy, handcraft, etc.) requires new

ways of cooperation between various actors. Initial steps have been taken especially on Rügen.

Nature protection and forestry often include potential for conflict. On Rügen and on Hiiumaa

close cooperation takes place between the forestry administration and the biosphere reserve admin-

istration, so that in most cases an agreement on the use and protection of forest resources has been

found. In contrast to other sectors, like construction and traffic, the conflicts have been small.

Forest management in the case study areas can be characterized as ‘sectoral management’, or, using

the typology of Olsen et al. (1997), as ‘enhanced sectoral management’ (see Figure 6, Chapter 2.3). A

more integrated management approach would systematically address the use of natural resources and

link these closely to regional development efforts. The advisory boards of the biosphere reserves (cur-

rently existing on Rügen and in the Archipelago Sea) could serve as launching pads for such efforts.

6.2.4 Two coastal land-use conflicts on Rügen and HiiumaaBackground

The clash of interests between property rights, free access to coasts, and nature and landscape

protection makes the construction of buildings one of the most controversial coastal issues. In the

Southeast Rügen Biosphere Reserve land-use planning is the first and foremost reason for continu-

ous conflicts between municipalities and the biosphere reserve administration. In the following, two

examples of illegal construction on Rügen and Hiiumaa are examined. Although these examples are

not representative, they can be considered important in terms of the biosphere reserve. In addition,

126

they sparked a more basic public discussion about coastal land use and decision-making procedures.

Both cases must be viewed against the profound changes in the administration and the legislation

that took place during these years. Because the ‘rules of the game’ were not yet clear, the situation

could be exploited by some entrepreneurs (interviews).

The states around the Baltic Sea usually have legal provisions for the protection of the coastal

strip. The aim of these provisions may include ensuring the public free access along the coastline,

protecting coastal landscapes, nature conservation, protection from erosion, and prevention of water

pollution from land-based activities. Legal provisions, planning guidelines, or special policies for

coastal zones extending further inland and seawards are much more vague. HELCOM (Helsinki

Commission) has recommended (15/1) that countries around the Baltic Sea should establish a 3 km

coastal planning zone. So far no country has implemented this recommendation.

In Germany, land use on the coastal strip is considered to be a concern of the states (Länder) and

neither the Federal Nature Conservation Act nor other federal legislation includes specific rules for

the protection or planning of the coastal strip. In Mecklenburg-Vorpommern the first Nature Protec-

tion Act from 1992 (Erstes Gesetz zum Naturschutz im Land Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, §7) states

that buildings may not be erected or essentially enlarged within a 200 meter wide strip from the

coastline outside settlements. Exemptions may however be entitled in certain cases and under cer-

tain conditions. The exemptions mostly refer to shore-bound activities like harbors, water sports,

and bathing. The endorsement of the nature protection authority is needed in such cases (cf. Nordberg

1994, 7). The Water Act of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern from 1992 (Wassergesetz des Landes

Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, LWaG) also includes the regulation concerning the use of the coastal

strip, as is the regulation of 200 m.

In Germany there are no specific regulations for planning in the larger coastal zone (extending 200

m) neither in federal nor in state environmental and planning legislation. However the first spatial

plan on a state level (Erstes Landesraumordnungsprogramm Mecklenburg-Vorpommern), which

was enacted in 1993, assigns most coastal areas the status of either ‘priority areas for nature and

landscape protection’ (Vorranggebiete Naturschutz und Landschaftspflege) or ‘provision areas for

nature and landscape’ (Vorsorgeräume Naturschutz und Landschaftspflege). In priority areas, all

spatial planning and projects have to be compatible with the goals of nature and landscape protec-

tion. In provision areas spatial planning and projects are to be carefully considered and, as far as

possible, should not influence the importance of the area for nature and landscape protection. (Erstes

Landesraumordnungs-programm...1993, 31-32.)


127

In Estonia the Act on Shore Protection (1995) prohibits construction on large islands closer than 200

meters to the coastline (on mainland 100 m), in order to protect the shore landscape and to prevent water

pollution from land-based activities. Some shore-bound activities like harbors are excluded from the pro-

hibition. The protected strip can be enlargened or made narrower by decisions of the local authority.

Finland is the only European country, which has no legislation for the protection of the coastal

strip (Järventaus 1995). Neither the Nature Conservation Act from 1923 nor the Planning and Build-

ing Act from 1958 include specific provisions on the protection of the coastal strip. The Nature

Conservation Act, however, was amended in 1997 to include a provision that construction are only

allowed if a general or shore plan exists. The national Shoreline Conservation Program, launched in

1990, protected only 4% of the coastal strip along the Finnish Baltic Sea coast (Nurmela 1994, 44),

while 3% was protected as national parks or nature reserves.

The house in Seedorf

Numerous land-use conflicts concerning the construction of hotels, rehabilitation clinics, private

apartments, and other structures have taken place on Rügen and in the biosphere reserve in the last

few years. Local media has covered the most controversial cases. One land-use conflict concerned

the construction of a house in the village of Seedorf and had special importance for the biosphere

reserve. The conflict took place during a period of time when new ministries were being established,

new legislative arrangements were introduced, and the jurisdictions of different levels of govern-

ment were not clear yet. This particular conflict cannot be regarded as typical, however at its time it

was important as a precedent of illegal construction. It was also critical to the very existence of the

biosphere reserve as well as the development of the media on the island.

Development control in the form of construction permits and zoning gained new importance after

German unification. Many well-funded investors from West-Germany recognized new opportuni-

ties within the construction sector in the ‘new Bundesländer’. In coastal regions, like Rügen, the rise

of tourism made investments in hotels and other touristic facilities very attractive. In addition, fed-

eral policy directed investments to the new Bundesländer by making investments ‘tax-free’, which

quickly increased the amount of construction (interview).

One of the most important developers on Rügen had established good relations with the district

councillor during the first legislative period in the beginning of 1990’s. With a special permit from the

district councillor the investor started to build a house for himself on the coastal strip (less than 200

meters from the coastline) in a nature protection area. The biosphere reserve office was not consulted

128

when the permit was issued. A further permit from the regional planning authority was issued, but

withdrawn within 24 hours. Construction work continued on the site, however. The issue went to the

ministry level and the Ministry of the Interior declared the project illegal. But the district councillor

refused to take any action to stop the project. Construction was finally halted when the district council-

lor, accused of several unclear affairs in the construction business, withdrew from his position.

Soon afterwards, the construction project was judged to be illegal and a decision was made that the

investor would have to tear down the nearly finished building. As a response to this the investor

initiated a law suit arguing that the ordinance of the biosphere reserve was invalid because the proc-

ess of designating did not meet the requirements concerning public participation. The local newspa-

per wrote (OZ 15.9.1993): “[The investor] submitted his case to the higher administrative court

(Normenkontrollklage) against the ordinance by the environmental ministry establishing the south-

eastern part of the island of Rügen as a biosphere reserve. The status of protected area shall, claims

the investor, be withdrawn so that construction is possible.”

The higher Administrative Court of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern ruled on the issue on April 20,1994,

stating that GDR legislation had designated the biosphere reserve, and the ordinance was carried

over into the new legal structure by the terms of the unification treaty. This important decision also

affected all other large protected areas established within the national park programme. In addition,

the ruling confirmed that landscape protection is a task of the biosphere reserve in densely populated

areas as well, thus resolving what had been a longstanding controversial issue. The position of the

biosphere reserve was, however, weakened by the decision, so that its statements concerning con-

struction in densely populated areas are not binding but have only an advisory character for the

district government.

The investor brought the case to an even higher court, but it only confirmed the earlier decision.

The house was removed at the expence of the investor. Because of his unpleasant experiences with

the local press, the investor decided to found his own newspaper. He bought the Rüganer and used it

as a channel to influence public opinion (see Chapter 4.2.1).

The house in Sarve

The first serious land-use conflict on Hiiumaa discussed in local media occurred in early summer 1996,

during my field trip to Hiiumaa. The Hiiumaa Biosphere Reserve Center was involved in this conflict in

various ways. The case was believed to have, at least on Hiiumaa, the status of a principal ‘showcase’ for

future coastal land use, putting the emerging issue of coastal land use on the public agenda.


129

The strongest development pressures on Hiiumaa are expected to be in the most attractive coastal

areas. Therefore land-use planning is especially important on coastal areas and not so much in inner

parts of the island, which are only sparsely inhabited. So far construction have been on a small scale,

because of the slow process of land reform and the lack of financial power. Many persons inter-

viewed believe that when ownership questions are solved and people will have the financial means

to build, construction on the coastal strip will increase significantly.

The conflict arose when local construction companies under the supervision of a local real estate

company started building a summer cottage in Sarve in the municipality of Pühalepa. There was a

general plan for the whole municipality, but no detailed plan for this particular area. Nor had the

general plan been accepted by the municipal council (interview), and the property in question was

not yet privatized (interview). There was only a preliminary promise from the district government to

return the land to the former owner. The real estate company had made a preliminary agreement with

the former owner about selling the land to an Estonian woman who is married to a Finnish man.

Currently the law prohibits sales of land to foreigners (interview).

The company started to build a house closer than 200 m from the shoreline in a core area of the biosphere

reserve. The building permit was given by the local government. When the environmental department of

the county government pointed out that the permit is not valid, the local government withdrew the permit.

According to the environmental department it was illegal and the local government employees who issued

the construction permit were not authorized to do so. At this time, however the basement of the house was

completed and the construction carried on, despite the withdrawal of the permit.

Several articles were published in two local newspapers, Hiiumaa and Hiiu-Teataja. The public dis-

cussion soon turned into a more fundamental discussion about the conflict between nature conserva-

tion and building, as well as the relationships between public and private interests. The approaching

local elections also influenced the discussion. The main parties in this discussion were one representa-

tive of the Hiiumaa Biosphere Reserve Center and an agent from the real estate company.

In a newspaper article titled “Dance around the land” (HI 13.6.1996) the director of the real estate

company asserted that the nature protection areas, the 200 meter coastal protection strip and the slow-

ness of the land reform hinder economic development on Hiiumaa. The main message was that if state

bureaucrats continue to act in an inflexible way, Hiiumaa will become a museum and there will be no

development. A political dimension was added through the fact that the realtor was also the leader of

the conservative Reform Party Fraction on Hiiumaa. In the article’s postscript, letters were solicited in

the name of the Reform Party from people who have had problems with the land reform.

130

A representative of the Hiiumaa Biosphere Reserve Center responded with an article pointing out

that nature conservation directly affects construction on only 0.4% of Hiiumaa’s land area (HI

15.6.1996). Further on he noted that the 200 m zone was issued by a government act and confirmed

in the general municipal development plan of Pühalepa. The article pointed out the political nature

of the conflict and stressed the need for land-use planning in coastal areas.

The response from the representative of the real estate company pointed out that a decree for the

protection of this particular core area is being prepared with great speed in the Hiiumaa Biosphere

Reserve Center (HI 4.6.1996). Furthermore the biosphere reserve was criticized for not seriously

considering the opinions of landowners. It was also pointed out that because people are very skeptical

towards public administration, the planners should go directly to the landowners. In the end of the

article the writer expressed a desire to end the discussion, saying he would not write any more.

An interesting aspect was that the person from the real estate company was also a stockholder in a

company called Tareste which also owns the local newspaper, radio, and printing plant. The editors

of the paper had however explicitly distanced themselves from the realtor’s opinions by stating that:

“Some of the editors of the paper are also members of the Reform Party. One should not think that all

opinions presented by [the realtor] represent the opinions of the Reform Party” (HI 15.6.1996). In

the local elections in 1996 the Reform Party faction split into three. The elections were apparently

centered on individual candidates and the left-right political orientation was not always particularly

relevant (interview).

At the time of the start of the construction, the core area did not have proper legal protection. The

process of adapting the existing zonation (core areas, buffer zone and transition zone) with the new

Act on Protected Natural Objects was underway. The Hiiumaa Biosphere Reserve Center began

writing new decrees using the new catego-

ries, and it planned to be finished by the

end of the year 1996 (interview). Even

though the legal protective status was not

finalized, the construction was illegal due

to the fact that the house was built closer

than 200 m from the sea.

The case was brought to the ministerial

level and was also discussed in the county

government. In fact there was no way to The conflict concerning the summer house in Sarve was one of the firstpublic environmental conflicts on Hiiumaa. Photo: Mart Mõniste


131

physically stop the construction. After discussions with various stakeholders the county governor, who

had the decision-making power, delegated the issue to the council of the local government (interview).

Many of those interviewed stated that by doing so, the governor took a fundamentally positive attitude

towards the construction of the house. On June 25, 1996, the director of the Hiiumaa Biosphere Reserve

Center wrote an official letter to the head of the municipality council pointing out that the biosphere

reserve is not a controlling institution, but the position of the biosphere reserve is that the house should

be removed. When needed a juridical decision should be sought in court.

According to several interview partners, this was the first case in which the biosphere reserve was

publicly accused and involved in a public land-use conflict (interviews). Although the Hiiumaa

Biosphere Reserve Center has no legal role in controlling the core areas (the task of the environmen-

tal department of the county government), it designates and prepares the decrees for protected areas.

There had already been conflicts with landowners in this particular area in Sarve, when the size of

the core area and the content of the decree were determined (interview). This was however the only

truly public conflict; in the other cases a compromise was found earlier on (interview). One of the

persons interviewed said that the role of the biosphere reserve should be clarified, since it is taking

part in the political discussions, but has no formal responsibilities.

As the pressure on coastal areas is growing, similar conflicts are anticipated in the future (interview).

That this type of conflict did not occur before was merely due to the fact that land ownership questions

were to largely unresolved and there was little money for investing in building. This is slowly changing

and in addition there are more foreigners who are interested in buying summer cottages on Hiiumaa.

It is important to note that the person who coordinated the construction of the house had studied

law, so that he was able to challenge the legal structure. For a normal citizen the current planning

system is new and barely understandable (interviews). The obvious overlap of his economic and

political interests as the owner of the real estate company and as the leader of the Reform Party

fraction of Hiiumaa initiated the public outcry. In fact according to one interview partner, the house

was not going to be the last, but the first of nine other houses planned to be built (interview).

Similar conflicts of interests were resolved in the neighboring municipality of Käina, where de-

tailed plans were made for coastal areas. The planning process had been long but a compromise was

found between building construction and nature protection (interview). In this municipality the Käina

Bay Integrated Management Plan was also made (see Chapter 6.2.6).

In the Sarve case the outcome of the conflict was multifaceted. It questioned the legitimacy of the

biosphere reserve and brought party politics into the sphere of nature and coastal protection. For the

132

first time there was a polarization between ‘environmentalists’ (represented by the Hiiumaa Bio-

sphere Reserve Center) and ‘developers’, who promised jobs and opportunities to sell land and earn

income. The house itself has not been removed so far.

6.2.5 Water-use planning with special reference to fish farming on Rügen andin the Archipelago Sea

Background

Fish farming is a water-use issue which distinctively illustrates the land/sea interaction of human

activities. It is estimated that globally aquaculture (i.e., fish, shrimp, and mussel farming) has growing

importance as a source of food for the increasing human population. The environmental effects of

aquaculture, however, range from destruction of coastal ecosystems (such as mangrove forests) to

water pollution, and to impacts in natural fish stocks, from diseases to changes in natural fish populations.

The planning and public discussion concerning a fish farm which was planned for a site close to

the town of Binz on Rügen will serve as the first example of water-use planning to be studied here.

Water-use planning with special reference to fish farming in the Archipelago Sea is also selected for

closer inquiry. Fish farming is one of the most debated environmental issues in the Archipelago Sea,

while it is of minor importance on Rügen. This specific case near Binz, which is presented here is

based mainly on thirty newspaper articles.

Rügen

Bodies of water in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern are divided into two categories. The first category

includes rivers, ditches, and groundwater, and the second category comprises coastal and offshore

waters. Decision-making concerning the first category is the responsibility of the environmental de-

partment of the Office of the District Councillor, and decisions concerning the second category by the

State Office for Environment and Nature (Staatliches Amt für Naturschutz und Umwelt). The latter is

also responsible for the controlling of water quality and has a net of control stations. The municipalities

are responsible for drinking water and for the treatment of waste waters. They have formed a joint

administrative commission (Zweckverband) to take care of these tasks.

The quality of coastal waters in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern has improved since the German unifi-

cation, mainly due to the decrease of industrial and agricultural production. The treatment of sewage

from settlements has also improved with modern facilities built in the last years. The planned fish

farm in the Bay of Prora was by many considered as a step in the wrong direction.


133

The conflict took place from 1993 to 1995. In September 1993, the company Skalölaks Deutschland

Inc. received a permit from the State Office for the Environment and Nature in Stralsund to produce

two hundred tons of rainbow trout in the Bay of Prora. The facility was planned to be located one sea

mile off the coast. The permit was given based on a study and the consent of the district and the town

of Sassnitz (OZ 3.1.1995). The permit included the obligation for the enterprise to monitor the im-

pact of the fish farm on water quality.

The fish farm in the Bay of Prora would have been the first new fish farm to be established after

German unification. The decision concerning this farm was considered to be of great importance,

because it would be have been a signal of encouragement to others interested in fish farming.

During the GDR era, intensive fish farming took place in the coastal waters. But many of these farms

were closed after German unification. Thus the nutrient load caused by fish farming decreased consider-

ably: in 1988, 40 tons of phosphorus was emitted from fish farms and in 1994 it was only 1.1 tons (OZ

5.4.1994), and the current production of fish was 125 tons. Adraft of a policy guideline for fish farming in

Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, worked out by the ministries in authority suggested an increase in production

to 1000 tons. A map showing six possible sites for fish farms on the coast of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern

was drawn and also published in an article of a local newspaper (OZ 5.4.1994). The guidelines were never

completed and officially launched, however, but remained in the form of a draft (OZ 3.1.1995).

The intended location of the fish farm was close to the town of Binz, in the Bay of Prora, one sea

mile from the shoreline. Binz is the most prominent beach for bathing on Rügen (for example there

is an overnight express-train from Basel in Switzerland to Binz during summer months) and its

economy is dependent on high-class tourism. The intended site for the fish farm was located ap-

proximately three sea miles from the water areas of the biosphere reserve (see map 2).

In November 1994, the company confirmed that it wanted to start fish farming in May 1995.

After it contacted Binz’s municipal government, it met with opposition. According to the head of

the municipality, the local government had not been informed about the decision made by the State

Office for Environment and Nature. Strong opposition against the project grew on the whole island.

The environmental agency that had issued the permit was accused of not taking into account the

economic effects of the project. Surprisingly, however, this criticism was directed against the fish

farm. An adverse effect on local tourism was feared. The narrow sectoralized viewpoint in the proc-

ess of issuing the permit was criticized in local newspapers: “The economic questions, for which the

State Office for Environment and Nature does not have to answer or take responsibility, remain

unanswered. These are: Is the fish farm going to have impact on the public image of the tourism

134

region? Is the fish farm a competitor for local fishermen? Whom are the subsidies going to benefit?”

(OZ 16.2.1994) Also a local representative of the environmental NGO NABU criticized that no

environmental impact assessment was required in the permit process and that socio-economic issues

were not taken into consideration (OZ 24.2.1994).

The main arguments of the opponents against the planned fish farm were that it would have nega-

tive impacts on water quality in the coastal waters. First and foremost, it would detract from the

image of Binz and the whole region as a coastal tourism resort. The municipality of Binz was also

concerned about the possibility for approval as a ‘coastal health resort’ (Seeheilbad), a designation

given by the Ministry of Social Affairs (OZ 15.2.1995). Further, it argued that it makes no sense to

construct expensive water treatment facilities if such projects are allowed to take place simultane-

ously. In fact, one of the arguments for issuing the permit was that since a new water treatment

facility was to be constructed in Sassnitz a fish farm would be justified. The estimated three to five

new jobs were put against the 1500 persons working in the tourism sector in Binz. In addition the

fish processing would have taken place in Denmark (OZ 10.10.1994). Opponents were also con-

cerned that further permits would be issued, and that this case would thus have an exemplary charac-

ter. The local newspaper Ostseezeitung wrote: “Nobody wanted it. The permit was however issued

as a product of German bureaucracy and faith in laws” (OZ 10.10.1994).

The State Office for Environment and Nature confirmed in the press that the permit was issued in

compliance with existing laws; that the decision conformed to the Helsinki Conventions (HELCOM);

that no significant negative impacts on water quality were anticipated, and if so, the five-year permit

would be withdrawn. The older fish farms that had existed during the GDR era were responsible for

the bad reputation of fish farming in general. The state office pointed out that farming techniques

had improved since then.

Seldom has there been such a consensus of opinion among different actors on Rügen as in this case. The

district councillor, the business section of the district council, the town of Binz, the chamber of industry

and commerce, the East Rügen Landscape Preservation Union (Landschaftspflegeverband Ostrügen),

tourism associations, and various environmental organizations all took positions against the fish farm in

the local press (OZ 14.10.1994). An environmental foundation from Hamburg called “Save Our Future”

became involved and made a marine biological survey and a legal survey on the issue. An initiative called

the People’s Initiative Against the Fish Farm (Volksinitiative gegen die Fischmastanlage) was founded.

A public hearing was organized by the town of Binz and “Save Our Future”, which presented the

results of the surveys. Representatives from the Ministry of the Environment, of the State Office for


135

Environment and Nature, and the district were present and answered questions from the audience.

The Minister of the Environment confirmed that no negative effects were expected and that the

production would be stopped should any materialize. The audience showed little sympathy for the

idea that this particular fish farm should be a ‘test area’ (RÜ 12.10.1994). According to the repre-

sentative of the Nature Conservation Academy of Vilm, the case turned on a fundamental question:

do we want such farms on our coasts? The next day a demonstration was organized on the shoreline

and coastal waters of the Bay of Prora. A petition bearing one thousand names of opponents was

collected by the initiative (OZ 9.2.1995).

The municipal executive of Binz opposed the permit, but this position was rejected by the State

Office for Environment and Nature. The next step was that the municipality entered a law suit against

the decision made by the State Office for Environment and Nature in the Greifswald administrative

court (Verwaltungsgericht Greifswald, OZ 14.12.1995.)

During the public debate the important role of state subsidies became clear. Without the 50%

subsidy from the structure fonds of the European Union the enterprise would not be interested in

building the fish farm. Opponents questioned the policy of giving subsidies within a Euro-round-

table in the capital of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (OZ 9.2.1995).

The administrative court confirmed that in the permitting process conducted by the State Office

for Environment and Nature, “The interests of the municipality and the main direction of develop-

ment, which lies within the tourism sector, was too little or not at all taken into consideration” (RÜ

6.3.1996). Ultimately, a decision was made to ban the farm.

Although the issue mobilized people opposing the planned fish farm, no broader issues concerning

the quality of coastal waters or the Baltic Sea were addressed. The conflict was a very local one and

focused only on a single issue, ignoring larger concerns. For example, no demands were expressed

that the intended enlargement of the port of Mukran, located also close to Binz, should fulfill spe-

cific environmental standards, or that specific attention should be given to safety as the number of

shipping activities increased.

Archipelago Sea

A wide range of water-use issues have been the subject of public debates in the Archipelago Sea.

Some of the most important include ownership of water areas, fishing rights, ship routes and sand

mining. However the most striking issue has been the eutrophication of coastal waters. Questions

remain unresolved regarding the relative contribution to eutrophication from local fish farming,

136

from such large cities as St. Petersburg, or from general atmospheric pollution. Numerous studies

have been published, but no general agreement has been found so far on the issue.

Land-use planning and water-use planning are separate issues in Finland (Siirala 1990, 174-176).

There is no comprehensive system of water-use planning at the local level. General plans set up by

municipalities have usually only the symbol of “W” for water areas. The only issue related to water

use has been the placement of small village harbors (interview). Regional plans take notice only of

major shipping and boating routes, and few other water-use issues.

One of the most obvious needs for integrated land- and water-use planning is related to the conflict

between fish farming and leisure housing, comparable to the dilemma over tourism vs. fish farming

on Rügen. Other issues include boating routes and perhaps most importantly, the eutrophication of

the Archipelago Sea.

Fish farming is the most controversial water-use issue in the Archipelago Sea. Environmental

problems related to fish farming include eutrophication and unknown effects of the use of antibiot-

ics. Fish farming has caused serious local conflicts with housing and leisure housing. The line of

conflict runs partly between summer folk and year-round residents. Owners of summer cottages in

the vicinity of fish farms are upset by local effects, including muddy water, eutrophication, and

increased noise and excrement from sea-gulls. Of course, permanent residents are also affected, but

they appear to give more weight to the impact on the local economy and are thus in general more

moderate in their opinions.

Notification and permission procedures under the Water Act concern projects that affect water

quality, navigable waterways, and ground water. The Water Rights Court have the authority to give

approval, and the Water Rights Appeal Court, the Supreme Administrative Court, and the Supreme

Court have the authority to uphold appeals. The notification procedure involves reports on projects

using certain hazardous substances, as well as a number of other projects specified by decree. The

permitting procedure is required for any projects resulting in non-compliance with the prohibitions.

They take place prior to the court proceedings.

In cases of major significance, the public inquiry process is applied. The main phases of public

inquiry are the opening session, examination, the supplementation and inspection of the report of the

ad hoc board of inquiry. In cases where no public inquiry is conducted, the application is made either

by public announcement or through inspection proceedings. The former is for projects that have

only a minor impact on navigable waterways, while the latter is used to complement the public

announcement if further inspection is needed (Paldanius 1994a, 6.).


137

A permit from the Water Rights Court is needed for fish farming. The application with the necessary

supplemental information is sent to the court, which makes it public. Affected land and water owners can

send their written concerns to the Water Rights Court. A statement is also solicited from the regional

environment center, the rural development agency, and other administrative bodies involved. The court

makes a decision by calculating a so-called cost-benefit relation. The Water Rights Court decides on

permits on a case-by-case basis, but is guided by policy level plans for fish farming. The right to appeal

after the decisions has been made by the Water Rights Court is often used in fish farming issues.

A policy level plan specifically regarding fish farming was made by a working group set up in

1994 by the National Board of Water and the Environment (currently Finnish Environment Agency).

It included representatives from the Ministry of the Environment, the Ministry of Agriculture and

Forestry, associations of fish farmers, the Turku Rural Development Agency, the Research Institute

for Game and Fish, and the National Board of Waters and the Environment. The plan proposed that

the emissions on the level of year 1993 (116 tons of phosphorus and 808 tons of nitrogen) be reduced

to the level of 75 tons of phosphorus and 520 tons of nitrogen by the year 2005.

Also the Turku Water and Environment District (currently the Southwest Finland Regional Envi-

ronment Center) has set up a development plan for the management and protection of water and the

environment. It dealt mainly with the problem of water pollution. It was made within the environ-

mental administration without much consultation or participation of municipalities and was mainly

for internal use.

On local level few attempts have been made to mediate the conflict. Municipalities have been very

reluctant to take the issue as a topic. There are two obvious reasons for this: firstly, fish farming is

probably the largest private sector employer in the municipality of Houtskär and also its economic

importance is considerable in other municipalities. Secondly, currently there seem to be no technical

solutions to make fish farming more environmentally friendly.

Fish farming has not been directly addressed in land-use planning of municipalities. Although

representatives of the Southwest Finland Regional Environment Center and the Regional Council of

Southwest Finland have continuously stressed the need to take the issue into account in general

planning, municipalities have not been willing to do so (interview). The indirect way of avoiding

conflicts in land-use planning is not to place building rights in the vicinity of existing or planned fish

farms (interview).

On the whole, water-use and land-use planning remain very separate issues. Land-use plans need

not be taken into account in permit decisions (Paldanius 1994a, 7). Moreover, plans and permit

138

decisions are not taken in chronological order in administrative planning and decision-making

(Paldanius 1994a, 7, ref. Palokangas et al. 1993, p. VII/23-24). It has been suggested that the bio-

sphere reserve could act as mediator in this specific issue. Rather than accusing one another of being

the ‘biggest polluter’, the various parties should seek constructive solutions.

6.2.6 Käina Bay Integrated Coastal Management Plan (Hiiumaa)Käina Bay (Käina Laht) is situated between the southeastern coast of Hiiumaa and the island of

Kassari. It is more a brackish water coastal lake than a typical ocean bay. It is connected with the sea

by two streams, the Laisma and the Orjaku. Käina Bay is very shallow and does not exceed one meter

in depth. Due to the decreasing water level, it has become more and more separated from the sea. The

water area of the bay is about 9 km², and it contains 23 small islands.

Spatial planning has been carried out in different ways in different periods. In 1983, the island of

Kassari became a landscape reserve. This included the zonation of Kassari island into areas of agri-

cultural protection and small-scale industry, nature protection, and tourism and recreation. The Na-

ture Protection Scheme for Hiiumaa was set up in 1988, and it included a zonation of the area. The

bay was also identified as a core area of the biosphere reserve. More recently the municipality of

Käina prepared a land-use plan (detailed plan) for the village of Orjaku and the surrounding areas. A

general plan for the municipality has not yet been prepared.

Käina Bay is also an internationally important wetland area, which meets the criteria of RAMSAR.

The Kaina Bay was designated as an ornithological reserve of local importance as early as 1962 and

in 1971 it was reconfigured into a bird sanctuary of state-wide importance. Since 1989 it has been on

the international List of Important Bird Areas (category I).

Supported by HELCOM (Helsinki Commission), the Hiiumaa Biosphere Reserve Center set up a

management plan for Käina Bay in 1994-1996. The Käina Bay Integrated Coastal Zone Manage-

ment Plan was part of HELCOM’s efforts to facilitate the creation of integrated coastal management

plans for a number of priority areas (coastal lagoons and wetlands) in the Baltic Sea.

The Working Group on Management Plans for Coastal Lagoons and Wetlands (HELCOM PITF

MLW) was established in February 1993. In April 1994 it was agreed that Käina Bay should become

one of the task areas within the overall framework of the Gulf of Riga Task Area. The major objec-

tive of the work of MLW was to contribute to ecologically sustainable development in the coastal

areas of the Baltic Sea Region.

The management plan included following steps:


139

• description of natural conditions

• legislation, control structure and territorial planning in the area

• identification of interests

• identification of conflicts

• prospects for cooperation

• recommendations for use of land and water areas

• proposal for a monitoring system of water quality

One of the first tasks was to define the management area. Three separate zones were identified:

first, the bay itself and its immediate catchment area (about 9 km² of land surrounding 9 km² of

water). Second, the southeastern catchment area of the Luguse and Vaemla rivers and the adjacent

parts of the sea. Thirdly, the whole island of Hiiumaa, “whose development considerably influences

the situation on the coasts and the northern portion of Väinameri” (Kokovkin 1996). Both the ‘catch-

ment area’ and the larger ‘influence area’ were identified as the most populated agricultural areas on

Hiiumaa. No clear boundaries were identified, so they are determined by the issue at hand.

The identification of interests and possible conflicts were carried out in collaboration with local

residents. These were personally asked to attend meetings to discuss management issues in the area

(interview). This form of engagement was considered more effective than just making a public invi-

tation in the local newspaper. In the meetings people were able to express their ideas and interests

related to the management plan (interview). The invitation was made by representatives of the local

government (interview). According to the project report, “Special attention was also paid to the

possibilities that the project offered for education and information”. For example, local newspapers

printed articles on the value of the bay and the potential threats.

Since little research work had been done in the area, data collection and basic research was now

carried out. Land-use planners from municipalities, the Environmental Department of the County

Government, the Estonian Marine Institute (Eesti Mereinstituut), Hiiumaa Biosphere Reserve Center,

and Tarto University were involved (interview). Six to seven working groups dedicated to different

topics were established, among them fisheries, birds, and water quality.

In the meetings with local residents (mostly farmers), three main resource uses were identified:

grazing, reed cutting and tourism (particularly horseback riding and bird-watching). The municipal

administration of Käina had identified the following interests: developing the Orjaku passenger

harbor and its facilities, exploiting therapeutic uses of mud deposits, and tourism development in the

Kassari-Sääre area close by.

140

The report (Kokovkin 1996) suggested that Käina Bay should remain an important wetland and

bird area and a caretaker should be hired to manage the area. In addition, the establishment of a

marine reserve was suggested. The report also emphasizes that Käina bay, a lagoon with its catch-

ment area, is not an isolated system. Solving land- and water-use problems of the lagoon and its

surroundings is not possible without working out the nature management plans for broader areas,

particularly for the coasts and the sea southeast of Hiiumaa (areas called Kassari Laht and Laidelaht).

This area has been already proposed to be a Baltic Sea Protected Area and also requires the elabora-

tion of the ICM. The process and principles of integrated coastal management were also presented in

the biosphere reserve supplement of the local newspaper (Kokovkin 1996).

The Käina Bay Integrated Management Plan was a comprehensive management plan for a rela-

tively small area. It identified a broad list of current and potential uses, threats, and opportunities

(e.g. nature-tourism), and was set up using collaborative planning methods. The basic environmen-

tal and socio-economic data which was gathered and the research which was conducted in the area

was not used to ‘scientifically’ justify certain management principles, but the main emphasis was on

creating a partnership with various stakeholders.

6.2.7 The establishment of an advisory board for the biosphere reserve onRügen and Archipelago Sea

Background

The Seville Strategy for biosphere reserves (Biosphere reserves 1996, 8) recommends that each

reserve should “develop and establish institutional mechanisms to manage, coordinate and inte-

grate the biosphere reserve’s programmes and activities” (Objective II.2.3). Further on it is rec-

ommended to “establish a local consultative framework in which the reserve’s economic and so-

cial stakeholders are represented, including the full range of interests (e.g., agriculture, forestry,

hunting and extracting, water and energy supply, fisheries, tourism, recreation and research)”

(Objective II.2.4.).

In the three case study areas such a consultative framework was put into practice in quite different

ways and at different times. In the Archipelago Sea Biosphere Reserve, the ‘Advisory Board for the

Archipelago Sea’ (Delegationen för Skärgårdshavet) was established by a decree and it began to

meet regularly right from the beginning. A similar board was not established on Rügen until quite

late - five years after the biosphere reserve designation. On Hiiumaa, a consultative framework has

not been institutionalized in the form of an advisory board.


141

Two approaches for advisory boards for biosphere reserves can be identified. First, an advisory board

may deal strictly with the management of the biosphere reserve. Often issues are related to nature

protection and the use of natural resources (e.g. fishing and hunting rights, use of pasture land). A

broader approach would be adopted by a advisory board, which intends to coordinate and integrate

different activities and plans within the biosphere reserve. The question of who is represented on the

advisory board depends on the objectives of the board, and these should be carefully considered. The

question of who is represented in the advisory board was a particular factor subject to controversial

debates when the advisory boards were established on Rügen and in the Archipelago Sea.

Rügen

Conflicts between the biosphere reserve administration and some municipalities have mainly con-

cerned land use. The biosphere reserve administration (Rügen National Park Agency) is a ‘repre-

sentative of public interests’ (Träger Öffentlicher Belange) and has thus an important role to play

when local land-use plans are set up. The following statement by a representative of the biosphere

reserve describes the polarized situation:

The background is the planning competence of municipalities, which is completely over-

estimated by mayors. Sure, it is anchored in the constitution. But there is also a subordi-

nate clause: “within the legal framework”... And this is always overlooked. In practice

so far, things look like this: the municipalities try, due to their planning power, to wrench

the maximum of admissions and try to enforce this against advocates of the public inter-

est. Municipalities want as much as possible, want to push through the maximum of

demands against us. They are successful in this and this is the core of the conflict. Mu-

nicipalities want as much as possible, we want as little as possible. We view things over

the long-term, municipalities rather in the short-term. They want to have quick suc-

cesses. This is a conflict which is not so quickly resolved. (Interview.)

The conflicts between the biosphere reserve administration and the municipalities centered around

the question of the establishment of an advisory board for the biosphere reserve. Such a consultative

framework was not included in the biosphere reserve ordinance. Some interview partners had vague

memories about a meeting concerning a consultative framework held in 1990, but there was no

report of the proceedings, nor a list of participants. Thus an advisory board never existed in practice

(interview).

142

In December 1995 a position paper was presented by one municipal head (mayor) and the ombuds-

man from the legislature (Bürgerbeauftragter des Landtages), entitled: “The biosphere reserve is a

municipal responsibility” (Jahresbericht 1996, 29). The paper proposed the establishment of a ‘Bio-

sphere Reserve Council’ (Biosphärenrat). According to the proposal it would be composed of may-

ors, one other representative from each municipality, and the district councillor. One representative

of the biosphere reserve could be present, but would only have an advisory role and no vote. The

paper was presented to the mayors in a meeting to discuss the ordinance of the protected landscape

area (cf. Chapter 6.2.1). The main objective of the paper was to start a discussion about the future

development of the biosphere reserve. Issues to be discussed included “the jurisdiction of the bio-

sphere reserve administration and the renewal of the ordinance from 1990”.

As the conflicts continued to escalate, the district councillor tried to act as a mediator.35 She made

a proposal to establish a ‘Biosphere Reserve Advisory Board’ (Biosphärenkuratorium) which would

have an advisory role and could enable appropriate participation of all relevant interest groups con-

cerning decisions made by the Rügen National Park Agency (Satzung des Kuratoriums...1996). The

proposal envisaged 25 permanent members, among them mayors and town managers, fishing and

hunting associations, the Farmers Union, the Chamber of Industry and Commerce, representatives

of the local museum, and environmental NGOs.

In response, the municipal administrators opposed the inclusion of different interest lobbies and

user groups into the advisory board, and kept hold of their proposal to establish a ‘Biosphere Re-

serve Council’ (instead of an ‘Advisory Board’). They argued that NGO representation would cause

the group to become too large; a smaller group would be better to solve the existing relationship

conflicts between some mayors and the biosphere reserve administration. In addition many mayors

considered themselves the legitimate representatives of different interests. According to one mayor:

The problem with the NGOs was that, if we are going to establish a board to make an

impact on the way the biosphere reserve administration acts, then only the heads of the

municipalities should be included; they represent all citizens and institutions in this area.

The municipal administrators thus adhered to the previous proposal, according to which only may-

ors and the district councillor could be board members. No other interest group would be a member,

and the representative of the biosphere reserve administration would have only an advisory role

35 In September 1995 a seminar was organized on Rügen about mediation in environmental conflicts (Konfliktregelung imUmweltschutz...1995). Some interview partners considered that a mediation process, which is tailored mainly to big projectslike airports, highways, and waste-burning-sites, is too complicated and requires too many resources (financial and man-power) to be implemented on a smaller scale. There seems to be a need for appropriate mediation techniques in smaller localenvironmental conflicts.


143

(Jahresbericht 1996; interview). An even tougher position intending to exclude the biosphere re-

serve administration completely from the board was presented (interview). The specific aim was to

change the ordinance so that the biosphere reserve administration would no longer have such a

strong say in local land-use issues. According to a mayor:

The biosphere reserve administration is increasingly interfering with planning ef-

forts by local governments, and is thus canceling the municipal right to self-govern-

ance which is anchored in the constitution. We are resisting this. So we wrote a posi-

tion paper, “The Biosphere reserve is municipal concern”...It is a suggestion, a provo-

cation. They can certainly make a counterproposal. So far they haven’t made one. They

have just ignored us.

The ministerial level considered that it can not take a leading role in the issue.

The federal state sees little potential to be influential, because it was a stated objective

that such a body should grow from below, from local demands and not prescribed by a

central administrative body.

Many of the interview partners considered that relationship conflicts were the underlying reason

for the aggravated situation, which in some cases had led to a total cessation of face-to-face commu-

nication. One of the heads of the municipalities had mobilized others in the neighboring municipali-

ties to effectively oppose any attempt to admit as members on the board anyone other than mayors

and town managers. Others who held more moderate positions considered the situation to be unpro-

ductive and unlikely to result in a solution.

In essence the conflict was about who will be a member of the advisory board and what character

it should have (advisory or making binding decisions). The intention of the ‘biosphere injured’ mu-

nicipal administrators was to unite their strength against the biosphere reserve.

Two approaches were presented to solve the problem. The first was to establish a small board,

which initially includes only mayors and representatives of county government and the biosphere

reserve. This would be important in order to first mediate within a small group to solve the relation-

ship conflicts. Various other interest groups would be included later. The other approach was that the

inclusion of NGOs and sectoral agencies would bring ‘more sense’ into the discussions and the

personal fights would recede into the background.

A ‘Biosphere Reserve Council’ (Biosphärenrat) was eventually established on November 22, 1996,

based on the initiative of the Amt Mönchgut-Granitz, which includes seven of the ten municipalities

144

located within the biosphere reserve (Jahresbericht 1996, 29). The fifteen permanent members of the

council are the district councillor, the municipal administrators, the District Farmers Union

(Kreisbauernverband), the Water and Land Association (Wasser- und Bodenverband), the Rügenfang

Fisheries Cooperative Society (Zentrale Absatzgenossenschaft der Fischerei “Rügenfang”) and the

Insula Rugia Association. The ‘guests’ are the Planning Department, the Office of the District Coun-

cillor, the State Office for Nature Protection, the Forestry Department, the Stralsund Waterway and

Shipping Administration, the administrator director of the Amt Mönchgut-Granitz and the Rügen

National Park Agency. Depending on the issues for discussion, other ‘guests’ can be invited to the

meetings of the council. The district councillor was chosen as chairman. Environmental NGOs (pri-

marily NABU and WWF) were excluded by a majority of votes.

The establishment of the ‘Biosphere Reserve Council’ can be regarded as a compromise. A con-

sultative framework with an advisory role was established, but in the end the municipal administra-

tors accepted only the participation of representatives from resource users’ interest groups and asso-

ciations. The main topic of debate so far has been the Management Plan for the Biosphere Reserve

(Pflege- und Entwicklungsplan). According to an interview with the biosphere reserve representa-

tive carried out one year after the establishment of the council, the working atmosphere had im-

proved. The issues discussed in the council mainly dealt with the management plan which is cur-

rently being set up. Issues that are relevant for all members of the council were also selected. The

council meets infrequently. In 1997 it had three meetings.

Archipelago Sea

The Advisory Board for the Archipelago Sea (Delegationen för Skärgårdshavet) was established

in 1995 according to the governmental decree 1124/94. It has two sections, one for the national park

and one for the biosphere reserve. The ordinance for the Archipelago National Park was amended

simultaneously. The new board replaced the former Advisory Board of the Archipelago National

Park, which existed since the mid-1980s. The new mandates were chosen for a four year period by

the Ministry of the Environment. A debate in the local newspaper about the selection of participants

and the role of the board in general preceded the decree. The debate took place mainly between the

national park administration and representatives of affected municipalities. The content of the de-

bate and the various positions will be briefly described in the following.

It was known in 1991 that a biosphere reserve will be established and that it will cover some of the

same areas as the existing national park. Because the mandate of the existing Advisory Board for the


145

Archipelago National Park was running out, representatives of the Ministry of the Environment

considered it reasonable to combine the advisory board of the national park and the advisory board

of the coming biosphere reserve.

In the old advisory board for the national park, local people had the majority. It had fourteen

members: two from each of the eight municipalities, a representative from the Ministry of Agricul-

ture and Forestry, the provincial government, nature protection organizations, and one representa-

tive from the primary sector (agriculture, forestry and fishing). Although the board had an advisory

role and was intended to support the National Park administration, it was considered as important

that local people had the majority. In the new proposal the inclusion of other government agencies

and research institutes was planned.

Different opinions existed about the role of the old and the new advisory board. According to a

representative of the national park, the municipalities had used the advisory board to promote their

own interests against state agencies, especially the national park. Issues that had been controver-

sially debated included the hunting rights of local people. Instead of being a forum for constructive

discussions, the old board was reduced to a political battlefield. The national park wanted to see its

role as advisory rather than guiding decisions. The municipalities on the other hand wanted the

board to have more decision-making power. The local governments claimed that they should have

the majority too: “Why take so many new administrative bodies, which hide behind each other, into

the new council?” asked the former mayor of Korpo in a newspaper article. The response of the park

was that including other organizations was important for exchanging information and promoting

coordinated research. It called into question the need for local communities to have the majority.

(ÅU 2. and 5.11.1991.)

There was a period of time when the old advisory board was no longer working and the new one was

not yet established. In a newspaper article entitled “Archipelago inhabitants without a voice” (ÅU

8.9.1994), community representatives found this situation unfavorable and were concerned that the

national park administration was now able to act without their involvement. Concern was expressed

that the bond of mutual trust which was formed in previous years would be endangered. A representa-

tive of the national park highlighted that the most important day-to-day contacts to some local people

still existed, but admitted that regular contacts to political communal representatives were missing.

The new Advisory Board was established in 1994, with representatives from the Turku Rural Busi-

ness District, National park, Åbo Akademie, The Southwest Finland Regional Environment Center,

Natur och Miljö (Swedish speaking environmental NGO), two representatives of local entrepre-

146

neurs, the mayors of Nagu, Korpo, and Houtskär, and another representative of each municipality.

Each representative has a personal deputy. The chairman of the advisory board is a director general

of the Ministry of the Environment and his deputy a university representative (Åbo Akademie). The

chairman of the national park section was also nominated, but the biosphere reserve section was left

open. The Ministry of the Environment reimburses members of the advisory board for expenses

(travel, daily allowances, etc.).

Conclusions

The two cases highlight some of the possible problems related to the establishment and work of an

advisory board for biosphere reserve. Reluctance of — in these cases mayors — to accept the full

range of interest groups as equal discussion partners, is a serious hindrance when trying to involve

other local actors in the reserve’s management. It seems also to be important to establish such a

consultative framework already early, like the Rügen case shows. If an advisory board is established

only after serious conflicts have taken place, the forum gets a character, more oriented towards

conflict resolution, than constructive cooperation. The meetings of the advisory boards should also

be well-moderated, possibly with the help of an neutral moderator.

6.3 Planning practice in comparison to the ideal modelIn the following section, planning practice in the case study areas is discussed in relation to the

four key characteristics of ‘good coastal planning practice’: comprehensiveness, participation, co-

operation, and feedback (see Chapter 2.3). The comparisons are based on the illustrative examples

presented in the previous chapter, but also on more general observations and statements made by

interview partners about planning practice. Statements on closely related issues made by interview

partners from Rügen, Hiiumaa, and the Archipelago Sea are presented in Boxes (1-11). The main

points of the comparison are summarized at the end of each section (Figures 19-22).

6.3.1 ComprehensivenessAccording to the first of the four key characteristics, namely comprehensiveness, the planning

area should be based on natural rather than administrative boundaries. In coastal areas it is essential

that plans and programmes include both land- and water-use issues, and that they be characterized

by a more comprehensive approach than has been customary in sectoral planning. In addition, com-

prehensiveness refers to the need of assessing both environmental and socio-economic issues in

strategic and project planning.


147

Planning across municipality borders

Administrative boundaries seldom take notice of processes within and among ecosystems. Issues ex-

tending across municipal borders are often not adequately addressed in spatial planning on the local level,

which is carried out by local governments for the whole municipality or parts of thereof. (See Box 1.)

BOX 1 PLANNING ACROSS MUNICIPAL BORDERS

...There is great competition between municipalities. It is difficult to thematize regional think-

ing. Part of the solution is to point out potential dangers, address mistakes in development and

educate people. (District planner, Rügen.)

Municipal level planning competence, which is anchored in the constitution, is used as a

weapon against anything that tries to introduce a wider perspective, for example the establish-

ment of a Biosphere Reserve Advisory Board. On the one hand it is an important tool and an

achievement of our democratic system. On the other hand it is an obstacle to dealing with issues

which have nothing to do with municipal borders. (Representative of biosphere reserve, Rügen.)

The best solution would be if the five municipalities on Hiiumaa were able to join forces and

employ a professional planner, maybe with a future aim to set up a joint regional development

and planning department. On an island with 12,000 people and an area of more than 1000 km²

it seems quite impossible to acquire professional planners any other way, let alone in five small

municipalities. (Planning consultant, Hiiumaa.)

[The municipalities] are very independent ‘island states’. (Regional planner, Archipelago Sea.)

Thanks God, [the municipalities] were so wise to hire the same planner. In a way the coopera-

tion came about that way. There was the same style and the same way of presenting things.

Houtskär, Nagu, and Korpo have been handled in pretty much the same way. (Regional planner,

Archipelago Sea.)

On Rügen, and in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern in general, municipalities tend to be very small.

Although municipalities are organized into ‘offices’ (Ämter) to carry out certain administrative du-

ties, spatial planning is carried out independently of neighboring municipalities. According to inter-

viewed mayors the small size of the planning area was, however, not considered to be problematic.

Instead it was pointed out that good cooperation takes place between municipalities. Such coopera-

148

tion, however, seldom takes place in spatial planning, and intervening in land use issues of the

neighboring municipality is avoided.

Although the planning competence of municipalities is seen as a central element of democracy, the

often parochial view was criticized by representatives of the Rügen biosphere reserve and the dis-

trict government. Both try to promote a wider perspective concerning the island’s development,

believing that better coordination should take place as a result.

In Germany, regional planning (Raumplanung) coordinates spatial development on the level of the

Länder. The First Spatial Programme for the Federal State (Erstes Landesraumordnungsprogramm)

was a rough outline for the spatial development of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. It was further elabo-

rated and focused into four regional spatial development programs (Rügen belongs to the regional unit

of Vorpommern). In contrast to others, such as the District Development Plan (see Chapter 6.2.1), these

regional plans are legally codified and binding for sectoral agencies as well as municipalities. Larger

development projects with potentially regional impacts are scrutinized within a special process of

evaluation (Raumordnungsverfahren). The regional planning level is, however, considered generally

to be ‘remote’ from the average citizen and has been criticized as a weak instrument.

On Hiiumaa spatial planning is carried out on the county and municipal level. Although the spatial

planning system is not yet well elaborated, the Planning and Building Law (1995) expects county

and local governments to finish their land-use plans by the end of 1998. But this is hardly a realistic

dead line, since the island’s five municipalities are only just beginning to set up land-use plans

(general plans and detailed plans). The Sarve case (see Section 6.2.4) indicates that there is great

need to start the process of land-use planning, especially in the coastal zone where the most inten-

sive development pressure will be on. There does not seem to be a great deal of competition among

the municipalities about investment projects at the moment, due to the lack of investors, but this may

change in the future. A joint regional planning department would be preferable to each municipality

independently making its own land-use plan. Two main arguments for joint land-use planning for

neighboring municipalities are that it can save costs and increase the quality of the plans created.

Further, it could facilitate the establishment of an ecosystems approach to planning activities.36

Land-use planning in the Archipelago Sea is carried out on the regional level by the Regional

Council of Southwest Finland. Municipalities hold the responsibility for general and detailed plan-

36A serious problem for any kind of spatial planning on Hiiumaa is the lack of qualified planners on Hiiumaa. The final reportof the series of seminars on regional planning and development mentiones the risk that planning will be done by local peoplewithout previous planning experiences who are appointed ad hoc or by hiring consultants from mainland (Hiiumaa Develop-ment Action...1997, 4). Although the consultancy solution might result in better plans, it might be detrimental to the futureplanning and development activities on the island.


149

ning (the Town Plan, the Building Plan, and the Shore Plan). In regard to land-use planning on the

municipal level, the lack of cooperation between municipalities was considered as problematic mainly

by planners working within the regional level. The derivation of general plans for the municipalities

of Houtskär (coasts of the whole municipality), Nagu, and Korpo (southern archipelagos), was able

to achieve a certain degree of comprehensiveness, or rather similarity of approach, by virtue of the

fact that the planner (a private consultant) was the same in all three municipalities. This kind of

indirect coordination of planning activities is the exception in Finland, although in this case it was

limited to the main issue of the amount and placement of leisure housing on the coastal strip.

Planning of land and water areas

Joint planning of land and water areas is not practiced in any of the case study areas. The planning

competence of municipalities in all three areas ends where the water area begins. Land- and water-

use issues are usually considered separately on the strategic and regional level as well. None of the

sectoral plans on Rügen addressed water-use issues, with the exception of the Agricultural and Fish-

eries Concept, nor does the Spatial Programme for Mecklenburg-Vorpommern address questions

related to uses of coastal and marine resources.

In the regional strategic plan, the Hiiumaa Development Action Plan 2010, the planning area en-

compassed the whole island, but the plan did not explicitly define how far seawards and in what way

the coastal waters are included. In general marine issues were not addressed by planning efforts,

except for coastal fishing in the rural economy work group. A pilot plan on integrated coastal man-

agement in the Käina Bay was launched in 1995 (see Section 6.2.6). The report of the management

plan, which covers a small portion of the coastal waters, states that problems can not be solved in

isolation. After this plan was completed, the biosphere reserve center considered to create a manage-

ment plan for a larger area of southwestern Hiiumaa (interview).

In the Archipelago Sea, land-use planning and water-use planning are quite separate fields of

planning. For example, fish farms need a permit from the Water Rights Court (see Chapter 6.2.5).

Paldanius (1994a) has noted that: “coordination between permit decisions and land-use planning is

quite weak. ...plans need not be taken into consideration in permit decisions. Moreover, plans and

permit decisions are not taken in chronological order in administrative planning and decision-mak-

ing.” Joint planning of land and water areas has been suggested in a number of earlier archipelago

studies. The Tammisaari Archipelago Project was one of the first to identify the disadvantages of

current planning arrangements (Siirala 1990).

150

Comprehensiveness in sectoral and strategic regional planning

Ideally, plans and programs should be characterized by a more comprehensive approach than has been

customary in sectoral planning. On Rügen the numerous sectoral plans cover sectors and issues ranging

from agriculture and fisheries to traffic and energy. There is, however, lack of integration between these

plans. This is partly due to the fact that the plans were set up at different times and by different consultants.

The district government was the coordinating body in most sectoral plans. One problem, however, was

that the methods and approaches applied in various plans were not consistent. The integration of these

plans was intended in the District Development Plan, after the sectoral plans were completed. However,

the goal of integrating them into a District Development Plan was abandoned. A nearly completed draft

existed, but the district government chose to move away from ‘all-embracing plans’ towards implementa-

tion oriented negotiations (interview). This decision was apparently influenced by the conflicts related to

the designation of the protected landscape areas (Section 6.2.1), and the polarization between environ-

mental and development interests, also on the political level.

The Hiiumaa Development Action Plan 2010 intended to cover various sectors and spheres of the

society in an open democratic process. Altogether five work groups were established. These were

the tourism, rural economy, information technology, education and culture theme group. There would

have apparently been a need for theme groups on coastal waters (interview), coastal land use, fish-

ery, forestry and energy issues. There was no clear connection between the strategic level HDAP

2010 process and land-use planning.

In the Archipelago Sea regional development planning has shifted from individual disjointed

projects, towards planning where a broader vision is first elaborated. So far the numerous develop-

ment projects were carried out independently by various actors (e.g. universities and other organiza-

tions). For example, the Archipelago Programme was a compilation of over 50 projects without any

common vision (Varsinais-Suomen saaristo-ohjelma 1994). Recently the Archipelago Development

Center was established to coordinate development activities.

Assessment of environmental and socio-economic considerations

On Rügen an environmental complement for the District Development Plan was intended to be a

contribution for the anticipatory and comprehensive integration of environmental consideration into

regional development planning and spatial planning on the regional level. However, its role in re-

gional and local land-use planning and in sectoral planning was not clear and not widely discussed.

The plan was not statutory, nor was it based on a broad consensus among different actors. It had more


151

a character of a research and development (R&D) project, which was funded by the Federal Environ-

mental Agency. Many interview partners criticized that socio-economic issues have not been ad-

equately addressed in any of the planning documents.

On Hiiumaa, there is no clear mechanism of including environmental considerations within the

planning activities within the HDAP 2010 (interview). Two representatives of the biosphere reserve

center were members of the small work group that coordinates the process. This was believed to

serve as a guarantee that environmental issues would be included in the strategic plan. According to

the environmental department, an environmental impact assesment should be carried out also on this

strategic plan (interview).

An environmental or a social impact assessment have not been carried out in the Archipelago Sea,

neither on the strategic level nor the individual project level. For example, within the Archipelago

Development Programme, no systematic way of assessing environmental impacts was adopted. It

has been suggested that the biosphere reserve administration could more strongly emphasize envi-

ronmental considerations on the agenda in regional planning.

Figure 19. Comprehensiveneness in planning practice in the case study areas

CriteriaComprehensiveness

municipality borders

land and water

comprehensiveness insectoral and strategicplanning

Rügen

municipalities did spatialplanning independently(though coordinated bythe regional planninglevel)

land- and water-use plan-ning separated

great number of sectoralplans (effort to integratethem into a District Devel-opment Plan was aban-doned; tendency awayfrom ‘all-embracing’ planstowards implementationoriented negotiations)

Hiiumaa

spatial planning onlystarted recently

land- and water-use plan-ning separated(pilot plan on integratedmanagement, Käina Bay)

HDAP 2010 is an effort to-wards a comprehensivevision and action (in-cluded several thematicworking groups)

Archipelago Sea

municipalities did land-use planning independ-ently, but had the sameplanner (guided by the re-gional plan)

land- and water-use plan-ning separated

strategic regional planninghas shifted from individualdisjointedprojects to build-ing a broader vision of thewanted development path

152

6.3.2 ParticipationThe second key characteristic, participation, involves giving all stakeholders the possibility of

taking part in formulating problems and problem-solving strategies. The rules of the planning proc-

ess should be agreed on in a common process. A prerequisite for successful participation is that the

planning system and the language used in communication be understandable. Citizens and interest

groups should also have clear means of access to the public administration and appropriate methods

should be used.

Driving forces for public participation

There are great differences in the driving forces behind public participation in the case study areas.

On Rügen, alternative planning, NGO campaigning, and citizen protests have forced the public ad-

ministration to become more responsive. On Hiiumaa, such international agencies as the UNDP

have supported public participation in strategic regional development planning. HELCOM (Hel-

sinki Commission) has supported management plans which include intensive consultation. The

Hiiumaa Biosphere Reserve Center has been very interested in issues of public participation. There

is no vocal citizen protest in theArchipelago Sea. Some agencies and local governments have adopted

principles of public participation. (See Box 2.)

BOX 2 DRIVING FORCES FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

After people were upset and formed opposition, there were discussions about public partici-

pation and people became involved. Something has to happen before people get involved. (Mayor,

Rügen.)

If there is a bang, the public administration goes into the public with highest level representa-

tives, in a way you do not find in the west any more. Consulting people and public participation

is intensive in that moment when the administration is in a difficult situation. But the method

follows a short term strategy, there is much conflict potential: it is picked up by the press and

exacerbated. (Local journalist, Rügen.)

Because of their history, people are not used to discussing things together and the planners

are not used to asking the opinion of normal people. (Head of municipal council, Hiiumaa.)

[According to a social survey, Hiiumaa people perceive that they have little possibility for

influencing decision-making.] I think that this was the first time people were confronted with


153

this kind of question, perhaps they have never thought about it before. So the answer is very

likely to be negative... You must know something, have experience, and know the rules of how to

act - then you can have some impact. (Representative of the Tuuru Center, Hiiumaa.)

The people of Hiiumaa.... regard political and public activities as a very suspicious area. Poli-

ticians and civil servants are believed to have sought their positions mainly for personal gain. Now

and then actual examples unfortunately confirm these attitudes. ...There are many deficiencies in

today’s Estonia concerning social networks, trust in the state, public institutions, and the legal

system, and commonly accepted norm systems are not in abundance. (Planning consultant, Hiiumaa.)

There have been no demands that go beyond what the legislation prescribes. (Local journal-

ist, Archipelago Sea.)

After German unification took place, new laws and administrative structures were introduced and

little time was spent on exercises in public participation. Rügen was also exposed to developments

within the tourism sector more rapidly than most other coastal areas in Germany. Public participa-

tion on Rügen has typically taken place only after strong opposition has arisen towards a plan. There

are a number of reasons for this delay. First, financial resources and human capacities in public

administration are not adequate for facilitating proper public participation. Secondly, planners sense

that there is great apathy and resignation among people living on Rügen. This is thought to be caused

by unemployment and social insecurity. The third reason is that the level of readiness to anticipate

potential conflicts has not been very high. There are examples where the ignorance of the general

public has been politically used to induce protest and opposition — as was the case in the designa-

tion of protected landscape areas (Section 6.2.1). While the need for more landscape protection

should be subject to an open democratic process, the heated debate which took place contributed

little to a constructive dialogue and consensus seeking. What it did show, however, was that people

on Rügen have not fallen into a state of resignation, but are willing to take part in decisions affecting

their lives. Also the discussion carried out in the newspaper on coastal land use and the Sarve case

(see Section 6.2.4), shows that whether intended or unintended, misunderstandings can easily esca-

late to conflicts, which in turn can be used for political purposes.

In Estonia, public participation in planning has only recently evolved. During the Soviet era planning

was carried out centrally on a high level of the administrative system. Little or no public participation

took place. After the re-establishment of Estonian independence, a new democratic system was estab-

lished that was oriented towards Western and Nordic democracies. The transition from a central state

154

system to a representative democracy can be seen as an ongoing learning process. New government

structures have been established and new laws enacted. There is, however, still great skepticism to-

wards politics and public administration among Hiiumaa’s population (interviews).

Because the legislation and administrative structures are quite new and have been subject to many

changes, much depends on the personal interest of the planner towards participation. Professional

identity and world views play here an important role. There are few formal or informal rules about

specific measures for facilitating participation.

The ways in which strategic planning is carried out vary considerably among the case study areas in

terms of public participation. For example, when the District Development Plan was set up on Rügen,

little public participation was incorporated into the process. On Hiiumaa, the UNDP-funded Hiiumaa

Development Action Plan (HDAP 2010) was one of the first efforts to support democratic decision

making through planning (Section 6.2.2). There was great ambition among the project leaders of HDAP

2010 to involve local people in the planning process. But there was frustration as problems were en-

countered in starting the local working groups and involving the county government more directly into

the process. Not all were frustrated about the slow and cumbersome process, however. According to a

representative of the biosphere reserve center: “Perhaps I was too optimistic when I was thinking: all

right, now we have the opportunity, lets all participate...When ‘democratization’ is happening with

western money the fact that it is happening slow might in fact be good.” A town planner highlighted

that: “Foreign experts do not know the situation here; they might tell how the process works in Sweden,

but how to do it here is something different. It must be thought out by people living here.”

In the Archipelago Sea, where intensive public participation has already been made possible - in

coastal land-use planning, for instance - no strong demands have been made for an increase. The

general plans made for the southern parts of the municipality of Nagu and Korpo and for the whole

area of Houstkär were carried out with intensive consultation of landowners. In strong contrast to

this, however, the environmental administration has been accused of not consulting landowners when

designating new protected areas. There have been several national programmes for nature conserva-

tion, such as the programme for coast protection, the programme for the protection of old growth

forests and the programme for ridge protection. One permanent inhabitant interviewed claimed: “It

is impossible for landowners to know what thoughts different agencies have. It is their job to change

style and to contact landowners at a very early stage. They have caused a lack of trust because they

have not discussed things (with us). You become suspicious if you read things in the newspaper. We

need new rules, more discussion.”


155

Commitment to public participation

Successful public participation requires the commitment of political leaders and planners, resources

and knowledge about techniques and methods. On Rügen a clear shift towards more open methods of

governance took place in the second legislative period. On Hiiumaa municipalities and the county

government have adopted some new ideas about participation in planning. In Finland many agencies

have since 1980s adopted participatory planning. (See Box 3.)

On Rügen, changes in the political leadership took place which influenced public participation.

During the first legislative period the government had little interest in public participation, or even

in providing access to planning information. After 1994 when the new district councillor was ap-

pointed, the information policy of the district government became more open, while NGOs also

became more involved.

With regard to the District Development Plan, one key person laconically stated, “It is being pre-

pared and nobody knows the content so far”. Clearly, the paper is legally not binding and is rather a

policy guideline for the district level administration under the current political leadership. However,

the process was begun during the CDU-led administration (Christian Democratic Party), and if there

is to be some degree of continuity, and if the paper is intended to have the character of a strategic

policy guideline for different sectors, then a broad consensus should be achieved. This will hardly be

possible without consultations and more intensive public participation.

BOX 3 COMMITMENT TO PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

In the first years there was no work towards structured public relations. Here was so much

going on, and it was not so well-planned...With no money and no personnel capacity, we were

not able to put somebody on the job. Nor was it possible through employment programs. The

time was also unfavorable. Sometimes they say that Rügen experienced in five years things that

took fifteen elsewhere. (District Councillor, Rügen.)

Broader public participation is possible if there is the political will. If this is lacking, you do

not even have to bother. If the political will is there, it has to be carried out with resources

(personnel), and in most cases this is insufficient in the eastern part of Germany. There might be

a will per se, but the way to handle it is completely missing. It is necessary to start it with local

political and administrative resources and then carry it out. And... to have the necessary funds

to facilitate it. Because public participation does not come about on its own. It will happen if the

needed materials and information are there. And these cost money. (Planning consultant, Rügen.)

156

Then we made a set of questions for people. We got only six responses. The questions were

distributed to every household. Questions were printed in the Pühalepa-teataja... People think, if

I write it will be of no use anyway. They will throw it into the trash can. This is not so, because

we were waiting for those comments. We wrote also after that in the newspaper, “Please come

and do something.” (Head of municipality, Hiiumaa.)

We want to make [HDAP 2010] democratic. But I am very skeptical about it - because it is

impossible that every person could have the same opportunities... it is impossible in our

society...But we try to minimize manipulation. Wider understanding about our work is essential.

People have to understand what we are doing; if they don’t, it will not work. (Regional Planning

Department, Hiiumaa)

We try in most questions to have contact with local people at an early phase, for example in

questions concerning timetables of ferries, post service, state services, or planning. There are

not that many people out there. So that people know about what is going on, but their direct

impact on things is not that big. (Mayor, Archipelago Sea.)

Role of NGOs

NGOs have different roles in the case study areas. On Rügen environmental NGOs and peoples

initiatives have been especially intensively involved and quite influential. On Hiiumaa, only a few

organized interests groups exist, but the village movement and educational societies have to some

extent been able to mobilize people, despite their role in the HDAP 2010, which has not been very clear.

By contrast, there are a number of citizens’ associations in the Archipelago Sea, but they do not play an

important role in planning. Although two environmental organizations located in Helsinki have been

active in the Archipelago Sea and in marine issues (mostly concerning eutrophication), they do not

maintain local offices, and do not have as strong a presence as those on Rügen. (See Box 4.)

BOX 4 ROLE OF NGOs

...[municipalities] did not involve us. We just fought for the right, and currently the munici-

palities send us the planning materials. Not according to the Nature Protection Act, but because

they made the experience that they are better off, if they involve us in the beginning. They have

many more problems if we eventually start a campaign against a project that we consider inap-

propriate — so they treat us as like an ‘Advocate of the Public Interest’. (Representative of

Naturschutzbund, Rügen.)


157

...we advised local people several times...It was a big tourism project, a holiday park close to

the municipality of Garz. It was far too big for a village of 30-50 inhabitants. During the

Raumordnungsverfahren the whole village was there. All of them made petitions against the

project. Some of them visited us and asked for advice... in this case they really put pressure on

the Regional Planning Office, which, due to the complexity and controversy and the petitions,

felt that they had to invite all the people. In a normal case this would not happen, only the

authorities are usually present. It was their activity that insured the people were involved. (Rep-

resentative of Naturschutzbund, Rügen.)

[The coordinators of the HDAP process] have not seen the social aspect of the process. They

have not made clear for themselves what money is for supporting entrepreneurship and what is

for social purposes. (Representative of the village movement, Hiiumaa.)

...At a certain phase you can express your opinion, but your possibilities to present alternatives

are very bad. You can just give your opinion, you can say if you like it or not. You can come up with

small corrections, but you have no possibility to influence the structures. The process is very

troublesome and hard. It is often so that environmental NGOs which can give statements are not

given consideration in the same way as private landowners’ interests, which play a big role when

plans are set up. (Representative of Natur och Miljö, speaking about the Archipelago Sea.)

On Rügen, NGOs and citizen initiatives have been actively involved in public debates on environ-

ment and development. For example, the Initiative for Rügen (Bürgerinitiative für Rügen) has set up

an alternative development plan for Rügen, and was thus able to bring differing opinions to the

public agenda (see Section 6.2.1). According to the Federal Nature Conservation Act (§29), legally

recognized environmental associations (anerkannte Naturschutzverbände) have the right to give

statements on environmentally relevant planning and legislation. Currently there are six recognized

environmental associations in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (NABU, BUND, Grüne Liga,

Landesjagdverband, Landesanglerverband and Schutzgemeinschaft Deutscher Wald). But not in all

planning processes NGOs are involved by law.

Through public campaigning, the environmental NGOs on Rügen have succeeded in reaching a

certain status, so that information about all important planning activities is submitted to them. For

example, the local office of NABU has been involved in spatial and project planning, and has in

some cases also informed and supported local people in planning issues. Not all interest groups have

been able to join the planning committees that were established to guide the planning processes, and

158

some NGOs criticized the fact that they have not been invited in many of the strategic level planning

processes. Similarly, the Association of Farmers was not invited to the planning committee of the

Agricultural and Fisheries Concept, and loosely organized interest groups were not involved in the

various plans in any way.

There are only few organized interest groups on Hiiumaa. The strategy in the HDAP 2010 process

was to start with the existing associations or informal groups of active individuals. This proved to be

a good approach when initiating and supporting the formation of theme groups. Both theme groups

and local groups were open to anyone who was interested in participating. One interview partner

claimed that because of the involvement of existing organizations only, there was no new dynamic

(interview). A broader basis of participation was called for, but how this could be arranged remained

unanswered. According to another interviewee, “You have to start somewhere. You cannot just invite

all Hiiumaa people to start a planning process. Someone has to have an idea and start the discus-

sion”. (Planning consultant.)

Although the Educational Societies and the Village Movement were interested in taking part in the

HDAP 2010 process, their role was not very clear. Some activities were carried out by these groups

as part of the HDAP 2010. For example, in the village of Kassari the local educational society con-

ducted social surveys among villagers. In some villages local work groups were established around

Educational Societies and the Village Movement. Village Movements were also involved in land-

use planning (interview), as well as in regional development. Motivating people to take part in po-

litical decision-making was considered an important task by representatives of NGOs. One repre-

sentative of the Village Movement argued that despite intentions to involve NGOs in the HDAP

2010 process, the project managers could not imagine what role they could possibly play, comment-

ing that “the county government is used to top-down planning”.

Education was considered an important aspect of public participation in the HDAP 2010 process.

NGOs also criticized that the project managers viewed business associations and individual repre-

sentatives of local businesses as most important actors beyond local government and central govern-

ment agencies. This preference happened at the expense of other social groups, who were excluded

from seminars organized within the HDAP 2010. For instance, the Hiiumaa Business Days and semi-

nars on spatial planning were mainly addressed to entrepreneurs and municipal leaders.

Few interest groups organized themselves during the process. One group which was in a way a

result of the HDAP 2010 was the new association of private forest owners (PATAK) in the munici-

pality of Kõrgessaare. It was difficult to organize rural people (interview). The HDAP 2010 had to


159

some extent a mobilizing effect in politics. Some people used the process as a platform to candidate

in local elections. Educational courses and greater insight into the planning mechanism and deci-

sion-making provided access to strategic information for some people.

In the Archipelago Sea, NGOs have not played a major role in planning. Paldanius (1994a, 18) has

noted that in Finland, rights of ownership or possession of private property are generally considered

the main basis for defining private interests. In land-use planning and in permit procedures, partici-

pation has been very much directed towards landowners. Only in recent years in legislative reforms

and interpretation of legislation, have more extensive rights been given to other groups which have

not been defined as parties with legitimate interests. For example, in the reform of the Waters Act, all

residents of the impact area whose circumstances are significantly affected also have the right to

express their views in hearings. In many cases, however, citizen organizations, unregistered associa-

tions, and also registered associations, do not have the right to be heard or make complaints.

An essential question in the selection of participants in the Archipelago Sea is who is considered

an archipelago resident - and thus legitimate to participate. The issue has often been discussed, and

a key distinction is typically made between summer people and permanent inhabitants.

I see one big discrepancy in the discussion: about 3000 people live in the Archipelago,

but there are far more people who otherwise enjoy the archipelago, people who have

their summer cottages here, or travel here by boat. Ten, perhaps a hundred times as many

as [the number of] permanent inhabitants. Despite this, those who live here year round

have the loudest voice, as if they were the only legitimate discussion partners when deal-

ing with archipelago issues. They say well you like to come here in summer, but visit us

during winter time. Property taxes are eagerly collected and summer people buy the food

in the local shops. They have a big economic role, but they are excluded from discus-

sions. (Researcher, Archipelago Sea).

There are many associations representing the interests of these local groups (fishers, boaters etc.),

but in regional or local planning their role has not been important.

Social mobilization

Many interview partners on Rügen and Hiiumaa said they perceive great apathy and resignation

among the public. Also in the Archipelago Sea only a small number of active individuals usually

take part in planning and public discussions. (See Box 5.)

160

BOX 5 PERCEIVED APATHY AND RESIGNATION

There is great resignation among many people. Broad groups of people do not take part in

what is happening... “If I say something or not, well it is the same, things happen anyway as

planned.” This procedure alone, you have to make a written statement. ...Then the municipal

council is going to consider it. It is a difficult task in this way to formulate something so that it

will not just be ignored. The competencies are not always there. (Planning consultant, Rügen.)

On the other hand, people in Germany and especially in eastern parts are fed up with the

numerous political discussions, and do not want to take part actively. They are used to others

doing things for them. If you as a planner make two clear proposals for public participation

opportunities and nobody comes, or just ten people come, then you might as a planning agency

say “all right then we’ll do it this way”. But you cannot neglect public participation in advance.

This mistake is tempting. Planners think they know that people won’t come; that’s their experi-

ence, so they don’t do it at all. (Local politician, Rügen.)

The attitude of many people is: I know nothing. The others know it better. Let them do it. (Hiiumaa.)

A common attitude is that someone else will solve the problems and if not, no-one else can do

it either. This is an obvious legacy of the Soviet era, magnified by the typical mentality of island-

ers. (Planning consultant, Hiiumaa.)

[People] are just so cynical about government. They have these meetings in local government

advertised in the paper, these are public meetings and anybody can go there and talk about any

damned problem they want to. Elections are coming in the fall. If developing democracy means

to encourage people to participate, to say, “Look, do not sit around and cry, you have to do

something.” I am not sure if the people are going to feel that they have any kind of direct impact

in this forum [HDAP 2010]. (Peace Corps volunteer, Hiiumaa.)

There are not many activists, and active people are already involved in many things. (Repre-

sentative of the biosphere reserve, Archipelago Sea.)

Apathy and resignation is often said to be typical in eastern parts of Germany. The social and

political movement which took place in the late 1980s soon turned into a preoccupation with indi-

vidual survival, and for many who lost their jobs, to social apathy. The experience of local people

was that their voice was not heard. For planners, their experience with an uninterested general public

was not encouraging.


161

On Hiiumaa, not expressing views on public forums was a strategy to keep out of trouble in the

former political system. On a remote island, it was relatively easy to live ‘undisturbed’ by the state

government to a great extent. Even today people on Hiiumaa tend to be skeptical about government,

whether on a local, regional, or national level. People do not believe they can have an impact on

decision-making, which obviously affects their willingness to participate in planning.

On Hiiumaa only a small group of people determined the content of the plan. Most of them live in

the island’s capital, Kärdla. This was obviously one of the reasons for the accusations made by some

interview partners that the HDAP 2010 would be too Kärdla-centered. Many were concerned about

obtaining information about how the project funding, a total of US$ 50,000, was used. They seemed

to be jealous of the high sum of money, and believed the project would be good primarily for the

income of the project manager. As one individual commented, “Everybody is minding his own busi-

ness, and this is the business of these men”.

Because Hiiumaa is a small island society, special consideration is required in planning public

participation. One problem is that there is only a small number of active people. In the HDAP

2010 process, the kind of people who took part in work groups were thought of as ‘island activ-

ists’:

The problem here is that our community is very small and the group of active people is very

small and they cannot participate everywhere. And there is this problem that if it is not done by

active people and the groups are not led properly, they might write something very superficial

together. The problem is that people have to do it on their free time. People do not participate

very easily... they know that the work is going on, but they are just passive, and so it happens

that a very small group decides. (Teacher.)

Also in the Archipelago Sea the general perception was that there is only a small number of activ-

ists, who already are involved in various ways in public issues on local level.

Methods used in public participation

Methods used in public participation should be tailored to its particular objectives. In the illustra-

tive planning processes on Rügen, no concept for public participation was prepared in advance and

the methods used were selected more or less ad hoc, often in response to public criticism. On Hiiumaa,

on the other hand, a concept for public participation in HDAP 2010 did exist, while in the Archi-

pelago Sea, intensive negotiation took place in some planning processes. (See Box 6.)

162

BOX 6 METHODS USED IN PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

There was a wish to have a perspective for the island and it was entitled “District Develop-

ment Plan”... I do not know to what extent public participation played a role; of course there

were press releases. There were no presentations in citizen committees or in communities. (Dis-

trict planner, Rügen.)

[After the conflict on the protected landscape areas escalated:] The ordinance [of the protected

landscape areas] was printed in the Rüganer, in the newsletter of the district, and as far as I know also

in the Ostseezeitung, so that every citizen had the opportunity to read it. People were asked to make

comments and send them to the environmental department. Very few people used this opportunity.

There were a number of public events, which were initiated by political parties and NGOs, but also by

some municipalities. Usually me...and the district councillor went there. Emotions ran high, because

the conflict was stirred up in the press in such a way, and because it was no longer a question of

protected landscape areas but of regional development...After two or three questions about protected

landscape areas, we were soon discussing job opportunities, children’s day care, investments, and

road building. (Head of the Environmental Department of the District government, Rügen.)

The general frustration of the citizens came up, because there had not been events like this

where people could express themselves. Here was the opportunity to articulate and present their

dissatisfaction. For many it was not clear that this took place on a “good thing”. Through

several false presentations, people got the message: “protected landscape areas prevent the

creation of jobs”. If such things are said in a situation in which unemployment is rising, it is no

wonder that people react in such a way. I will never forget it — in Sassnitz we had a meeting

organized by the PDS [Party of Democratic Socialism], and a woman said: “I am unemployed,

my three adult children are unemployed, that is why I am against the protected landscape area.”

(Head of the Environmental Department of the District government, Rügen.)

There have been some articles in the newspaper about the courses and the plan [Hiiumaa

Development Action Plan, HDAP 2010], but it has not been further explained. I have not seen

such articles. (Hiiumaa.)

I think [democratic participation in HDAP 2010] is still at the starting point; people should

get first some training, normal village people, so they would understand what it is all about. The

seminars have been mainly addressed to entrepreneurs and municipal leaders. (Local journal-

ist, Hiiumaa.)


163

I sent a letter to the municipalities and suggested that I would come and start this work [Archi-

pelago Development Programme]. I asked the municipalities to call together entrepreneurs, farm-

ers, civil servants, political decision-makers, and the municipal officials. I set no limits to the size

of the group. Usually there were about 12-16 people. That is the way it started, in the beginning I

had to explain what it was all about. (Regional development planner, Archipelago Sea.)

Various methods of public participation are used on the local and regional levels. The municipal

level is closest to people and their everyday life, and is therefore very important to democratic

decision making. In all three case study areas, the meetings of the municipal councils are usually

open to anyone interested. In practice, however, few people use this opportunity (interviews).

Often the methods that have been used in public participation have been inappropriate; usually they

represent one-way or two-way communication, in form of press-releases, meetings, or calls for comments

on proposals. Methods, such as structured negotiations or working groups are seldom used. In connection

with the debate about protected landscape areas on Rügen, public meetings were organized, but not until a

political battle on the issue had already started. Holding large meetings at such a late stage cannot be

considered a meaningful way to contribute to the policy formation process. The public discussions were,

in addition, usually very unstructured, and as mentioned, the call for written comments to be sent to the

Office of the District Councillor did not elicit a big response among the islanders.

Many interview partners criticized the biosphere reserve administration on Rügen for not having

encouraged very much public participation, even though it plays an important role in land-use plan-

ning. One mayor, stressing the importance of face-to-face contact, said, “These things can only work

if it is open and public. You have to talk to people on the streets, on the fields, and in their boats...”

But in many cases, however, this is not a realistic way to achieve broader public involvement in the

biosphere reserve’s management, particularly in an reserve with over 10,000 inhabitants.

I should take my bike and cycle through the villages every weekend, and have chats over

the garden fence, but sooner or later my family is going to hit me. This is what he [the

mayor] always tells me, but his area is much smaller (Head of the biosphere reserve

administration).

To the extent that it is possible, meeting and talking with people can build more trust between the

biosphere reserve administration and local people. A planner or administrator can thus acquire in-

sight about people’s problems, get feedback and anticipate conflicts. However, it does not substitute

for more structured participation.

164

Planning committees can be a method of organizing intensive cooperation among different agencies

as well as between agencies and NGOs, and with active citizens. Although planning committees were

set up on Rügen to guide strategic level regional planning, such groups had a more active role in

regional planning on Hiiumaa. On Hiiumaa the emphasis in participation was on the working groups

within the HDAP 2010 process. The work groups were set up in the following way. The small work

group, comprising representatives of the county government, the Tuuru Center, and the Biosphere Re-

serve Hiiumaa Center, had the function of coordinating the process. It was not open to everyone. The

local work groups and thematic work groups, therefore, were open. Leaders of the theme groups, who

were selected by the small work group, also invited people to join them. For example, the tourism work

group was set together so that written invitations were sent to some individuals and to some organiza-

tions. Those who attended the first meeting were put on a regular mailing list.

Existing structures such as the Common Council, which brings together representatives of the

county government and the municipalities, were also involved in organizing the HDAP 2010 proc-

ess. Some interview partners criticized that the work groups, although said to be open to everybody,

were open only in theory. Information about the opportunity to take part was not widely circulated in

local newspapers. While the basic structures of the local and theme groups were consolidated, there

could have been more people involved, whether through surveys, questionnaires, interviews, struc-

tured workshops, and planning groups.

There seems to be also a lack of information about the HDAP 2010 process itself, its objectives, and

future impact. Most interview partners, including leaders of the work groups, believed that there had

been too few significant articles in the newspapers. Even journalists admitted that the media did not

draw too much attention to the process. Some interviewees doubted that many people would have read

important articles, had there been any (interview). The media, according to one planning consultant,

“has a key role in this process [HDAP 2010], not least as important as those people who are working

with regional development. If the professional media is not able to cover and support this process, then

of course it is very difficult, because you reach people through newspapers and the media”.

Land-use planning is carried out in the case study areas on the regional and local level. While

public participation concerning land-use planning is legally required by the respective legislation,

in practice there are considerable differences among various municipalities (interview). The size of

the municipality is not necessarily the primary criterion for these differences. Methods used in land-

use planning usually include displaying drafts and plans for public inspection, making site visits,

and holding public meetings. In Estonia, the methods of public participation in land-use planning


165

activities defined by the Planning and Building Act include announcements, public display, and

opportunities to respond with comments. However, because the spatial planning process is still evolv-

ing - only Pühalepa and Kärdla have prepared municipal land-use plans - little can be said about the

participation procedures in practice.

The situation is somewhat different in the Archipelago Sea, where intensive negotiations with land-

owners took place in some areas, as in Houtskär and the southern parts of Nagu and Korpo. Almost all

those permanently residing there were consulted in personal discussions regarding the general plans.

Apparently the motivation of the planner and the special character of the area made it possible to carry

out such intensive consultations. It should also be noted that land use has been regulated by general

plans in few other coastal areas in Finland.37 The Archipelago Sea is an exceptional area in this respect.

This is primarily due to the interaction of the national park and the biosphere reserve. Additionally, the

general plans were financially supported by the Ministry of the Environment. (See Box 7.)

BOX 7 EXAMPLE OF INTENSIVE NEGOTIATIONS IN LAND-USE PLANNING IN THE ARCHIPELAGO SEA

We had this general planning committee. ...In December we organized village meetings, where

landowners could take part and discuss. After this he [the planner] was driving around and was

able to make contact. ...To visit every land owner personally was our ambition, but that would

have been too time-consuming. (Mayor of Houtskär, Archipelago Sea.)

I would say that few plans have been made as conscientiously as the general plans of South-

ern Nagu and Korpo when it comes to openness and discussion. They were mostly islanders,

permanent residents. In Nagu I carried out at least two rounds of discussion with every land

owner. I visited every household, explained what a general plan is, what I am going to do, what

the consequences will be, and what it all means. That was the first phase. The second phase was

when the first draft was on paper. I discussed it with practically everybody...This kind of open-

ness concerns not only landowners but all inhabitants in the municipality, though here most are

one and the same. (Planner, Archipelago Sea.)

In making these two plans it was on the one hand necessary and on the other hand possible. If

there would have been more inhabitants it would not have been possible in this way...And it is

not necessary, because people can themselves come to meetings or we can arrange “dentist -

like” appointments. (Land-use planner, Archipelago Sea.)

37According to the amendment of the Nature Conservation Act in 1997, a general or shore plan has to be made before a permitcan be given to construct on the coastal strip. This will substancially increase planning activities.

166

Overall, it seems clear that public participation requires political will as well as human and

financial resources. The lack of human and financial resources, or too little of either, can repre-

sent a serious constraint on successful public participation. Unfortunately, no regional funds for

covering the cost of public participation were provided in any of the case study areas. Public

participation may be mandated by legislation, but a change in planning cultures is essential to

make it possible.38

6.3.3 CooperationWhile participation refers to the involvement and communication with citizens (organized or

unorganized), the third key characteristic has to do with communication between agencies and

Figure 20. Participation in planning practice in the case study areas.

Criteria: Participation

driving forces

commitment

role of NGOs

social mobilization

methods

Rügen

loud demands for morepublic participation

public participation takesplace only after a conflicthas escalated

NGOs and organized inter-est groups have gained ac-cess to information andhave formal and informalways to influence planning

planners perceive greatapathy and resignation

methods used in participa-tion have been inappropri-ate (hearings, large meet-ings, no outside modera-tors)

Hiiumaa

great skepticism towardspublic administration andplanning

ongoing process of transi-tion to democratic decision-making

some mobilization hastaken place via VillageMovement and Educa-tional Societies

small number of active citi-zens involved in planning

open work groups withinHDAP 2010 provided fewactive people a forum toparticipate in strategic re-gional planning (informingperceived as poor)

Archipelago Sea

no loud demands for pub-lic participation

intensive negotiations withlandowners in spatial plan-ning on municipality level

narrow selection of partici-pants (stakeholders aremainly defined throughownership or propertyrights); NGOs do not playa major role

small number of activecitizens

more public participationin strategic regional plan-ning through work groups(participants for workgroups selected by themunicipality)

38The memorandum prepared by «the Planning and Building Law Committee» in Finland notes the following about changingplanning cultures: “Planning is developed towards greater citizen guidance. This requires increased openness and interactionin planning, changing planning processes and practices. Increasing public participation and changing into a new planningculture can be promoted with the planning and building legislation, but the change to a new planning culture requires alsochanges in the attitudes and developing new practices.” (Rakennuslakitoimikunnan muistio lakiuudistuksen...1997.)


167

various levels of the public administration. Ideally, different sectoral agencies should cooperate

closely. The extent and nature of cooperation may be improved using several institutional ap-

proaches. Expert-knowledge should be made comprehensible to non-experts and experts in other

fields.

In such situations as those on Rügen or Hiiumaa, where new legislation was amended and compe-

tencies re-defined, establishing good cooperation among various agencies takes time and patience.

For example on Rügen, cooperation between the biosphere reserve administration and the District

Government was not always as good as it is now. There were once serious conflicts between the

different offices of the District government. In the past, the planning and building department and

the environmental department each held fundamentally different positions towards construction ac-

tivities. Over the last few years, the problems were solved to a great extent, and the district govern-

ment now speaks more with one voice:

Cooperation between sectoral agencies develops slowly. In the first three years [after

unification] one department of the District Government did not know what the other one

was doing. ...There are always going to be different positions [held by] the planning and

building department, the department for the regional economy, and the environmental

department. ...To what extent the departments regard the district development plan as a

political guideline depends much on the district councillor and... the deputy district coun-

cillor. How seriously it is taken depends on them. (Planning consultant.)

Cooperation between regional and local level in strategic planning

In two of the case study areas, namely Rügen and Hiiumaa, the kind of cooperation between mu-

nicipalities and the district or county level government, was considered inappropriate, and was dif-

ficult to organize, particularly in strategic planning. In the Archipelago Sea a district or county level

government does not exist. (See Box 8.)

BOX 8 COOPERATION BETWEEN REGIONAL AND LOCAL LEVEL IN STRATEGIC PLANNING

When we started, we thought we would be able to generate more intensive cooperation with

the help of a planning committee for the District Development Plan. Well, we come from West

Germany and we misjudged the situation in East Germany. We have carried out similar projects

in the west, and there municipalities were very much involved in planning. In the east it was

different. This had to do with the planning and administrative structures, which are not so

168

developed and established. There was not the kind of planning culture which the west has had

for forty years. (Planning consultant, Rügen)

Regarding the Soviet legacy present in people’s minds (information meant power), it will be a

long time yet until it is commonly understood that sharing information is a more effective way of

getting results in a democratic society. There is great need for more activities in the future

(exchange of knowledge and experience, training, and education) within the fields of manage-

ment and information. (Planning consultant, Hiiumaa.)

We should have more cooperation with the Department of Regional Development of the County

Government; it has not been very good so far. (Mayor, Hiiumaa.)

...for me [HDAP 2010] is pure soap suds! They have received a lot of money and they might

write something, and then again they might not - this is a waste of money and brains! For real

life they do not have any meaning and they are very far from reality. (Mayor, Hiiumaa.)

In general, the forms of cooperation in strategic planning on district level are not very well-devel-

oped. For example, in making the District Development Plan, the planner of the consulting company,

district government, and municipalities cooperated in two ways. First, the municipalities were asked

to make a list of the planned development projects, which was reviewed by the planner and the

district government. However, neither their evaluation nor the preliminary development plan was

circulated to the municipalities. In addition, there was a planning committee set up with representa-

tives of the district government and some heads of municipalities, representing the local level. But

the committee’s work was not well-structured, so that, as the planning consultant criticized, there

was little coordination as the development plan was created. A more structured procedure would

have been more beneficial.

On Hiiumaa, the cooperation between the county government and the municipalities was con-

sidered as problematic. Representatives of the county government as well as heads of municipali-

ties complained that there is no permanent forum where they could regularly meet and discuss

daily problems. Such forums were established within the Hiiumaa Development Action Plan 2010

process, but these meetings were considered to be too future-oriented and too abstract. Some

heads of the municipalities were very skeptical about the Hiiumaa Development Action Plan 2010.

Others were more moderate in their criticism, saying that the process should have started from the

local level.


169

On the other hand, according to the Development Action Plan’s project manager, there was no

interest in the process at the start, which made the work very frustrating. Many expressed the view

that the Regional Planning Department wanted the municipalities to do its work. It seems that the

role of the Regional Planning Department in the process was not very clear. One of the heads of

municipalities complained that the cooperation with the Tuuru Center should be more continuous

and systematic, and that the ideas of Tuuru Center concerning HDAP 2010 are not well-known lo-

cally. Even the county government and the biosphere reserve, which are represented in the small

working group, were skeptical to some extent about the process. Some representatives of the groups

considered that they were only “quite formally” involved in the process (interview).

Cooperation between sectoral agencies

On Rügen, intersectoral cooperation has been institutionalized in day-to-day planning and man-

agement. The existing level of cooperation between sectoral agencies was by most interview part-

ners considered to be adequate. For example, larger development projects are discussed before the

official permit procedure begins. This is done in meetings (Ämterkonferenz) organized by the Dis-

trict government where the developer presents the project and the sectoral agencies respond with

their preliminary evaluations. However, this kind of case-to-case exchange of information is no

guarantee for successfully harmonizing or integrating sectoral activities, which requires action on

the level of strategic planning.

There are currently only a few sectoral planning activities on Hiiumaa, and there is a lack of

human and financial resources in the public administration. Many interview partners complained

that the flow of information between different actors was generally poor, in both policy-making and

day-to-day management. In the Archipelago Sea, mayors particularly criticized the lack of cross-

sectoral cooperation. According to one: “So often we see the municipalities standing on one side and

the state administration on the other. But within the state administration there are many different

agencies, not all of whom cooperate or have information about each others’ activities”.

On the other hand, one regional planner did not consider the cooperation of sectoral agencies

problematic: “We have quite good cooperation between agencies in Southwest Finland. I have no

fear of conflicts. . . . We are in contact all the time, and it seems that we have quite uniform goals.

Of course there are disagreements sometimes, like the timetables for ferries or such specifics”.

Apparently there were two significantly different perceptions of the appropriateness of intersectoral

cooperation.

170

Cooperation between both levels of government and sectoral agencies takes place in formal ways,

but the informal networks are also important:

It is a small society, there are not so many people. This creates interesting networks. Not

necessarily negative, but one should know and be aware of them. It is the same everywhere,

the informal networks are as important [as the formal ones]. Not necessarily if it comes to

decision-making; this is the democratic tradition. (Planning consultant, Hiiumaa.)

Methods used in interagency cooperation

The formal methods used in interagency cooperation usually include methods which are similar to

those used in public participation. Written statements, meetings and site visits are some methods

often used. (See Box 9.)

One method for interagency cooperation is the establishment of regional planning committees to

guide planning. For example, in the Archipelago Sea there is a great number of different committees.

These include among others the Archipelago Committee of the Regional Council (Varsinais-Suomen

Liiton Saaristotoimikunta) and theArchipelago SeaAdvisory Board (Saaristomeren neuvottelukunta).

The latter has two separate sections: one for the national park and one for the biosphere reserve. In

addition, there is a delegation for ferry boat issues (Trafikdelegationen), and a delegation of marine

agencies (Saariston merellisten viranomaisten toimikunta, METO). On national level there is a Com-

mittee for Archipelago Issues (Saaristoasiain neuvottelukunta). But despite the great number of

committees, the Archipelago Sea lacks a common framework, strategy, or policy. This underlies the

critique presented by several interview partners, which included the following aspects: There are too

BOX 9 METHODS USED IN INTERAGENCY COOPERATION

To involve other [mayors] would probably not have been beneficial. Much more beneficial

would have been if the whole process would have been made with other forms of cooperation. A

very structured formal form of cooperation, [requiring] the writing of a letter, giving time for

comments, commenting, sending back impulses and comments, and making it public... (Plan-

ning consultant, Rügen.)

When it was time to give comments to the paper — 2-3 hours in the afternoon debating club —

everybody said what was on their mind and that was it. It is a completely non-binding situation.

As long as it is not a formal framework, cooperation has a barely tangible non-binding charac-

ter in east Germany. (Planning consultant, Rügen.)


171

many separate committees. Many of the committees were established to underline the special status

of the archipelago (with regard to state subventions) without the benefit of a clear coordinating

function.39 Thus the committees often act more as pressure groups, making statements on topical

questions (like new fishing laws or ferry schedules). But their work remained disconnected from the

administrative process, and did not affect actual practice. In many cases representatives of the com-

mittees were selected on a political basis, one consequence of which was that the Archipelago Com-

mittee of the Regional Council became too large to be effective.

On the other hand in the Archipelago Sea Advisory Board, not all relevant agencies could be

involved, because local representatives wanted to have the majority. The two-part Advisory Com-

mittee has to date only had a guiding role regarding the future activities of the national park and the

biosphere reserve. Some apparently important actors are not represented: the Regional Council of

Southwest Finland (authority responsible for regional development planning), the Road District, the

Defense Forces, Coast Guard. and the Archipelago Shipping Authority. On the other hand, the com-

I think they have been constantly invited to these... meetings. They have had seminars and

traveled together to Finland, etc. But once again, there have not been orderly, well-prepared

work meetings for these people. If I was managing this work I would set aside special days,

require 100% attendance. There has been lots of talk, and not much actual work. (Planning

consultant, Hiiumaa.)

There has been little understanding about nature protection and the biosphere reserve in

peripheral regions. There are many prejudices and they think about these things among them-

selves. When they [mayors] come to such a forum they have great need to vent the anger that

mounted over the preceding weeks, and what they have read in the newspapers. They let it come

out in a very demagogic tone, they hit the table and almost shout... After that they gasp for air,

and then after all has been said, it is possible to start discussing. When they come home they tell

in the municipal council, «Well goddammit, I did say in plain terms to these state bureaucrats

what I was thinking». Well, there is often reason for the anger too... This is the reality - this is the

kind of environment in which we work. (Representative of the National Park Administration,

Archipelago Sea.)

39The background of these committees also differ. For example the Archipelago Committee was established as a response of theSwedish speaking municipalities, who considered establishing an own, Swedish speaking regional council. The ArchipelagoSea Advisory Board was established to provide an institutionalized form of local people to have impact on the National Park’smanagement. It was suggested that the committees should themselves find out the potentials for more effective work.

172

mittee is not intended to have an operative role in bringing together different actors (interview). For

that reason the committee rarely meets — only two times a year. Many interview partners felt frus-

trated about the stiffness and unnecessary bureaucracy of the committee. Many suggested that the

two separate sections are not necessary, and that the committee should bring all actors together.

There seem to be several forums for cooperation between different levels of government and differ-

ent sectoral agencies in the Archipelago Sea. Should a problem or conflict between two sectors emerge,

it is discussed. However, no efforts are made to anticipate problems that might cross into several sec-

tors. It was also criticized that there has been very little coordination of the activities of the numerous

development programs and actors dealing with regional development. Only recently was the Archi-

pelago Development Center established to coordinate and set up a regional development plan.

Cooperation with the biosphere reserve administration

The biosphere reserve administration is a new actor in all case study areas. Some agencies may

perceive a strong administration as a threat, or municipalities may be reluctant to accept yet another

agency interfering with local issues. Although such fears existed in the beginning, in all case study

areas the biosphere reserve has quickly been accepted by most agencies and municipalities as a local

actor. (See Box 10.)

Cooperation between the biosphere reserve administration (National Park Agency, NPA) and other

administrative bodies was, according to the representative of the Rügen NPA, generally good. For

example, the policies of the current district government are in accordance with the NPA. The relation-

ships to some municipalities, however, was problematic; communication had nearly come to an end

with some heads of municipalities. The main reason behind the conflicts with municipalities was the

strong position of the NPA in land-use planning (especially in areas located outside settlements).

For the Hiiumaa Biosphere Reserve Center, the agencies with which cooperation was most im-

portant were the Department of Environmental Protection of the County Government, the For-

estry Department, and the Tuuru Center. The fact that the Tuuru Center and the Biosphere Reserve

Center are located in the same building had a positive impact on cooperation, making cooperation

natural and easy (interview). However, some interview partners criticized the lack of a biosphere

reserve advisory board: “People thinking the same way hold meetings, but there is no forum that

brings together differing views” (planning consultant). At the same time, one representative of

the Biosphere Reserve Center complained that municipalities have not realized their role in local

and regional development.


173

BOX 10 COOPERATION WITH THE BIOSPHERE RESERVE ADMINISTRATION

I think it is sufficient from my perspective. We have site visits, and try to get all relevant actors

together...We meet often to different plans, have..., negotiations and consultation, and it works

in most cases. (Representative of the biosphere reserve, Rügen.)

...there was almost nobody to work with.. When the politically active people on the local level

become aware of their role in local development, then it is more easy to work. I hope that after the

elections in autumn there will be more change, so we can have more cooperation. It is very difficult

to cooperate if you do not have a counterpart. (Representative of the biosphere reserve, Hiiumaa.)

It is my job to create the network. The Advisory Board is so stiff and comes together only two

to three times a year. They can only say yes or no to proposals, they cannot initiate any them-

selves. The most active role is to give statements on certain issues.... The main function of the

Advisory Board is to be a forum for contact between municipalities and state agencies. It is good

for the transfer of information. (Representative of the biosphere reserve, Archipelago Sea.)

For the Archipelago Sea, the biosphere advisory board is an important institution, facilitating co-

operation among municipalities, state agencies, and the biosphere reserve administration. It was

considered important for the transfer of information, but has no coordinating function. For its part,

the biosphere reserve administration has intensive cooperation with municipalities and agencies.

Although conflicts of interests exist between sectoral agencies in all three case study areas, the

positions and interests are generally well-known. The same can not be said about individual people

or groups, whose objectives are often perceived to be ambiguous or in conflict (interviews).

There are about 200manor estates on Rügen(Abts 1998). The manor(Rittergut) in Karnitz wasbuilt in the first half of19th century.

Photo: Martin Welp

174

Criteria: Cooperation

between local and re-gional level

between sectoral agen-cies

methods

with biosphere reserveadministration

biosphere reserve advi-sory board

Rügen

cooperation in strategicplanning not well organized

institutionalized channels ofintersectoral cooperation(positions and interests ofdifferent agencies are wellknown)

close cooperation in day-to-day management, stra-tegic sectoral plans pre-pared independently

good cooperation betweenthe biosphere reserve ad-ministration and the cur-rent district government;serious conflicts betweenbiosphere reserve and mu-nicipalities on land-use is-sues

biosphere reserve advi-

Hiiumaa

open conflicts betweenlocal and regional level

flow of information be-tween different publicagencies perceived aspoor

local governments andsectoral agencies only«formally» involved inHDAP 2010 through work-ing groups

intensive cooperationamong biosphere reserveadministration, countygovernment, forestry ad-ministration, etc.

Archipelago Sea

no regional level admin-istrative body in the area

dissatisfaction towardsinteragency cooperation(form of communicationoccasionally criticized)

great number of commit-tees, lack ofoperationalization

good cooperation withmunicipalities and agen-cies

biosphere reserve advi-sory board seldommeets seldom; consid-ered important, but criti-cized as too bureaucratic

Figure 21. Cooperation in planning practice in the case study areas.

6.3.4 FeedbackThe fourth key characteristic, feedback, includes two aspects, namely monitoring and evaluation.

Systematic ways of monitoring are important to the implementation of decisions, to insure that they

are upheld in practice, and to learn from past experience. Periodically, the plans and programs them-

selves should be subject to evaluation as a way of continually improving the processes. This should

include an evaluation of the continuity of the collaborative planning arrangements and fairness of

the process. (See Box 11.)


175

Putting plans into practice

BOX 11 PUTTING PLANS INTO PRACTICE

There is no such thing as monitoring or evaluation. (Head of the environmental department of

the district government, Rügen.)

The main point is how these plans are put into practice. This holds true for all plans made on

the district level. We have plenty of concepts. (District planner, Rügen.)

We try to stay on the line in our everyday work. These concepts are a real help for us, but we

do not have the means for true evaluation or control. It is always restricted to bits and parts, the

holistic picture is more difficult (District planner, Rügen.)

None of the concepts have legal codification. All [municipalities] stick to their planning com-

petence, which they have. They take little notice of the conceptional suggestions of the district.

Nobody cares there anymore. If it fits their ideas, they argue with the paper. If it does not fit, they

say, “well it is not binding anyway. It is just a suggestion”. (District planner, Rügen.)

We have abandoned the word ‘planning’ and do only district development... The situation

changes, but the plan stays the same, and does later on not fit together. We break out from that

dilemma by not doing big plans, and we try to do things in practice... Nobody is interested in big

plans and concepts, which really only bring unfruitful discussions and do not help in solving

problems. (Representative of the biosphere reserve, Rügen.)

...this is not how plans were once made. There is implementation, evaluation — an iterative

process. Well, this is nothing new, that you need to rewrite plans. In practice, however, it has

been somewhat different. When the general plan was a new thing, small municipalities sighed,

“now it’s done”. I was one of the first to say that this is not the way. They understood that the

first one would not be good enough. In part, they were the first steps, but I think a bad plan is

better than nothing, if the mistakes are recognized. Recently the better view has been adopted

that a plan cannot be valid forever. (Regional planner, Archipelago Sea.)

There is no well-developed system of monitoring and evaluating planning on Rügen. The prob-

lems associated with the non-binding character of numerous sectoral plans and concepts were pointed

out by a regional planner. Because the sectoral concepts, set up on district level, have no legal codi-

fication, they are not binding for sectoral agencies or municipalities. Nor were the concepts made in

176

close cooperation with relevant agencies and interest groups so that a voluntary agreement, although

having no legally binding character, would have informal power.

Hiiumaa does not possess an elaborate system of monitoring or evaluation in planning practice

either. For example, a system of monitoring the implementation of decisions and the effectiveness of

action is currently not made explicit in the Hiiumaa Development Action Plan 2010. Nor is the

planning process itself evaluated (in terms of continuity or fairness), except for the final reports of

the projects results by the funding agency UNDP. One means of evaluation could be taking an opin-

ion survey of the local population on the appropriateness of the public participation procedures and

the process itself. The information could then be used for better tailoring future planning activities

to the needs of society. By contrast to the 2010 plan, the Käina Bay Integrated Coastal Zone Manage-

ment Plan was understood as an iterative process, and a system of monitoring certain environmental

characteristics was also elaborated.

There is no well developed system of monitoring or evaluation in planning practice in the Archi-

pelago Sea. Some feedback has been given on the socio-economic effects of development programmes

and plans by the Regional Council of Southwest Finland in the form of seminars. In the future, the

Regional Council will probably have a stronger role in monitoring the impact of development pro-

grammes. The Regional Development Centers will do the actual planning and advising (interview).

The Archipelago Sea has no well elaborated system of monitoring in land-use planning either. Each

municipality maintains a map of the building permits issued, and the Ministry of the Environment

keeps annual statistics about the number and type of permits given. The Regional Environment Center

has no direct access to the maps of the municipalities. On the other hand the center is more interested in

construction activities which are not done according to the general plan. A national study was made of

the extent to which cottages and homes had been built on the coastal strip (Granö et al. 1995), although

it was not as a form of monitoring, but was done to simply create a picture of the current situation.

On Rügen, the National Park Agency keeps a list of rejected and recognized building permits.

These numbers are published annually in the local newspapers and in the yearbook of the agency.

Environmental monitoring

Extensive monitoring of water quality takes place both on Rügen and in the Archipelago Sea. On

Hiiumaa the biosphere reserve center has established an environmental laboratory to carry out moni-

toring activities. In the Archipelago Sea one problem was that monitoring on water quality is carried

out by many different organizations. The Association of Water Protection of Southwest Finland


177

carries out monitoring in the near vicinity of polluters. Impacts on water quality are reported to the

Regional Environment Center, while the impacts on fish grounds are reported to the fishing depart-

ment of the Rural Development Center. While perhaps inconvenient for the entrepreneur, it has been

seen as a problem that insufficient cooperation exists between different administrative bodies. It has

also been criticized that the polluters should monitor the impact of their activities themselves. The

Southwest Finland Regional Environment Center has a comprehensive net of control sites spread

over the Archipelago Sea. Although extensive monitoring is carried out on water quality, the infor-

mation is usually not distributed and made available to normal citizens.

Perception of biosphere reserve

In all three biosphere reserves studies have been carried out on the perception of local people (and

on Rügen also visitors) about the perception about the biosphere reserve administration (see Chapter

5.5). Evaluations of the fairness of planning processes have been conducted within the framework of

certain scientific studies in the Archipelago Sea. For example, Haverinen (1996; see also Kaskinen

1996) analyzed citizen participation in road planning, interviewing local people for this purpose.

Figure 22. Feedback in planning practice in the case study areas.

Criteria: Feedback

putting plans into practice

environmental monitoring

perception on the bio-sphere reserve

Rügen

system of evaluation notwell developed, no com-monly agreed criteria toassess the success of poli-cies (the numerous strate-gic sectoral plans have anunbinding character)

environmental monitoringtakes place

study on perceptions ofbiosphere reserve

Hiiumaa

system of evaluation notwell developed

biosphere reserve has es-tablished an environmentallaboratory

peoples’ perception of bio-sphere reserve part of anislandwide social survey,publicized in local media

Archipelago Sea

system of evaluation notwell developed

monitoring carried out e.g.on water quality is done bymany different organiza-tions, little information di-rected towards the public

internal study on peoples’perception of the nationalpark

178

6.4 Planning styles in the case study areasTwo of the key characteristics of ‘good coastal planning practice’, namely participation and coop-

eration, are more directly related to the communicative aspects of planning. Based on the two as-

pects, four planning styles were identified: routine planning, sector-based participatory planning,

social and environmental engineering and planning as mutual learning (see Chapter 2.1). The plan-

ning styles characterize the degree and intensity of public participation and cooperation in the plan-

ning carried out by the public administration.

With reference to Figure 1, ‘dominant styles in planning practice’ in each of the case study areas

can be identified. The character of participation is somewhere between informing and consultation

(cf. Figure 2, Chapter 2.1). Negotiations and delegated powers are rare in planning practice. In terms

of the level of intersectoral cooperation, the range is somewhat broader, moving from fragmented to

a certain degree of coordination, while informing and consultation are the most typical (cf. Figure 3,

Chapter 2.1).

Rather than making an absolute judgment about each case study area’s planning style, the follow-

ing paragraphs illustrate the differences among them. Thus, when trying to improve planning prac-

tice, emphasis needs to be put on different aspects depending on the area. In addition, planning

practice on Rügen, Hiiumaa, or the Archipelago Sea is not identical to planning practice in Germany,

Estonia, or Finland. Within each country’s planning system there is room for regional variations,

even though national legislation fixes the overall framework. It should also be stressed that there are

differences within each case study area between specific planning processes.

The criteria for identifying the dominant styles in planning practice include the following: the per-

ceptions about planning practice held by interview partners (planners and others involved); coopera-

tion and participation as described in the planning documents and newspaper articles; and demands for

public participation as expressed in the local media. On Rügen the dominating planning style can be

characterized as social and environmental engineering, on Hiiumaa as routine planning, and in the

Archipelago Sea as sector-based participatory planning. In no case study area was the ‘planning as

learning’ approach dominant. Planning efforts representing this style were rather the exception, and

they remained disjointed from other planning. This division is a simplification of what was perceived

to be the level and degree of public participation and cooperation in the case study areas. In the follow-

ing, aspects of the dominant styles in planning practice are briefly discussed.

On Rügen the dominant planning style can be characterized as ‘social and environmental engi-

neering’. The emphasis in regional planning has been on comprehensive sectoral plans. There have


179

also been various attempts to promote the model region concept, among others through the sectoral

concepts, a strategical environmental plan, and a District Development Plan. These are, however,

not binding, nor is a consensus being built among actors, or a broad commitment to the stated goals.

The intensity of non-institutionalized participation that emerges in this study does not indicate

that public planning is truly participatory.40 There were cases of alternative planning, like the “Pro-

posals for the Economic Development of the Island Rügen” prepared by the People’s Initiative for

Rügen, and numerous citizen protests, including those waged against the planned shipyard and the

designation of protected landscape areas. These indicate that there is a strong will to participate in

environmental and development planning and decision-making. Against the absence of more

inclusionary practices, the intensity of non-institutionalized participation also shows that planning

practice has not been responsive in a way which would enable constructive negotiations at early

stages of planning. Also the biosphere reserve administration has been accused of not taking account

of the interests of local citizens.

In Estonia the planning system is not yet well-elaborated. Planning practice on Hiiumaa can often be

characterized as routine planning. But the cliché of soviet style ‘command-and-control planning’ is

rapidly becoming outdated. The Hiiumaa Development Action Plan 2010 and the Käina Bay Integrated

Management Plan are examples of planning with an ambition to involve local people in democratic

decision making. It will take time for the precise methods to be developed and a civil society to be

established, however. Not many interest groups have organized themselves, and planners find few

groups or active individuals with whom they can work with directly. The local press is not yet well

developed, so that its role in supporting and critically scrutinizing planning has been limited.

In the particular case of Hiiumaa, the term ‘routine planning’ may not be entirely appropriate,

however. Many ‘routines’ were abandoned with the re-establishment of Estonian independence and

with the introduction of new legal arrangements. In addition, new and younger people became in-

volved in making public policy. Despite this, the use of the term is largely justified, since most

people there still perceive planning as strongly expert-oriented. The process of finding out possibili-

ties for public involvement in planning and decision-making takes some time. Although HDAP 2010

had the ambition to involve Hiiumaa people in a “democratic development process”, the number of

those who actually took part in the working was small. They included mainly employees in the

40That non-institutionalized participation is not taken into consideration here does not indicate that non-institutional participa-tion would be less important or less democratic than institutionalized participation. Planning should however provide alterna-tives for participation so that people can decide in which way they want to participate. Institutionalized participation may alsogive an opportunity for interest groups “with a weaker voice” to take part.

180

county government, or members of the tourism association or the farmers’ union. The few repre-

sentatives of NGOs present (such as the Village Movement and the Educational Societies) were still

shaping their role in the process.

Finally, although HDAP 2010 intended to improve intersectoral cooperation and cooperation be-

tween the county government and municipalities, most interview partners complained that the flow

of information was insufficient. However, the biosphere reserve center and the Tuuru Center have

been driving forces for more public participation and better cooperation. Thus the planning style is

shifting to the ‘northeast’ towards planning as mutual learning (Figure 1).

Planning practice in the Archipelago Sea can be characterized as sector-based participatory plan-

ning. The Road Administration and some other agencies have adopted certain types of public partici-

pation. Also, at the municipal level, land-use planning participation has been intensive. There has

been no strong pressure for more public participation in planning, except in the designation of pro-

tected areas, as in the recent European Union directive, Natura 2000.

On the ‘sectoral-integrated’ axis, planning practice as a whole in the Archipelago Sea cannot be

considered integrated. One reason is that land and water areas are in planning considered separately

by different administrative bodies. The general absence of cooperation among various government

agencies, local governments, and other administrative bodies in Finland has been identified in a

number of academic studies and publications (e.g. Temmes 1988; Siirala 1990). This absence has

been verified by this research as well, in which the lack of coordination among the number of differ-

ent actors in a place like the Archipelago Sea emerged as a practical reality. Another difficulty in

bringing actors together is the mind-set of certain administrative bodies, like the coast guard or the

Seafaring Administration, who are concerned with their strategic mission and remain aloof from

local issues (interviews).

The claim that planning practice in the Archipelago Sea is participatory instead of being expert-

oriented does not hold true for all planning activities. In his national study on public participation in

Finland, Paldanius (1994a, 2) identifies the main driving forces against public participation, which

are part of the “strongly elitist, expert-dominated and consensus-oriented political and administra-

tive culture”. Paldanius further notes that planners often regard themselves as sectoral experts. Nev-

ertheless, it became clear in this study that public agencies have made considerable advances to-

wards making planning more communicative and open. On many occasions the biosphere reserve

administration has stressed that it is open to ideas from people living in the archipelago. Thus the

participatory character appears to be more strong than in the other case study areas.

181

7.1 A vision for planning in coastal areasCoastal resource use planning is characterized by complex interrelated issues and frequently con-

flicting sectoral interests. Therefore the primary goal of any integrated coastal management effort

should be to reach agreement about the domain of planning and the issues that should be given

priority. Achieving a reasonable level of consensus on priority issues among various stakeholders is

a particularly important prerequisite for successful action.

In practice, the public discussion on the environment and development does not follow a step-by-

step procedure in establishing which issues are on the agenda and how they are dealt with in the

political system. In other words, political debates on the environment and development have a dy-

namic of their own and often do not engage in a logical sequence of (a) identifying problems, (b)

choosing alternatives, (c) making decisions, and (d) implementing decisions. But this does not mean

that a more structured approach should not be striven for in the planning system. The intermingling

of politics and planning is a part of western democracies. Planning is expected to involve long-term

time frames which extend beyond the next elections or political events. We expect the politics to be

flexible and responsive, and that the components of the planning system balance each other out.

However this often takes place in a way that is not always comprehended by the individual citizen.

Comprehensive and anticipatory coastal planning provides the opportunity to discuss issues in a

more systematic way. It may counteract the impression that issues come to the fore more or less

accidentally, too late, or in a disconnected way. Public participation may give weak or disorganized

interest groups an opportunity to be involved in planning and decision-making. Planning is future-

oriented, which makes it interesting and relevant when speaking about sustainable development in a

region. The four criteria, comprehensiveness, participation, cooperation and feedback (Chapter 2.3),

can be considered necessary prerequisites for finding sustainable ways and intensities of using coastal

resources and to anticipate future problems.

Making suggestions for the improvement of planning practice requires detailed information about

administrative procedures, an understanding of a particular nation’s decision-making culture and

social structures, and knowledge of issues, actors’ perceptions, and the historical development of

institutions. This study proposes a vision of an alternative to sectoralized or expert-oriented plan-

Conclusions

182

ning practice, which seems to dominate all too often.41 A vision should, however, also be realistic so

that it builds on existing structures and capacities. In the case study areas, the biosphere reserve

administration is a valuable resource with an internationally supported mission to search for ways of

integrating environmental and development policies on the local and regional levels.

Several efforts to improve coastal management have been launched on the European level and in

the Baltic Sea Region. The European demonstration programme for integrated coastal zone manage-

ment, and several other efforts within the EU and the Baltic Sea Region (Chapter 2.2.6) indicate that

in recent years there has been a great increase in interest in coastal issues. Despite the long-standing

cooperation under the HELCOM Convention and the Baltic Council coastal management issues in

the Baltic Sea Region are relatively new fields of international concern and cooperation.

Stronger emphasis should be given to community based coastal management. So far the main

focus has typically been on higher levels of planning and policy-making (for example the Trilateral

Wadden Sea Convention, or the activities within HELCOM). The link between the international

level and local level has been missing. The advantage of biosphere reserves is that the administra-

tion is a local actor, but integrated within the international network of biosphere reserves.

In the case study areas, some efforts have been undertaken to coordinate sectoral planning, whether

through regional planning, planning committees, or by other means. But essentially, the coastal man-

agement system can be characterized as fragmented and not comprehensive. Efforts to introduce more

integrated planning, such as pilot management plans and research and development projects, have thus

remained disjointed and without a broader framework. At the district level, the only clearly visible

political commitment to sustainable regional development was the Rügen model region, a concept

which has inherited a ‘vision’ of the island’s sustainable future. Yet Rügen still lacks a coherent frame-

work for planning, decision-making, and implementation, despite numerous studies and plans.

The concept of ICM was not very familiar to most of the interviewed persons in the case study areas.

A representative of WWF, who had promoted the concept of ICM for several years, and representatives

of the Biosphere Reserve Hiiumaa Center, who had set up the management plan for Käina Bay, were

among those interviewed who were most familiar with this concept. Thus, if ICM is seen as an appro-

priate concept for drawing attention to current problems in coastal planning practice, there should be

considerably more training and education, both for planners and other actors engaged in planning.

41Defining the best practices which would apply equally in all circumstances, even for a single country, is a difficult task(Edwards et al. 1997). Therefore this study does not assume to have enough local knowledge to be able to make detailedsuggestions concerning questions of who should be involved, what techniques should be applied, and who should set up andhead a joint planning committee.

Conclusions

183

7.2 The ‘programme’or the ‘incremental reform’ approachThe key characteristics of ‘good coastal planning practice’ were elaborated in Chapter 2.3 with

special reference to literature on ‘integrated coastal management’ (ICM) as well as planning theory.

Strengthening comprehensiveness, in terms of both the planning area and the content of planning,

citizen participation, cooperation between sectoral agencies and levels of government, and feed-

back, which enables a continuous iterative learning process, were identified as four issues crucial to

the improvement of coastal planning practice. These may take place in different ways. What can

broadly be referred to as ‘integrated coastal management’ may thus take different organizational

forms and institutional strategies (cf. Chapter 2.2.5).

One may ask what ultimately constitutes integrated coastal management. Is it a programme labeled

ICM? Or is ICM a set of management principles? The answer is that it can be both. It might take the

form of a particular programme, but given the variety of ways of adopting integrated management

principles, ICM becomes much broader. A distinction can be made between a ‘programme approach’

and an ‘incremental reform approach’.

The ‘incremental reform’ approach seeks to strengthen intersectoral cooperation and public par-

ticipation within existing administrative structures, without launching a separate programme. This

may take the form of a joint planning committee or a biosphere reserve advisory board. The incre-

mental reform approach requires that agencies have a better understanding of problems within the

planning system, and the will to bring about change from within. Identifying gaps, inconsistencies,

and overlaps in the public administration may, however, require outside input. Whether from a non-

governmental organization or the research community, such external aid might be essential.

The ‘programme approach’ implies that a ‘coastal management’ programme is launched. Efforts

which may include similar characteristics could equally be a local or regional Agenda 21-process, or

an enhanced management plan for a biosphere reserve. Essential to the success of such a programme

or plan, irrespective of name, is that it seeks to integrate environmental, economic, and social issues

with sectoral activities. Perhaps most critical is that it seeks to involve local residents and to create

a partnership for coastal management. The advantage of the programme approach is that its imple-

mentation can be well-structured, follow a commonly agreed schedule, and have the potential for

greater public interest. Human resources and financial support are needed for the coordination of

such an effort, which includes e.g. moderating work groups and informing the public.

In both the programme approach and the incremental reform approach, it is not absolutely neces-

sary for the competencies of agencies to be altered. A single agency may coordinate the programme,

184

or be responsible for improving cooperative and participatory arrangements. Better results can be

expected, however, if several agencies have joint responsibility, share costs, and, for example, jointly

hire a coordinator. Both approaches differ from the case where one lead agency is assigned control

over most coastal resources use issues. Such changes usually require changes in the legal system.

In the literature on coastal management, the ‘programme approach’ is the prevalent means of imple-

menting ‘integrated coastal management’. But it has also been argued that since the planning system in

many European countries already is well-developed (unlike that of many developing countries), no

coastal management programmes are needed. Why then should an ICM-programme be more success-

ful in tackling complex coastal resources use issues? There are four main advantages of an ICM pro-

gramme. First, it explicitly addresses the problems caused by the strict sectoral divisions within the

public administration. Second, it builds upon public support as a result of intensive consultation and

joint planning, by incorporating the involvement of relevant actors and an interested general public. A

third advantage of ICM is that it insures that priority issues are selected and strategies elaborated for

implementation, then subjected to monitoring and evaluation. Fourth, ICM functions within a world-

wide framework of international agreements (Agenda 21) and guidelines. Beyond these advantages,

the evolving common vocabulary of ICM provides a good way to facilitate the transfer of knowledge

and exchange of experience between countries and regions.

7.3 Potential roles for biosphere reserves in the futureThe difference between a coastal biosphere reserve and other ‘normal’ coastal regions is that in the

former, one administrative body is by definition interested in environmental and development issues in

a holistic way. A cross-sectoral view, strongly oriented to the principles of sustainable development, is

something which is usually lacking in the traditional administrative structure. The designation of a

biosphere reserve can be seen as a first step toward the introduction of more integrated planning. The

existence of a biosphere reserve administration, which has a cross-sectoral orientation, can be seen as a

chance to make planning more integrated, transparent, and responsive. There are also many parallels

between planning for integrated coastal management and planning for biosphere reserves.

The Seville Strategy for biosphere reserves includes 24 implementation indicators which are to be

applied on the level of the individual reserve (Biosphere reserves 1996, 15). At least five of the

criteria refer directly to the potential role of the biosphere reserve administration as an initiator and

coordinator of efforts to make planning more integrated and participatory. The criteria call for the

biosphere reserve administration to: make a survey of stakeholder interests; create mechanisms for

Conclusions

185

managing, coordinating, and integrating its own programmes and activities; establish a local con-

sultative framework; insure the existence of a local educational and training programme; and in-

volve the local community in planning and managing the biosphere reserve itself.

Biosphere reserve administrations could act as ‘parallel learning organizations’ in introducing

‘good coastal planning’. Parallel organizations are intended to improve the learning capacity of

bureaucratic institutions. According to Leskinen (1994) there are two kind of learning organiza-

tions: parallel organizations that are set up internally within organizations, and parallel organiza-

tions that act as coordinating and learning units between organizations. Biosphere reserves could

adopt the second type of parallel organizations. As such, the biosphere reserve would not function

primarily as a planning unit; its purpose would be to develop and initiate cooperation among au-

thorities and other actors. Within each relevant agency, structures should be developed to ensure that

new experience is passed on from unit to unit.

To achieve more effective cooperation, biosphere reserves could further develop existing institu-

tional structures. For example, in the Archipelago Sea, there is an Archipelago Council and an Archi-

pelago Advisory Committee. However, they are not very well structured internally, they seldom

meet, they do not always inform the public about decisions, and they do not always involve all

relevant agencies and actors. By launching an integrated coastal management programme, more

publicity and input from various actors can be gained. The biosphere reserve advisory boards could

steer and coordinate such programmes and provide a forum for making policy recommendations on

the regional level. It would be important for these recommendations to be then transferred to upper

levels of the civic administration (state agencies, ministries).

In cases in which the biosphere reserve administration has a strong regulative function, as on

Rügen, it may be more difficult to adopt a role as a parallel organization. The administration might

be too involved in promoting nature and landscape protection interests to be acknowledged by all

actors as a legitimate ‘neutral’ partner. Although such a strong formal regulative position makes it

possible to hinder unwanted development, the other side of the coin is that the possibilities of acting

as a parallel learning organization are limited. On the other hand, in most biosphere reserves, where

many agencies are involved in the management of the area, the administration has to adopt some

strategies for negotiation. If the biosphere reserve has own interests to promote, but wishes to initi-

ate a consultative forum, outside mediators may be used.

It can be expected that the efforts made by a biosphere reserve administration to coordinate sectoral

activities might be viewed with skepticism by other government agencies and local governments.

186

Many actors still perceive the biosphere reserve administration primarily as a nature protection

authority. But no other administrative body is currently in a position to take on such a coordinating

role that extends beyond its narrow sectoral designation. Therefore, the many advantages of the

special status of biosphere reserves as model regions should be acknowledged and used.

Furthermore, it should be possible to carry out pilot projects and experiments in biosphere reserves in

a flexible manner. Such pilot projects as the EU demonstration programme on integrated management

of the coastal zones can test new cooperation methods and new legislation that is about to be put into

practice. In Sweden, the pilot projects in the archipelagos on the west coast and in the Stockholm

archipelago have been following a community-based approach to regional development and natural

resource planning. On the island of Svartsö, the plan was entitled “Planning from a local perspective”

(Skoglund 1997), while on the Koster islands planning was entitled “Lifestyle-oriented planning” (Arén

1994). Although these examples were not carried out in biosphere reserves, such efforts could exploit

the special status of biosphere reserves in testing different approaches to a greater extent.

A new role requires strengthening the perception of the biosphere reserve concept internationally

and nationally as well as locally. The international network of biosphere reserves is currently not

very strong. It can be argued that the many benefits of transferring experience and information about

successful and unsuccessful practices between biosphere reserves are not being optimized. Thus,

networks of biosphere reserves which share common problems (coastal biosphere reserves, bio-

sphere reserves located close to large urban settlements, etc.) or are located in the same geographic

region (e.g. the Baltic Sea) should be strengthened.

The legal codification of biosphere reserves on national level is currently inadequate in the three

case study countries. Although a loosely detailed legal framework gives considerable flexibility, it

does not strengthen the status of biosphere reserves as model regions. The inclusion of biosphere

reserves in legislation on planning and construction, or their designation as special areas within

nature conservation legislation, could help insure that government agencies take greater notice of

biosphere reserves in the future.

Implementing the biosphere reserve concept is a challenge, especially on the local level. The sug-

gestions mentioned above potentially strengthen the concept of the biosphere reserve at the local

level. Public support can be expected only if local people have a sense of ownership of the reserve.

Additionally, an important prerequisite for successfully promoting sustainable resource use is that

the many agencies responsible for the area work with the biosphere reserve, not against it. A con-

sultative framework for such partnership can be created by applying the principles of ‘good coastal

Conclusions

187

planning practice’. Rather than relying on the approaches of ‘routine planning’, ‘sector-based par-

ticipatory planning’, or ‘social and environmental engineering’, with the aid of a biosphere reserve

administration acting as a parallel learning organization, planning can take on a more learning-

oriented approach. By this biosphere reserves could become model regions for creating and actively

choosing sustainable futures.

Children in the Centre of Kärdla (Hiiumaa). Photo: Tero Uusitalo

188

The ferry trip between Korpo and Houtskär (Archipelago Sea)takes about 30 minutes. Photo: Martin Öhman

189

Coastal areas worldwide are subject to increasing pressures caused by a wide range of human

activities which includes construction, tourism, recreation, marine transport, aquaculture, and in-

dustry. The sectoralized planning system has not been able to respond to these pressures in an ad-

equate way. Conflicts on resource allocation are subsequently increasing.

Biosphere reserves provide an international framework for comparative research on the relation-

ships between society and the environment. In October 1997, there were 352 biosphere reserves in

87 countries. On these sites sustainable resource use is intended to be tested and demonstrated.

Three coastal biosphere reserves in the Baltic Sea have been chosen as case study areas. These are:

the West Estonian Archipelago (one of its constituent islands, Hiiumaa), Archipelago Sea in Finland

and Rügen in Germany. As small islands and archipelagoes, they represent a special type of coastal

area. Small islands are often characterized by relative isolation, high ratios of coastline to land area,

and a limited resource base. What makes them interesting for social science research is that they also

often represent coherent social, cultural, economic, geographic, and administrative units.

The objective of the study is an analysis of current planning practices and the role of the biosphere

reserve administration in environmental and development planning. The three case study areas are

intended to become model regions for sustainable development. The model character means also a

challenge for the planning and decision-making system. Recommendations for the development of

planning practice are made.

In all three case study areas, there is a biosphere reserve agency or center, each of which has

adopted a particular role shaped by the legal framework, administrative system, and institutionally

agreed and individual priorities. The transparency of these roles varies in terms of the public percep-

tion. While the biosphere reserve administration on Rügen has a strong formal position as a nature

conservation authority, on Hiiumaa it becomes more of an intellectual contributor and project initia-

tor. In the Archipelago Sea the biosphere reserve administration has an exploratory role and among

its tasks is the coordination of research. To some extent it acts as a discursive facilitator among

various actors.

As potential model regions of sustainable development, the boundaries of the Archipelago Sea

Biosphere Reserves and the Rügen Biosphere Reserve cannot be considered appropriate. Although

Summary

190

these boundaries are meant to be flexible, the three main islands of the Archipelago Sea have been

excluded and the Rügen Biosphere Reserve covers only the southeastern part of the island. Thus for

the purposes of this study, the delineation of the case study areas differs somewhat from the deline-

ation of the actual biosphere reserves. However, they are oriented to the geographic area related to

the activities of the biosphere reserve administration.

Two of the biosphere reserves were designated during turbulent times of political and social change

in the late 1980s/early 1990s. The designation of the Rügen Biosphere Reserve in the former Ger-

man Democratic Republic (GDR) and of the West Estonian Archipelago Biosphere Reserve in the

former Soviet Union, as well as the planning activities in subsequent years, have to be seen in the

broader context of a complete change in the political and administrative systems. GDR unified with

the Federal German Republic in 1990 and Estonia re-established its independence in 1991. In Fin-

land such dramatic changes did not occur, despite its joining the European Union in 1995.

Such profound and rapid changes in society can be seen as hindering rational planning, because

adequate legislation has to be developed, administrative responsibilities need to be clarified and

some degree of socio-economic security has to be established. On the other hand, such a situation

can be considered an opportunity for introducing innovative planning arrangements. There have

been several attempts within Europe to introduce new, more integrated management in coastal areas.

Some pilot projects have been carried out in the case study areas of this study as well. The subject of

analysis in this study is, however, ‘normal’ environmental and development planning practice.

‘Integrated coastal management’ (ICM) is a relatively new management approach that addresses a

number of key problems related to the sectoralized, competing, and sometimes overlapping compe-

tencies of different public agencies. It also promotes the use of scientific knowledge from different

disciplines for the purposes of management and the integration of land and water areas in planning.

Although there are many different definitions of ICM, it may be regarded as a distinct management

approach. More recently the Agenda 21 Action Plan has given greater prominence to ICM. Because

ICM lacks a coherent theoretical basis and a common vocabulary, however, its development has

been somewhat hindered.

In this study, a set of key characteristics for ‘good coastal planning practice’ is elaborated with

special reference to the literature on ‘integrated coastal management’ (ICM). This is supported by

literature on planning theory. While ICM literature usually also stresses the importance of public

participation in management, critical planning theory particularly emphasizes the democratic notion

of planning. Public participation is not carried out only to improve the quality of planning or speed

Summary

191

up planning processes, but in order to make the entire decision-making system more transparent and

accountable. The planner can have an active role in supporting weakly or not organized interest

groups. In this sense, planning becomes a communicative, attention-shaping action.

The key characteristics for ‘good coastal planning practice’ are: comprehensiveness, participation,

cooperation, and feedback. Comprehensiveness refers to the joint planning of land and water areas. The

planning area should be based on natural rather than administrative boundaries. In addition, plans and

programmes should be characterized by a more comprehensive approach than has been customary in

sectoral planning. Participation refers to the possibility of all relevant stakeholders having a say in

problem formulation, selection of problem-solving strategies, and the choice of alternatives already in

an early phase. Citizens and interest groups should also have clear channels of access to the public

administration. Cooperation refers to communication and harmonization between different sectoral

agencies and levels of government. Essential for interagency cooperation, as well as participation, is

that expert-knowledge is made understandable for non-experts and experts in other fields. Finally,

feedback refers to the importance of understanding planning as an iterative process. Plans and pro-

grammes should be subject to regular monitoring and evaluation as a way of continually improving the

processes. Factors of evaluation should include the continuity of the collaborative planning arrange-

ments and fairness of the process. The criteria above are regarded as necessary prerequisites for sub-

stantial and sustained integration of environmental and development planning.

Planning practice in each case study area is analyzed in the study with the help of the above-

mentioned criteria. Illustrative examples on strategic regional development planning, sectoral plan-

ning (forestry), land-use planning, water-use planning, coastal ecosystem management, and bio-

sphere reserve related planning activities are analyzed in detail. About thirty structured interviews

of key persons conducted in each of the case study areas as well as newspaper articles, planning

documents, and other relevant writings were used as research material.

The first of the illustrative examples concerns strategic regional planning on Rügen. A number of

strategic level sectoral plans were prepared after 1990. These were intended to be integrated in the

District Development Plan. No broad public participation took place when preparing these plans,

however. Eventually the environment and development discussion, already very polarized, culmi-

nated in the issue of the designation of protected landscape areas. There was intense public debate in

the local media and in the numerous public hearings organized by the county government once the

conflict escalated. The discussion was perceived by those involved to have contributed little to es-

tablishing consensus about the island’s future development. The District Development Plan was not

192

completed, and instead the district and the biosphere reserve administration became more interested

in implementation-oriented negotiations dealing with projects and cases individually.

The second of the illustrative examples also deals with strategic level planning. On Hiiumaa, the

Hiiumaa Development Action Plan (HDAP) 2010 was an effort to support a ‘coordinated democratic

development process on Hiiumaa’. The process built on active citizens on the island and to some

extent also relied on existing social structures on the island such as the Educational Societies and

Village Movement. A number of sectoral working groups were created focusing on such topics as

tourism, information technology, and education. They worked parallel to local work groups in the

municipalities and villages. In practice, quite a small number of active people were involved in the

process. The general public was skeptical of the way that funds provided by the United Nations

Development Programme (UNDP) were actually used.

Forestry planning was selected as an example of sectoral planning. On Rügen and on Hiiumaa,

close cooperation took place between the forestry administration and the biosphere reserve adminis-

tration, so that in most cases an agreement on the use and protection of forest resources was found. In

contrast to other sectors, like construction activities and traffic, the conflicts were relatively small.

On Rügen the biosphere reserve administration has chosen forestry as a central sector where the

sustainable use of local resources for local purposes and employment is demonstrated in an exem-

plary way. By contrast, in the Archipelago Sea, the forestry sector was not of special concern for the

biosphere reserve administration.

Land-use planning on the local level is carried out by municipalities and is regulated by the na-

tional planning and building legislation. Construction activities are one of the most controversial

coastal resource use issues. Two coastal land-use conflicts on Rügen and Hiiumaa in which the

biosphere reserve administration was involved are investigated. On Rügen, land-use planning is the

most controversial political issue, and it has caused serious conflicts between the biosphere reserve

administration and the municipalities. General planning in the Archipelago Sea is referred to as an

example of intensive consultation and negotiation with land owners.

Water-use planning includes various issues ranging from water quality control to sand mining and

shipping routes. Fish farming has been a particularly sensitive issue for Rügen as well as the Archi-

pelago Sea, where it is an important source of income for local people. A planned fish farm close to

an important bathing resort in the Bay of Prora on Rügen was opposed both by nature conservation-

ists and the tourism sector. Ultimately, as a response to this protest a decision was made to ban the

farm. In the Archipelago Sea, fish farming has been discussed in relation to the problem of continu-

Summary

193

ing eutrophication of the coastal waters. In both cases the permitting procedures took place quite

independently of land use and other planning decisions.

Only one especially entitled ‘integrated coastal zone management plan’ was prepared in the case

study areas. This was a plan for Käina Bay on Hiiumaa, a relatively small and extensively used

estuary. Both land- and water-use issues were addressed in this plan, which was based on consulta-

tions with various user groups and collection of natural scientific and social data from the area.

The ‘Seville Strategy’ for biosphere reserves suggests the establishing of a consultative frame-

work for each biosphere reserve. Advisory boards were established for the biosphere reserves in the

Archipelago Sea and on Rügen. On Rügen serious conflicts with municipalities concerning land-use

issues made the process cumbersome. Heads of municipalities made many demands, including the

exclusion of NGOs. In the Archipelago Sea, the advisory board is considered inflexible and bureau-

cratic, but it is still important for communication between the biosphere reserve administration,

state agencies, and municipalities. In neither of the cases does the advisory board have a coordinat-

ing function for environmental and development planning. There is no corresponding institutional-

ized consultative framework on Hiiumaa.

Based on the illustrative examples explored, planning practice is then compared with the ideal

model of ‘good coastal planning practice’. With regard to the first of the key characteristics, com-

prehensiveness, it became obvious that issues ranging across municipal borders are seldom adequately

addressed. For example, in all case study areas land-use planning in neighboring municipalities is

carried out more or less separately, just as land-use and water-use planning were two separated

processes in all of the case study areas.

The second key characteristic of participation has an underlying democratic outlook and seeks to

improve the quality of planning. There are considerable differences within the general drive for

more public participation. On Rügen, citizen protests, alternative planning, and NGO campaigns

have forced planning to become more responsive, while on Hiiumaa, support for greater participa-

tion comes mainly from international actors (such as the UNDP or the Helsinki Commission). The

Hiiumaa Biosphere Reserve Center has been especially interested in developing more community-

based approaches to planning and management. In the Archipelago Sea, by contrast, there have been

no loud calls for public participation. However, the narrow definition of stakeholders on the basis of

ownership or property rights has been criticized.

Cooperation between sectoral agencies and levels of government takes place in institutionalized

ways, both formally and informally. Although conflicts of interests exist between sectoral agencies

194

in all three case study areas, their positions and interests are generally well known. The same cannot

be said of individuals or groups whose objectives are often perceived to be ambiguous or controver-

sial. On Rügen, there was close cooperation in day-to-day management, but on a more strategic level

the methods of cooperation were not as well developed. On Hiiumaa, the flow of information in the

public administration was considered to be poor. In the Archipelago Sea numerous committees exist,

but these have not adopted a coordinating role. There is a biosphere reserve advisory board on Rügen

and in the Archipelago Sea. Although they also lack a coordinating function, they contribute signifi-

cantly to the transfer of information.

No well-established system of monitoring and evaluation exists in the case study areas. Planning

is not normally viewed as an iterative process, and no agreed criteria have been developed for the

success of policies. Studies on public perceptions of the biosphere reserve have been made in all

three case study areas.

Four planning styles characterizing the intensity of public participation and intersectoral cooperation

can be identified. These are routine planning, sector-based participatory planning, social and environ-

mental engineering, and planning as mutual learning. ‘Routine planning’ characterizes the planning

style in which experts of different administrative bodies carry out planning independently without

much communication. Participatory elements may be included in sectoral plans (‘sector-based partici-

patory planning’), but the outcome still remains fragmented and incomprehensible. Broader issues

ranging across sectors and disciplines cannot be systematically discussed, and different bodies of knowl-

edge (ecological, social, and economic) do not meet. ‘Social and environmental engineering’ repre-

sents cases in which administrative bodies cooperate intensively, but where the values and knowledge

of local populations are not considered. No attempt is made to use ordinary language to transmit expert

knowledge to citizens. ‘Planning as mutual learning’ characterizes the ideal condition for communica-

tion so that the activities of different sectors are coordinated, with the goal of regarding participation as

a key element from the start of the planning process (problem formulation).

The ‘dominant mode’ of planning practice in each case study area can be identified in some of

these categories. This is done on the basis of the illustrative examples, perceptions of the interview

partners, and public opinion as recorded in the local media. In no case study area was the ‘planning

as learning’ approach dominant. Planning efforts representing this style were rather the exception,

remaining disjointed from other planning efforts. On Rügen planning practice can be assigned to the

category of ‘social and environmental engineering’. Citizen protests and alternative planning car-

ried out by citizen initiatives indicate that the general perception is that there are too few opportuni-

Summary

195

ties to participate and a general lack of structured forms of public participation. The concept of the

Rügen model region has underscored the effort towards harmonization. In day-to-day management,

cooperation among various administrative bodies is relatively close.

The planning system on Hiiumaa is not yet well elaborated. The dominant planning style can be

characterized as ‘routine planning’. However, efforts like the HDAP 2010 and the management plan

for Käina Bay represent efforts to view ‘planning as mutual learning’. Nevertheless, the general

perception of planning is that it is largely unresponsive. The lingering traditions of the former politi-

cal system have strongly influenced people’s willingness to participate.

Planning practice in the Archipelago Sea can be characterized as ‘sector-based participatory plan-

ning’. Extensive participation is not carried out in all planning processes, but in land-use planning,

for example, intensive consultations did take place. The biosphere reserve administration adopted a

very open approach and research was conducted on public participation. Despite numerous planning

committees, however, the planning system as a whole remains disjointed. Intersectoral cooperation

is mainly carried out on a case-by-case basis.

In making recommendations for the development of planning practice, this study makes a distinc-

tion between two approaches, an ‘incremental reform’, and a ‘programme approach’. When apply-

ing the ‘incremental reform’ approach, cooperation and public participation are improved within the

existing planning system. This may take the form of a joint planning committee or a biosphere

reserve advisory board. The programme approach implies that a coastal management programme is

launched to coordinate various coastal activities. The advantage of the programme approach is that

its implementation can be well structured, follow an agreed time schedule, and potentially benefit

from greater public interest.

Finally, the role of a parallel learning organization is proposed for the biosphere reserves adminis-

trations. In cases where a biosphere reserve administration does not have a strong regulatory role, it

could become an initiator and a mediator of efforts towards improved participation and cooperation.

This has to some extent already been the case in Estonia and in Finland. Also, strengthening the

biosphere reserves advisory boards by adding representatives of different interest groups and agen-

cies would institute better cooperation. The use of qualified moderation could improve the effective-

ness of cooperative planning arrangements. A further step could be to launch a coastal management

programme which would coordinate and make more transparent the numerous sectoral activities.

Widespread public skepticism towards state bureaucracy and ‘all-embracing plans’ makes it im-

portant to identify priority issues and monitor activities. Similar processes aimed at making bu-

196

reaucracies more responsive, like the Local Agenda 21, can serve to launch or become part of an

integrated coastal management effort. In all case study areas, the biosphere reserve administration is

a new actor which by definition has a holistic view to environmental and development problems.

This unique status has so far been lacking in the administrative system.

A Estonian television crew and the director of the Biosphere Reserve Hiiumaa Centrefilming a program about sustainable development («Let’s make a Model out of Wood»).

Photo: Mart Mõniste

Summary

197

Keskkonna- ja regionaalplaneerimine kolmel Läänemere ranniku biosfääri kaitsealal Eestis, Saksas,

Soomes: Elanike osalemise ja valdkondadevahelise koostöö parandamine rannikualade planeerimis-

ja otsusetegemisprotsessis.

Kokkuvõte (Summary in Estonian language)

Rannikualadele terves maailmas avaldab üha rohkem survet inimtegevus oma erinevate

valdkondadega, nende hulgas ehitustegevus, turism, meelelahutus, meretransport, veekultuur ja

tööstus. Valdkondlik planeerimissüsteem pole suutnud adekvaatselt sellele survele vastata. Konflikt

ressursside jaotamise pärast süveneb jätkuvalt.

Biosfääri kaitsealad pakuvad rahvusvahelise raamistu võrdlevale uurimusele ühiskonna ja

keskkonna vaheliste suhete alal. 1997. aastal oli 87 riigis 352 biosfääri kaitseala. Neis paigus on

eesmärgiks testida ja demonstreerida säästlikku ressursikasutust. Üksikjuhu-uurimusteks on välja

valitud kolm rannikul asuvat biosfääri kaitseala Läänemerel. Need on: Lääne-Eesti saared (üks sinna

kuuluvatest, Hiiumaa), Saaristomeri Soomes ja Rügen Saksamaal. Väikeste saarte ja saarestikena

esindavad need kindlat rannikuala tüüpi. Väikesi saari iseloomustab sageli suhteline isoleeritus,

rannikuala suurem osakaal suhtes ja piiratud ressursid. Sotsiaalteadusliku uurimuse jaoks pakub

huvi fakt, et tihti esindavad need vastastikku läbipõimunud sotsiaalset, kultuurilist, ökonoomilist,

geograafilist ja administratiivset üksust.

Käesoleva uurimuse objektiks on planeerimispraktika hetkeanalüüs ja biosfääri kaitseala

administratsiooni rolli hindamine keskkonna- ja arenguplaneerimise vallas. Kolm üksikjuhuna uuritud

piirkonda on kavas muuta säästliku arengu mudelpiirkondadeks. Mudeliks olemine tähendab samas

ka planeerimise ja otsustusprotsessi ümberkujundamist. Käesolevas töös tehakse ka ettepanekuid

planeerimise arendamiseks.

Kõigis kolmes üksikjuhu-uurimuse piirkonnas on olemas biosfäärikaitseala kontor või keskus.

Igaüks neist on omandanud kindla rollid, mille on kujundanud juriidiline raamistu, administratiivne

jaotus ning nii institutsionaalselt heaks kiidetud kui individuaalsed prioriteedid. Avalikkusel on

omakorda kujunenud oma nägemused keskuste rollidest. Rügeni biosfäärikaitseala keskusel on

ametliku looduskaitseasutuse staatus, Hiiumaal aga on kaitsealal rohkem intellektuaalse tugisamba

ja projektide läbiviija maine. Saaristomere biosfäärikaitseala administratsioonil teadusasutuse roll,

ülesannete hulgas on uurimuste koordineerimine. Teatud määrani on see toiminud huvide

kooskõlastajana, eriti turismisektoris.

198

Potentsiaalsete säästliku arengu mudelpiirkondadena ei saa Saaristomere biosfääri kaitseala ja

Rügeni biosfääri kaitseala piire võtta sobivatena. Kuigi piirid peaksid olema paindlikud, on

Saaristomere kolm peamist saart välja jäetud, samuti katab Rügeni biosfääri kaitseala ainult saare

kaguosa. Antud uurimuse eesmärki silmas pidades erineb üksikjuhtumina võetud piirkondade

üldjooneline kirjeldus tegelikust biosfäärikaitseala piiritlusest. Siiski on tähelepanu suunatud

geograafilisele alale, mis on seotud biosfäärikaitseala administratsiooni tegevusega.

Kaks biosfäärikaitseala moodustati keeruliste poliitiliste ja sotsiaalsete muutuse ajal 1980-ndate

lõpus, 1990-ndate alguses. Rügeni biosfääri kaitseala endises Saksa Demokraatlikus Vabariigis ja

Lääne-Eesti saari endises Nõukogude Liidus tuleks käsitleda laiemas perspektiivis, arvestades

ulatuslikku poliitilis- ja administratiivsüsteemi muutust, samuti planeerimistegevust järgnevatel

aastatel. SDV ühines Saksamaa Liitvabariigiga 1990. aastal ja Eesti taastas oma iseseisvuse aastal

1991. Nii dramaatilisi sündmusi Soomes aset ei leidnud, kui ühinemist Euroopa Liiduga 1995. aastal

mitte arvestada.

Sellised kiired ulatuslikud muutused ühiskonnas ohustavad ratsionaalsest planeerimist, kuna

adekvaatne seadusandlus tuleb alles välja arendada, administratiivsed kohustused peavad selginema

ja sotsiaal-majanduslik kindlus peab teatud määrani välja kujunema. Teisalt võib sellist olukorda

vaadelda kui võimalust tutvustada innovaatilist planeerimiskorraldust. Euroopas on tehtud mitmeid

katseid tutvustada uut, suurema integreeritusega juhtimiskorraldust rannikualadel. Ka käesoleva

uurimuse üksikjuhu-uurimuse piirkondades on läbi viidud mõned sellekohased pilootprojektid. Siiski

on käesoleva uurimuse analüüsitavaks teemaks „normaalne“ keskkonna- ja

arenguplaneerimispraktika.

„Integreeritud rannikuala juhtimine“ (ICM – Integrated coastal management) on suhteliselt uus

juhtimiskäsitlus, mis tegeleb mitmete kesksete probleemidega, mis on tingitud erinevate ametiasutuste

ülespetsialiseerumisest ja vastandumisest. See propageerib ka teadusliku mõtte kasutamist erinevates

valdkondades, eesmärgiks maismaa ja veepiirkondade planeerimise juhtimine ja integratsioon. Kuigi

ICM-il on mitmeid erinevaid definitsioone, võib seda siiski käsitleda kui ühte juhtimise viisi. Hiljuti

andis Agenda 21 tegevusplaan ICM-ile suurema mõjujõu. Kuna ICM-il puudub kindel teoreetiline

baas ja ühtne sõnavara on selle areng olnud omamoodi pärsitud.

Käesolevas uurimuses on välja töötatud „hea rannikuplaneerimise praktika“ põhiomadused, viidates

konkreetsele kirjandusele „integreeritud rannikuala juhtimise“ (ICM) vallas. Seda toetab juba

olemasolev planeerimisalane kirjandus. Kui ICM-alane kirjandus rõhutab ka avalikkuse osalemist

juhtimises, siis kriitiline planeerimisteooria asetab pearõhu just planeerimise demokraatlikule

Summary

199

aspektile. Avalikkuse osalemine ei ole ainult selleks, et parandada planeerimise kvaliteeti või

planeerimisprotsessi kiirust, vaid selleks, et muuta otsustamissüsteem tervikuna läbipaistvaks ja

selgepiiriliseks. Planeerijal võib olla aktiivne roll toetamaks nõrku või mitteorganiseerunud

huvigruppe. Selles mõttes muutub planeerimine kommunikatiivseks, kaasahaaravaks tegevuseks.

„Hea rannikuplaneerimise praktika“ põhiomadused on: laiahaardelisus, osalus, koostöö ja tagasiside.

Laiahaardelisus märgib vee- ja maismaa-ala ühisplaneerimist. Planeeritav ala peaks lähtuma pigem

looduslikest kui administratiivsetest piiridest. Lisaks sellele peaks tegevusplaane ja programme

iseloomustama laiem haare kui valdkondlikus planeerimises seni kombeks olnud. Osalus märgib

võimalust kõigil osapooltel juba varases staadiumis probleemide formuleerimisel oma sõna sekka öelda,

lahendus-strateegiate üle otsustada ja alternatiive valida. Elanikel ja huvigruppidel peaks olema

konkreetne ligipääsukanal ametkondadele. Koostöö märgib erinevate sektorite juhtimisüksuste ja

valitsustasemete kommunikatsiooni ja nende tegevuse ühtlustamist. Juhtimisgruppide vahelise koostöö,

samuti osaluse jaoks on oluline, et ekspert-teadmised on muudetud arusaadavaks ka mitte-ekspertidele

ja teiste valdkondade ekspertidele. Ja lõpuks tagasiside, mis märgib planeerimise kui protsessi pidevuse

olulisuse mõistmist. Tegevusplaanid ja programmid peaksid olema regulaarse monitooringu ja hindamise

teemaks, et saavutada pidevalt arenev protsess. Üheks hindamise faktoriks peaks olema koosplaneerimise

korraldamise järjepidevus ja protsessi erapooletus. Ülalnimetatud kriteeriumid on tingimata vajalikud

keskkonna- ja arenguplaneerimise põhjapanevaks ja säästlikuks arenguks.

Väitekirjas on iga üksikjuhu-uurimuse piirkonna planeerimistegevust analüüsitud, toetudes

ülalnimetatud kriteeriumitele. Detailselt on analüüsitud illustreerivaid näiteid regionaalse strateegilise

arenguplaneerimise, valdkondliku planeerimise (metsandus), maakasutuse planeerimise, veekasutuse

planeerimise, ranniku ökosüsteemi juhtimise ja biosfääri kaitsealaga seotud tegevuse vallas.

Uurimusmaterjalina oli kasutusel ligi 30 struktureeritud intervjuud, mis on viidud läbi võtmeisikutega

üksikjuhu-uurimuse piirkonnas, samuti ajaleheartiklid, planeerimisdokumentatsioon ja teised kohased

kirjutised.

Esimene illustreerivatest näidetest käsitleb Rügeni strateegilist regionaalplaneerimist. Pärast 1990.

aastat valmistati ette arvukalt strateegilisel tasemel valdkondlikke plaane. Nende eesmärgiks oli

sulatada need piirkondlikku arenguplaani. Plaanide ettevalmistamisel ei täheldatud laiemat avalikkuse

osalust, mistõttu kulmineerus juba polariseerunud keskkonna- ja arengudiskussioon maastiku

kaitsealade moodustamise teema ümber. Kohalikus meedias leidis aset tõsine avalik debatt ning

konflikti arenedes korraldati mitmeid avalikke arutelusid omavalitsuse korraldusel. Diskussioonis

osalenute meelest ei saavutatud koosolekute abil üksmeelt saare arengukavade üle. Piirkondlikku

200

arenguplaani ei viidud lõpule, selle asemel hakkas biosfääri kaitseala juhtkond ja omavalitsus rohkem

huvi tundma konkreetsete projektide ja juhtumite täitmisele orienteeritud läbirääkimiste vastu.

Teine illustreerivatest näidetest tegeleb samuti strateegilisel tasemel planeerimisega. Hiiumaa

arengukava 2010 (HDAP – Hiiumaa Development Action Plan) üritas toetada „koordineeritud

demokraatlikku arenguprotsessi Hiiumaal“. Protsess, mis oli üles ehitatud saareelaniku

kodanikuaktiivsusele, teatud määral toetudes ka olemasolevatele sotsiaalsetele struktuuridele nagu

näiteks Haridusselts ja Külaliikumine. Loodi mitmeid temaatilisi töörühmi, mis keskendusid turismile,

infotehnoloogiale ja haridusele. Need töörühmad töötasid paralleelselt kohalike töörühmadega

omavalitsustes ja külades. Tegelikkuses osales protsessis väike hulk aktiivseid inimesi. Üldsus oli

skeptiline selle suhtes, kuidas ÜRO arenguprogrammi (UNDP – United Nations Development Pro-

gramme) rahalist toetust tegelikkuses kasutati.

Metsanduse planeerimine võeti valdkondliku planeerimise näiteks. Rügenil ja Hiiumaal tegid

metsanduse administratsioon ja biosfääri kaitseala administratsioon tihedat koostööd, nii et paljudel

juhtudel saavutati kokkulepe metsaressursi kasutamise ja kaitse valdkonnas. Vastupidiselt teistele

sektoritele, nagu ehitustegevus ja transport, oli konflikte suhteliselt vähe. Rügeni biosfääri kaitseala

juhtkond oli valinud metsanduse keskseks valdkonnaks, kus kohalike ressursside säästlik kasutamine

kohalikeks vajadusteks ja tööhõiveks ilmneb eeskujulikul moel. Saaristomere biosfääri kaitseala

juhtkonnal aga polnud metsandussektor erilise tähelepanu all.

Kohaliku taseme maakasutuse planeerimine viiakse läbi kohalike omavalitsuste poolt ning seda

reguleeritakse riikliku ehitamis- ja planeerimisseadusega. Ehitustegevus on üks kõige

vastuolulisemaid ranniku ressursikasutuse teemasid. Juurdlus on algatatud kahe maakasutuse konflikti

üle Rügenil ja Hiiumaal, kuhu oli kaasatud biosfääri kaitseala administratsioon. Rügenil on

maakasutuse planeerimine kõige vastuolulisem poliitiline teema, mis on põhjustanud tõsiseid konflikte

biosfääri kaitseala ja omavalitsuse vahel. Saaristomere üldplaneeringu koostamise protsess tuuakse

esile kui intensiivse konsultatsiooni ja maaomanike kaasahaaramise näide.

Veekasutuse planeerimine hõlmab erinevaid teemasid alates vee kvaliteedikontrollist kuni

liivakaevanduste ja laevateedeni. Kalakasvatamine Rügenil on väga õrn teema, samuti Saaristomerel,

kus see on kohalikele elanikele oluline sissetulekuallikas. Olulise supluskoha lähedale planeeritud

kalakasvanduse vastu Prora lahes olid nii konservatiivid kui ka turismisektor. Vastuseks sellele

protestile langetati otsus kalakasvandus keelustada. Saaristomerel oli kalakasvatus arutlusel seoses

jätkuva rannikuvete eutrofitseerumise probleemiga. Mõlemal juhul langetati keelustav otsus küllalt

sõltumatult maakasutusest ja teistest planeerimisotsustest.

Summary

201

Üksikjuhu-uuringu piirkondades valmistati ette ainult üks vastavasisuline „rannikuala integreeritud

juhtimisplaan“ (integrated coastal zone management plan). See oli Käina lahe jaoks Hiiumaal, mis

on suhteliselt väike ja laialdaselt kasutatav estuaar. Plaanis käsitleti nii maa- kui veekasutusteemat,

aluseks konsultatsioonid erinevate huvigruppidega ja valik loodusteaduslikku ja sotsiaalset

andmestikku kõnesolevast piirkonnast.

„Sevilla strateegia“ biosfääri kaitsealadele soovitab konsultatiivse infovõrgu loomist igale biosfääri

kaitsealale. Biosfääri kaitsealadel Saaristomerel ja Rügenil moodustati selleks nõuandvad kogud.

Rügenil raskendas protsessi tõsine konflikt omavalitsusega maakasutuse osas. Omavalitsuse juhid

esitasid mitmeid nõudmisi, kaasa arvatud valitsusväliste organisatsioonide (NGO-de) väljajätmist.

Saaristomerel peetakse nõustavat kogu jäigaks ja bürokraatlikuks, kuid see on siiski oluline

suhtlemislüli biosfääri kaitseala administratsiooni, riiklike struktuuride ja omavalitsuse vahel. Ühelgi

neist juhtudest pole nõuandval kogul koordineerivat funktsiooni keskkonna- ja arenguplaneerimises.

Hiiumaal vastavat ametlikku konsultatiivset infovõrku pole.

Tuginedes uuritud illustreerivatele näidetele on võrreldud planeerimist „hea rannikuplaneerimise

praktika“ ideaalmudeliga. Pidades silmas esimest võtmeomadust, laiahaardelisust, oli ilmne, et

valdkonnad, mis ulatuvad kaugemale kohaliku omavalitsuse piiridest on harva adekvaatse

suunitlusega. Näiteks on kõigi uuritavate üksikjuhtumite alal maakasutuse planeerimine

naabermaakondades rohkem või vähem eraldiseisev, nagu ka maa- ja veekasutuse planeerimine, mis

olid kõigis piirkondades üksteisest lahus seisvad protsessid.

Teisel võtmeomadusel, osalusel, on demokraatiale kalduv maine ja soov parandada planeerimise

kvaliteeti. Püüdluses suurendada avalikkuse osalust on arvestatavaid erinevusi. Rügenil on kodanike

protest, alternatiivne planeerimismehhanism ja NGO kampaaniad sundinud planeerimist vastavalt

muutma, samal ajal kui Hiiumaal tuleb nõudmine suurema rahvaosaluse järele põhiliselt

rahvusvahelistelt teguritelt (näiteks UNDP või Helsingi Komisjon). Hiiumaa biosfääri kaitseala keskus

on üles näidanud eriti suurt huvi arendada kogukonna-algatuslikke suundumusi planeerimises ja

juhtimises. Saaristomerel aga pole avalikkuse osalust valjuhäälselt propageeritud, kuigi on

kritiseeritud maaomandusest ja omandiõigusest lähtuvate huvigruppide kitsapiirilist käsitlust.

Koostöö sektoraalsete ametkondade ja valitsustasemete vahel leiab aset institutsionaliseeritud moel,

nii formaalsel kui mitteformaalsel alusel. Kuigi sektoraalsete ametkondade vahel eksisteerivad huvide

konfliktid kõigis kolmes üksikjuhu-uuringu piirkonnas, on nende positsioonid ja huvid üldiselt teada.

Sama ei saa öelda üksikisikute või gruppide kohta, kelle seisukohad on tihti ambivalentsed või

vastuolulised. Rügenil tehti tihedat koostööd igapäevases juhtimises, kuid kõrgemal strateegilisel

202

tasemel polnud koostöömeetodid välja kujunenud. Hiiumaal oli infovoog ametiasutuste vahel kesine.

Saaristomerel eksisteerisid mitmed komiteed, kuid neile pole omistatud koordineerivat rolli. Rügenil

ja Saaristomerel on biosfääri kaitseala nõuandev kogu. Kuigi neilgi puudub koordineeriv funktsioon,

annavad nad tubli panuse infovahetusse.

Üheski üksikjuhu-uuringu piirkonnas pole väljakujunenud monitooringu- ja hindamissüsteemi.

Planeerimist ei nähta tavaliselt pideva protsessina ja üldiselt heaks kiidetud kriteeriume valitud

tegutsemisviisi edu kindlustamiseks pole välja kujunenud. Kõigis kolmes uurimispiirkonnas viidi

läbi uurimused avalikust arvamusest biosfääri kaitseala suhtes.

Eristada saab nelja planeerimisstiili, mida iseloomustab avalikkuse osaluse intensiivsus ja erinevate

sektorite vaheline koostöö. Need neli on: rutiinne planeerimine, valdkondlik osalev planeerimine,

ühiskondlik ja keskkondlik korraldus ning vastastikusel õppimisel põhinev planeerimine. Rutiinne

planeerimine iseloomustab planeerimisviisi, kus erinevate administratsiooniüksuste eksperdid

koostavad plaane ilma omavahelise koostööta. Osalevad elemendid võivad olla kaasa haaratud

sektoraalsetes plaanides (‘sector-based participatory planning’), aga tulemus on siiski fragmentaarne

ja arusaamatu. Laiemaid teemasid, mis ulatuvad üle erinevate sektorite ja distsipliinide piiride, ei

saa süstemaatiliselt arutleda ja erinevad teadmistepagasid (ökoloogiline, sotsiaalne ja ökonoomiline)

omavahel kokku ei puutu. Ühiskondlik ja keskkondlik korraldus esindab juhtumeid, kus

administratiivsed üksused omavahel aktiivselt suhtlevad, aga kohaliku elanikkonna väärtushinnanguid

ja teadmisi ei arvestata. Ei tehta katsetki kasutada tavalist keelepruuki, et ekspertteadmised

tavainimeseni jõuaks. Vastastikusel õppimisel põhinev planeerimine iseloomustab ideaalset

infovahetuse olukorda, kus erinevate sektorite tegevust koordineeritakse ja eesmärgiks on osaluse

kui võtmeelemendiga arvestamine planeerimisprotsessi algusest peale (alates probleemide

formuleerimisest).

Kõikides üksikjuhu piirkondades võib leida „valdavale planeerimisviisile“ kohase vaste ühest neist

planeerimise kategooriatest. See on läbi viidud tuginedes illustreerivatele näidetele,

intervjuupartnerite ettekujutusele ja kohalikus meedias avaldatud avalikule arvamusele. Üheski

üksikjuhu piirkonnas polnud „planeerimine kui õppimine“ domineeriv lähenemisviis. Sellelaadsed

pingutused olid pigem erandiks, jäädes teistest planeerimispüüdlustest kõrvale. Rügeni

planeerimispraktikat võib liigitada „sotsiaalse ja keskkondliku korralduse“ kategooriasse. Kodanike

meeleavaldused ja kodanikualgatuslik alternatiivne planeerimine viitab arusaamale, et osalemiseks

on liiga vähe võimalusi ning puuduvad struktuursed vormid avalikkuse osalemiseks. Rügeni

mudelpiirkonna kontseptsioon rõhutab püüdlust harmoniseerimise poole. Igapäevases juhtimises

Summary

203

on koostöö erinevate administratiivsete üksuste vahel piisavalt tihe.

Hiiumaa planeerimissüsteem pole veel lõpuni välja töötatud. Valdavat planeerimisviisi võib

käsitleda kui „rutiinset planeerimist“. Hiiumaa 2010 ja Käina lahe juhtimisplaan esindavad püüdlusi

„planeerimise kui vastastikuse õppimise“ suunas. Üldiselt on planeerimine siiski nõuetele mittevastav.

Endine poliitiline kultuur on jätnud tugeva mõju inimeste osalemissoovile.

Planeerimispraktikat Saaristomerel võib iseloomustada kui „sektoraalset osalusplaneerimist“.

Ulatuslik osalemine ei leia aset kogu planeerimisprotsessi ulatuses, kuid näiteks maakasutuse

planeerimises toimusid intensiivsed konsultatsioonid. Biosfääri kaitseala juhtkond võttis omaks väga

avatud lähenemise ja läbi viidi uurimus avalikkuse osalemisest. Hoolimata arvukatest

planeerimiskomiteedest ei moodusta planeerimissüsteem tervikut. Sektorite vaheline koostöö leiab

aset põhiliselt üksikjuhtumite baasil.

Pakkudes välja soovitusi arenguplaneerimises teeb käesolev uurimus vahet kahel lähenemisel:

„kasvaval reformil“ ja „ programmilisel lähenemisel“. Kui kasutada esimest lähenemisviisi paraneb

koostöö ja avalikkuse osalus eksisteeriva planeerimissüsteemi raames. See võib võtta

ühisplaneerimiskomitee või biosfääri kaitseala nõuandva kogu vormi. Programmiline lähenemine

tähendab ranniku juhtimisprogrammi loomist, mis koordineeriks erinevaid tegevusi. Programmilise

lähenemise eeliseks on täideviimise hea struktureeritus, ajakavast kinnipidamine ja võimalik kasu

avalikkuse suuremast huvist.

Lõpuks soovitatakse biosfääri kaitseala juhtkonnale paralleelse õppiva organisatsiooni rolli.

Juhtudel, kui biosfääri kaitseala administratsioonil puudub tugev regulatiivne roll, võib ta muutuda

algatajaks ja vahendajaks, püüdlemaks suurema osalusmäära ja koostöö tihendamise poole. Mõningal

määral kehtib see Eesti ja Soome juhtumite kohta. Samuti saavutataks parem koostöö, kaasates

biosfääri kaitseala nõuandva kogu tegevusse erinevate huvigruppide ja üksuste esindajaid.

Professionaalse koordinaatori kasutamine aitaks parandada koostööle suunava planeerimiskorralduse

tõhusust. Edasine samm võiks olla rannikuala juhtimisprogrammi käivitamine, mis koordineeriks ja

muudaks erinevad sektoraalsed tegevused läbipaistvamaks.

Üldlevinud avalikkuse skeptitsism riikliku bürokraatia ja „kõikehaaravate plaanide“ suhtes muudab

oluliseks prioriteetide paikapanemise ja tegevuse monitooringu. Sarnased protsessid, mille eesmärgiks

on bürokraatia tõhusamaks muutmine, nagu näiteks kohalik Agenda 21, saavad aidata käivitada või

olla ise osaks integreeritud rannikuala juhtimisest. Kõigis üksikjuhu piirkondades on biosfääri

kaitseala administratsioon uus faktor, millel definitsiooni järgi on holistlik lähenemine keskkonna

ja arenguprobleemidele. Selline unikaalne staatus on varem administratiivsest süsteemist puudunud.

204

Ympäristö- ja alueellisen kehityksen suunnittelu kolmella Itämeren rannikon biosfäärialueella

Virossa, Suomessa ja Saksassa: Viranomaisyhteistyön ja kansalaisten osallistumisen parantaminen

rannikkoalueiden suunnittelussa ja päätöksenteossa.

Yhteenveto (Summary in Finnish language)

Rannikkoalueet ympäri maailmaa ovat alttiina ympäristön muutoksille, jotka ovat seurausta mo-

nista ihmisten toiminnoista, kuten rakentamisesta, turismista, merenkulusta, kalankasvatuksesta ja

teollisuudesta. Sektoroitunut suunnittelujärjestelmä ei ole voinut vastata näihin muutospaineisiin

toivotulla tavalla. Rannikoiden luonnonvarojen käyttöön liittyvät konfliktit ovat siten kasvamassa.

Biosfäärialueet tarjoavat kansainvälisen kehyksen vertailevalle yhteiskunnalliselle ympäristö-

tutkimukselle. Biosfäärialueita oli lokakuuhun 1997 mennessä perustettu yhteensä 352, kaikkiaan

87 valtiossa. Näillä alueilla on tarkoitus kehittää ja demonstroida kestävän luonnonvarojen käytön

malleja. Tapaustutkimuskohteiksi on tässä tutkimuksessa valittu kolme Itämeren rannikon

biosfäärialuetta: Länsi-Viron Saaristo (yksi sen saarista, Hiidenmaa), Saaristomeri Suomessa ja

Rügenin saari Saksassa. Saaret ja saaristot edustavat erityistä rannikkoalueiden muotoa. Pienten

saarten erityispiirteitä ovat usein eristyneisyys, resurssien rajallisuus ja rannikon pituus suhteessa

maa-alaan. Yhteiskuntatieteellisen ympäristötutkimuksen näkökulmasta saaret tekee erityisen

mielenkiintoisiksi se, että ne usein muodostavat yhtenäisen sosiaalisen, kulttuurisen, taloudellisen,

maantieteellisen ja hallinnollisen yksikön.

Tutkimuksen tavoitteena on analysoida ympäristö- ja alueellisen kehittämisen suunnittelua sekä

biosfäärialueiden hallinnon roolia siinä. Tapaustutkimusalueiksi valituilla saarilla on tavoitteena tulla

kestävän kehityksen mallialueiksi. Tämä merkitsee haastetta koko suunnittelu- ja päätöksenteko-

järjestelmälle. Tutkimuksessa tehdään suosituksia suunnittelukäytäntöjen kehittämiseksi.

Kaikilla kolmella tapaustutkimusalueella on biosfäärialuekeskus, joilla kullakin on erityinen roo-

li riippuen lainsäädännöstä, hallintojärjestelmästä sekä sovituista ja henkilökohtaisista kiinnostuk-

sen kohteista. Jotkut roolit ovat julkisuudessa voimakkaammin esillä kuin toiset. Rügenin

biosfäärialuekeskus on selkeä viranomaistaho (luonnonsuojelusta vastaava yksikkö), kun taas vas-

taava keskus Hiidenmaalla on uusien ideoiden ja projektien kehittäjä. Saaristomeren

biosfäärialuekeskus etsii vielä rooliaan ja se mm. osaltaan koordinoi alueella tehtävää tutkimusta.

Saaristomeren ja Rügenin biosfäärialueiden rajat eivät vastaa niille asetetun kestävän kehityksen

mallialueen haasteeseen. Vaikka rajat ovat biosfääritoiminnan näkökulmasta joustavat, ei kahden

Summary

205

kunnan, Nauvon ja Korppoon pääsaarien poissulkeminen ole mielekäs rajaus. Vastaavasti Rügenin

biosfäärialue kattaa vain saaren kaakkois-osan. Tässä tutkimuksessa tapaustutkimuskohteiden raja-

us poikkeaa siten jonkin verran varsinaisten biosfäärialueiden rajoista. Rajaus vastaa kuitenkin maan-

tieteellisesti aluetta, jossa biosfäärialueen hallinto on aktiivinen toimija.

Kaksi biosfäärialueista perustettiin suurten poliittisten ja yhteiskunnallisten muutosten aikana 80-

luvun lopussa ja 90-luvun alussa. Rügenin biosfäärialueen perustaminen entisessä DDR:ssä ja Län-

si-Viron saariston biosfäärialueen perustaminen entisessä Neuvostoliitossa, sekä suunnittelu tätä

seuraavina vuosina on nähtävä laajemmassa kontekstissa, jota leimaa poliittisen ja hallinnollisen

järjestelmän perusteellinen muutos. DDR ja Saksan Liittotasavalta yhdistyivät 1990 ja Viro sai itse-

näisyyden takaisin 1991. Suomessa ei tapahtunut yhtä dramaattisia muutoksia, joskin Suomi liittyi

Euroopan Unioniin 1995.

Yllämainittujen suurten ja nopeiden yhteiskunnallisten muutosten voidaan katsoa vaikeuttavan

rationaalista suunnittelua, koska lainsäädäntö on kehitettävä, viranomaisten vastuualueet selvitettä-

vä ja taloudellinen perusta varmistettava. Toisaalta tällainen tilanne voidaan nähdä mahdollisuutena

innovatiivisten suunnittelukäytäntöjen kehittämiselle. Euroopassa on tehty eräitä yrityksiä yhtenäi-

sen rannikkoalueiden suunnittelun edistämiseksi. Pilottiprojekteja on tehty myös yllämainituilla

tapaustutkimusalueilla. Tutkimuksen kohteena on ensisijaisesti kuitenkin ‘normaali’ ympäristön ja

alueellisen kehittämisen suunnittelukäytäntö.

‘Rannikoiden yhtenäinen suunnittelu’ (englanniksi: integrated coastal management, ICM) on ver-

raten uusi suunnitteluote. Se kiinnittää huomiota moniin perinteisen suunnittelun ongelmiin, jotka

johtuvat sektoroituneista, keskenään kilpailevista ja usein päällekkäisistä viranomaisten vastuu-

alueista. Se painottaa myös eri tieteenalojen tuottaman tutkimustiedon käyttöä maa- ja vesialueiden

suunnittelussa. Vaikka rannikoiden yhtenäisen suunnittelun käsitteestä on monta eri määritelmää,

voidaan sitä silti pitää omana suunnitteluotteenaan. Erityisesti Agenda 21 on viime vuosina tuonut

käsitteen yleiseen tietoisuuteen. Rannikoiden yhtenäisen suunnittelun kehitystä on kuitenkin vai-

keuttanut yhteisen teoreettisen pohjan ja sanaston puuttuminen.

Tässä tutkimuksessa on ‘rannikkoiden yhtenäisen suunnittelun’ käsitteen pohjalta luotu joukko

avainkriteereitä rannikoiden hyvälle suunnittelulle. Kriteerit on luotu tarkastelemalla rannikoiden

yhtenäisen suunnittelun periaatteita eri suunnitteluteorioiden näkökulmasta. ICM koskevassa kir-

jallisuudessa painotetaan usein kansalaisten osallistumisen merkitystä, mutta kriittinen suunnittelu-

teoria painottaa erityisesti osallistumista osana demokraattisen päätöksenteon kehittämistä. Kansa-

laisten osallistumisen tavoitteena ei ole vain suunnittelun laadun parantaminen tai sen nopeuttami-

206

nen vaan koko päätöksentekojärjestelmän kehittäminen avoimemmaksi ja vastuullisemmaksi.

Suunnittelijalla voi olla aktiivinen rooli heikkojen tai organisoitumattomien ryhmien tukemisessa.

Suunnittelun tulee olla luonteeltaan vuorovaikutteista.

Hyvän rannikkoalueiden suunnittelun kriteerit ovat: kattavuus, osallistuminen,

viranomaisyhteistyö ja palaute. Kattavuus merkitsee maa- ja vesialueiden yhteissuunnittelua.

Suunnittelualueen tulee vastata luonnonrajoja hallinnollisten rajojen sijaan. Lisäksi suunnitelmi-

en tulee olla sisällöltään kattavampia kuin yleisesti sektorisuunnittelussa. Osallistuminen viittaa

kansalaisten mahdollisuuksiin osallistua ongelmien määrittelyyn, niiden ratkaisustrategioiden sekä

vaihtoehtojen valintaan jo aikaisessa vaiheessa. Kansalaisilla ja eri ryhmillä tulee myös olla sel-

keät kanavat tiedon ja mielipiteiden vaihtamiseen viranomaisten kanssa. Viranomaisyhteistyö

puolestaan merkitsee yhteistyötä sekä eri sektoreiden että myös eri hallinnon tasojen välillä. Tär-

keää sekä osallistumiselle että viranomaisyhteistyölle on käytetyn kielen ymmärrettävyys niin

maallikoille kuin muiden alojen erityisasiantuntijoille. Neljäs kriteeri, palaute, merkitsee suun-

nittelun ymmärtämistä iteratiivisena prosessina. Suunnitelmia ja kehittämisohjelmia tulee

jaksottain arvioida tavoitteena prosessien asteittainen parantaminen. Arvioinnin kohteena tulee

olla ennenkaikkea vuorovaikutteisen suunnittelun jatkuvuus ja prosessien reiluus. Yllä mainittu-

ja kriteereitä voidaan pitää edellytyksinä sisällöllisen ja jatkuvan ympäristöä ja kehitystä koske-

van suunnittelun yhdentämiseksi.

Kunkin tapaustutkimusalueen suunnitteluprosesseja analysoidaan käyttäen apuna yllämainittuja

kriteereitä. Esimerkinomaisesti analysoidaan seuraavia suunnitteluprosesseja: strateginen alue-

kehityksen suunnittelu, metsäsuunnittelu, maankäytön suunnittelu, vesien käytön suunnittelu,

rannikkoekosysteemien hoidon suunnittelu sekä biosfäärialueihin liittyvä suunnittelu. Tutkimus-

materiaali koostuu kullakin tapaustutkimusalueella tehdyistä noin 30 avainhenkilön haastattelusta

sekä sanomalehtiartikkeleista, suunnitteludokumenteista ja muusta kirjallisesta materiaalista.

Ensimmäisessä esimerkissä käsitellään strategista aluesuunnittelua Rügenin saarella. Vuoden 1990

jälkeen tehtiin Rügenillä monta strategisen tason sektorikohtaista suunnitelmaa. Tavoitteena oli yh-

distää nämä Rügenin kehityssuunnitelmaksi (Kreisentwicklungsplan). Suunnitelmien valmistelussa

ei tehty laajaa kansalaisten osallistumista. Keskustelu saaren ympäristö- ja kehityskysymyksistä oli

jo ennestään hyvin polarisoitunutta. Se kulminoitui lopulta kysymykseen uusien maisema-

suojelualueiden perustamisesta. Paikallismedioissa käytiin asian tiimoilta kiivasta keskustelua ja

viranomaisten taholta järjestettiin suuria yleisötilaisuuksia, kuitenkin vasta konfliktin jo kärjistyttyä.

Keskusteluun osallistuneiden mielestä tämä ei johtanut yhteisen näkemyksen löytymiseen saaren

Summary

207

kehittämissuunnasta — pikemminkin päinvastoin. Rügenin kehityssuunnitelmaa ei koskaan viety

loppuun asti, vaan aluehallinnon viranomaiset ja biosfäärialuekeskus siirtyivät projekti- ja

asiakohtaisiin neuvotteluihin eri tahojen kanssa.

Toinen esimerkki käsittelee myös strategisen tason suunnittelua. Hiidenmaan kehittämissuunnitelman

(Hiiumaa Development Action Plan 2010) tavoitteena oli «koordinoitu demokraattinen aluekehitys

Hiidenmaalla». Suunnittelussa olivat keskeisellä sijalla saaren «aktiiviset kansalaiset» ja jossain mää-

rin tukeuduttiin myös olemassaoleviin yhdistyksiin, kuten sivistysseura (Haridusselts) ja kyläliike.

Temaattisia työryhmiä perustettiin aiheiden, kuten matkailu, informaatiotekniikka ja opetus

käsittelemiseksi. Nämä työskentelivät rinnakkain kuntien ja kylien paikallistyöryhmien kanssa. Käy-

tännössä vain pieni joukko aktiivisia henkilöitä otti osaa prosessiin. Hiidenmaan asukkaat olivat skeptisiä

Yhdistyneiden kansakuntien kehitysohjelman (UNDP) myöntämien varojen käytöstä.

Kolmas esimerkki, metsäsuunnittelu edustaa sektorikohtaista suunnittelua. Rügenillä ja

Hiidenmaalla metsäviranomaiset ja biosfäärialueen hallinto toimivat tiiviissä yhteistyössä, ja useim-

missa tapauksissa löytyi yhteisymmärrys metsien käytöstä ja suojelusta. Verrattuna muihin sektoreihin

kuten rakentamiseen tai liikenteeseen konfliktit olivat näillä tapaustutkimusalueilla verraten pieniä.

Rügenillä biosfäärialueen hallinto on valinnut metsätalouden keskeisiksi talouden sektoriksi, jonka

on tarkoitus demonstroida paikallisten luonnonresurssien kestävää käyttöä. Saaristomeren

biosfäärialueella metsätalous ei sen sijaan ollut erityisen kiinnostuksen kohteena.

Maankäytön suunnittelu paikallistasolla on kuntien vastuulla ja sitä ohjaa kansallinen rakennus-

lainsäädäntö. Rakentaminen on yksi kiistellyimpiä teemoja rannikoiden käytössä. Esimerkinomaisesti

on valittu kaksi rantarakentamiseen liittyvää konfliktia, yksi Rügenin ja yksi Hiidenmaan saarella.

Molemmissa tapauksissa biosfäärialueen hallinto oli tavalla tai toisella osallisena. Rügenillä raken-

taminen on kiivaiten käsitelty poliittinen kysymys ja se on aiheuttanut suuria konflikteja

biosfäärialueen hallinnon ja kuntien välillä. Hiidenmaalla rakentamiseen liittyvien konfliktien kat-

sotaan vasta olevan tulossa, kunhan maanomistuskysymykset on selvitetty. Rantaosayleis-

kaavoitukseen Saaristomerellä viitataan esimerkkinä intensiivisestä konsultoinnista ja osallistumi-

sesta paikallisten asukkaiden kanssa.

Vesien käytön suunnittelun piiriin kuuluvat esimerkiksi veden laatu, hiekannosto merenpohjasta

ja laivaväylät. Kalanviljely on ollut erityisen herkkä aihe Rügenillä, kuten myös Saaristomerellä,

jossa sillä on elinkeinona suurta merkitystä alueen asukkaille. Suunnitteilla olevaa kalan-

kasvatuslaitosta Proran lahdella Rügenillä vastustivat niin luonnonsuojelun kuin matkailunkin edus-

tajat. Protestien seurauksena laitoksen perustaminen lopulta kiellettiin. Saaristomerellä kalankasvatus

208

on jo kauan ollut esillä vesien rehevöitymiskeskustelun yhteydessä. Kummassakin tapauksessa lupa-

käytäntö oli erillään maankäytön- ja muusta suunnittelusta.

Tapaustutkimusalueilla tehdyistä suunnitelmista vain yksi oli erityisesti nimetty «rannikoiden

yhtenäiseksi suunnitteluksi». Tämä oli Hiidenmaalla Käina lahdelle tehty hoito- ja käyttösuunnitel-

ma. Suunnittelualue on verraten pieni, eikä sillä ole suuria käyttöpaineita. Sekä maa- että vesialueet

kuuluivat suunnitelman piiriin ja se tehtiin tiiviissä yhteistyössä alueen eri toimijoiden kanssa. Tut-

kimustiedon koordinointi lahden luonnonoloista sekä sosio-ekonomisesta tilasta oli osa suunnitel-

man tekoa. Käina lahdelle tehty hoito- ja käyttösuunnitelma voidaan nähdä pilottihankkeena, jonka

pohjalta voidaan aloittaa vastaavanlainen suunnittelu laajemmalla alueella.

Biosfäärialueiden verkoston kehitystä viitoittava «Sevilla strategia» suosittaa, että kullakin

biosfäärialueella perustetaan toimintaa ohjaava yhteistyöelin. Tälläinen toimikunta on perustettu

Saaristomeren ja Rügenin biosfäärialueilla. Rügenillä maankäytön suunnittelua koskevat konfliktit

tekivät toimikunnan perustamisen vaikeaksi. Kunnanjohtajat vaativat esim. kansalaisjärjestöjen

poissulkemista toimikunnasta. Saaristomerellä toimikuntaa pidetään epäjoustavana ja byrokraatti-

sena, mutta sillä on silti tärkeä merkitys biosfäärialueen hallinnon, valtion viranomaisten ja kuntien

välisessä kommunikaatiossa. Kummassakaan tapauksessa toimikunnalla ei ole koordinoivaa roolia

ympäristö- ja kehityssuunnittelussa. Vastaavaa yhteistyöelintä ei ole Hiidenmaalla.

Yllä lyhyesti kuvattujen esimerkkien valossa verrataan suunnittelukäytäntöjä rannikoiden suun-

nittelun ideaalimalliin. Ensimmäisen kriteerin, kattavuuden valossa kävi ilmi että kuntien suunnit-

telu tehdään pääsääntöisesti erillään naapurikuntien suunnittelusta. Myös maa- ja vesialueiden suun-

nittelu on erillistä.

Toisen avainkriteerin, kansalaisten osallistumisen tavoite on kehittää demokraattista päätöksente-

koa ja parantaa suunnittelun laatua. Vaatimukset kansalaisten osallistumismahdollisuuksien paran-

tamiseksi ovat eri tapaustutkimusalueilla tulleet eri tahoilta. Rügenillä kansalaisten protestit,

vaihtoehtosuunnittelu ja kansalaisjärjestöjen kampanjat ovat pakottaneet viranomaiset

vuorovaikutteisempaan suunnitteluun. Sen sijaan Hiidenmaalla kansainväliset toimijat kuten UNDP

tai Helsingin komissio ovat tukeneet ja edistäneet parempaa kansalaisten osallistumista suunnitte-

lussa. Myös Hiidenmaan biosfäärialuekeskus on ollut erityisen kiinnostunut kehittämään

osallistumismahdollisuuksia paikallistasolla. Sen sijaan Saaristomerellä ei ole kuuluvasti vaadittu

parempia osallistumismahdollisuuksia. Esimerkiksi kuntatason maankäytön suunnittelussa on in-

tensiivisesti konsultoitu maanomistajia. Kritiikin kohteena on kuitenkin ollut asianosaisuuden

rajaaminen pitkälti omistusoikeuden perusteella.

Summary

209

Viranomaisyhteistyö eri sektoreiden ja hallinnon tasojen välillä on institutionalisoitu, ja se ta-

pahtuu sekä muodollisia että epämuodollisia kanavia pitkin. Vaikka viranomaisten välillä on kon-

flikteja ovat intressit yleisesti hyvin tiedossa. Samaa ei voi sanoa yksittäisistä kansalaisista tai

ryhmistä, joiden tavoitteet usein tulkitaan epäselviksi tai jopa keskenään ristiriitaisiksi. Rügenillä

on viranomaisten päivittäinen yhteistyö tiivistä, mutta yhteistyön muodot strategisessa suunnit-

telussa eivät ole riittäviä. Hiidenmaalla informaation vaihdon katsotaan olevan riittämätöntä.

Saaristomerellä on lukuisa joukko viranomaisten yhteistyöelimiä, joilla ei kuitenkaan ole selkeää

koordinoivaa roolia.

Kaikkien tapaustutkimusalueiden suunnittelujärjestelmästä puuttuu palaute eli päätösten

käytäntöönpanon seuranta ja suunnitteluprosessien arviointi. Suunnittelua ei nähdä iteratiivisena

prosessina, eikä toimenpiteiden menestyksellisyyden arvioimiseksi ole kehitetty kriteerejä. Kul-

lakin biosfäärialueella on kuitenkin tehty tutkimuksia asukkaiden käsityksestä

biosfäärialuetoiminnasta.

Kahden keskeisen kriteerin, osallistumisen ja viranomaisyhteistyön perusteella voidaan määritellä

neljä suunnittelutyyliä. Nämä ovat rutiinisuunnittelu, sektorikohtainen osallistava suunnittelu,

yhdennetty asiantuntijasuunnittelu ja suunnittelu vuorovaikutteisena oppimisprosessina. Rutiini-

suunnittelu edustaa suunnittelutyyliä, jossa eri alojen asiantuntijat tekevät suunnittelua ilman vuoro-

vaikutusta muiden alojen asiantuntijoiden tai kansalaisten kanssa. Sektorikohtaisessa osallistavassa

suunnittelussa kansalaisilla on mahdollisuus osallistua suunnitteluun, mutta lopputulos ei ole yhtenäi-

nen eikä kattava. Laajemmista, sektorirajat ylittävistä kysymyksistä ei voida keskustella systemaatti-

sesti ja eri tiedonalat (ekologinen, sosiaalinen ja taloudellinen) pysyvät erillisinä. Yhdennetty

asiantuntijasuunnittelu edustaa suunnittelutyyliä jossa viranomaistahot ovat tiiviissä yhteistyössä, mutta

jossa asukkaiden paikallinen tieto ja arvot jäävät huomiotta. Suunnittelussa käytetty kieli ja käsitteistö

ei ole maallikolle ymmärrettävää, eikä asiantuntijakieltä pyritä kääntämään kaikille ymmärrettäväksi.

Suunnittelu vuorovaikutteisena oppimisprosessina edustaa ideaalitilannetta, jossa eri sektoreiden toi-

minta on koordinoitua ja jossa osallistumisella on keskeinen merkitys jo ongelmien määrittelyssä.

Kullakin tapaustutkimusalueella hallitseva suunnittelutyyli voidaan sijoittaa yllämainittuihin

kategorioihin. Tämä tehdään suunnitteluesimerkkien, haastateltujen näkemysten ja paikallismedioissa

heijastuvan yleisen mielipiteen perusteella. Millään tapaustutkimusalueista ei suunnittelua voinut

luonnehtia vuorovaikutteiseksi oppimisprosessiksi. Yksittäisiä esimerkkejä löytyi, mutta ne jäivät

suunnittelujärjestelmässä irrallisiksi ja olivat poikkeustapauksia. Rügenillä hallitseva suunnittelu-

tyyli edustaa lähinnä yhdennettyä asiantuntijasuunnittelua. Kansalaisten protestit ja vaihtoehtoinen

210

suunnittelu ovat merkkejä siitä, että osallistumismahdollisuuksia on liian vähän. Poliittisella tasolla

muodostunut ajatus Rügenistä mallialueena on vahvistanut yrityksiä harmonisoida eri sektoreiden

toimintaa. Päivittäisessä hallintotyössä viranomaisyhteistyö on verraten tiivistä.

Hiidenmaalla suunnittelujärjestelmä ei ole vielä hyvin vakiintunut. Hallitseva suunnittelutyyli

edustaa rutiinisuunnittelua. Hiidenmaalla on kuitenkin esimerkkejä yrityksistä kehittää suunnitte-

lua vuorovaikutteisempaan suuntaan. Näitä ovat esimerkiksi Hiidenmaan kehittämissuunnitelma sekä

Käina lahdelle yhtenäinen suunnitelma. Silti suunnittelun ei katsota vastaavan paikallisten asukkai-

den tarpeisiin. Aikaisempi poliittinen kulttuuri vaikuttaa edelleen ihmisten valmiuteen osallistua.

Saaristomerellä vallitsee sektorikohtainen osallistava suunnittelu. Kaikissa suunnitteluprosesseissa ei

ole kattavia osallistumisjärjestelyjä, mutta esimerkiksi maankäytön suunnittelu on ollut vuorovaikutteista.

Biosfäärialuekeskus on omaksunut hyvin avoimen roolin. Myös osallistuvaa suunnittelua arvioivaa tutki-

musta on tehty. Huolimatta lukuisista suunnittelukomiteoista suunnittelujärjestelmä on epäyhtenäinen.

Eri sektoreiden välinen yhteistyö on pääosin tapaus- ja asiakohtaista.

«Inkrementaalinen reformi» ja «ohjelmallinen reformi» ovat kaksi eri strategiaa suunnittelun kehit-

tämisessä. Inkrementaalisen reformin tietä kuljettaessa viranomaisyhteistyötä ja kansalaisten osallis-

tumista pyritään parantamaan olemassa olevan suunnittelujärjestelmän puitteissa. Käytännössä tämä

voi tapahtua suunnittelukomiteoiden tai esimerkiksi biosfäärialueneuvoston kautta. Ohjelmallinen re-

formi puolestaan merkitsee, että rannikkoalueiden toimintojen koordinoimiseksi käynnistetään

rannikoiden yhtenäisen suunnittelun ohjelma. Jälkimmäisen vaihtoehdon etuna on, että se voidaan to-

teuttaa hyvin strukturoituna, sovitulla aikataululla ja suuremmalla kansalaisten kiinnostuksella.

Biosfäärialuekeskuksille ehdotetaan paralleeliorganisaation roolia, jonka tavoitteena on parantaa

viranomaisyhteistyötä ja osallistumista. Tällainen rooli on mahdollinen mikäli biosfäärialueiden

hallinnolla ei ole ennalta vahvaa viranomaisasemaa. Paralleeliorganisaation roolin ovat osin jo omak-

suneet Hiidenmaan ja Saaristomeren biosfäärialuekeskukset. Myös biosfäärialueiden komiteoiden

asemaa voidaan vahvistaa laajentamalla osallistuvien listaa. Ammattitaitoisen ulkopuolisen

neuvottelijan avulla voidaan myös parantaa yhteissuunnittelun tehokkuutta.

Yleinen skeptisyys julkista hallintoa ja kaikenkattavia suunnitelmia kohtaan tekee tärkeäksi

priorisoida käsiteltäviä kysymyksiä ja monitoroida toimintoja. Paikallisagenda 21 ja muut saman-

kaltaiset yritykset tehdä viranomaistoimintaa avoimemmaksi voivat käynnistää tai olla osa

rannikoiden yhtenäistä suunnittelua. Kaikilla tapaustutkimusalueilla biosfäärialueen hallinto on uusi

toimija, jolla on holistinen näkökulma ympäristö ja kehityskysymyksiin. Tämä ainutlaatuinen status

on hallinnollisessa järjestelmässä tähän asti puuttunut.

Summary

211

Planungspraxis in drei Küstenbiosphärenreservaten in Estland, Finnland und Deutschland:

Behördenzusammenarbeit und Bürgerbeteiligung in der Planung und Entscheidungsfindung in Kü-

stengebieten

Zusammenfassung (Summary in German language)

Küstengebiete werden weltweit durch wachsende menschliche Aktivitäten beeinflußt. Diese sind

z.B. Industrie, Tourismus, Fischerei und Aquakultur. Diesen Herausforderungen wird das herkömm-

liche sektorale Planungssystem nicht gerecht. Dies kann zu wachsenden Konflikten in der Ressourcen-

allokation in Küstengebieten führen.

Die von der UNESCO anerkannten Biosphärenreservate bieten einen internationalen Rahmen für

vergleichende Forschung zu sozial-ökologischen Fragestellungen. Im Oktober 1997 gab es weltweit

352 Biosphärenreservate in 87 Ländern. In diesen Gebieten sollen Wege zur nachhaltigen Ressourcen-

nutzung entwickelt und ausprobiert werden. Drei Küstenbiosphärenreservate in der Ostsee wurden

als Fallstudiengebiete ausgewählt: Die West-Estnischen Schären (die Insel Hiiumaa), das Schären-

meer in Finnland und Rügen in Deutschland. Als Inseln stellen sie einen Spezialtyp von Küstenge-

bieten dar. Interessant für sozialwissenschaftliche Forschung sind sie, da sie zusammenhängende

soziale, kulturelle, wirtschaftliche, geographische und administrative Einheiten bilden.

Die untersuchten Gebiete sollen Modellregionen für nachhaltige Entwicklung werden. Dieser

Modellcharakter beinhaltet eine Herausforderung für die Planung. Die Ziele der Untersuchung sind

es, die Planungspraxis sowie die Rolle der Biosphärenreservatsverwaltungen in der Umwelt und

Entwicklungsplanung zu untersuchen. Es werden Empfehlungen für die Verbesserung der Planungs-

praxis gemacht.

In allen drei Biosphärenreservaten gibt es eine Biosphärenreservatsverwaltung, die in den einzel-

nen Gebieten unterschiedliche Aufgaben und Funktionen wahrnimmt. Die Rolle der

Biosphärenreservatsverwaltung wird jeweils bestimmt durch den gesetzlichen Rahmen, das admini-

strative System sowie durch die institutionell vereinbarten und individuellen Prioritätensetzungen.

Die Biosphärenreservate haben verschiedene Rollen, von denen einige stärker und andere weniger

in der Öffentlichkeit wahrgenommen werden. Während die Biosphärenreservatsverwaltung auf Rü-

gen als untere Naturschutzbehörde eine starke hoheitliche Rolle hat, ist die entsprechende Verwal-

tung auf Hiiumaa eher ein Initiator für neue Ideen und Projekte. Im finnischen Schärenmeer ist die

Rolle der Verwaltung noch nicht abschließend bestimmt. Zu ihren Aufgaben gehört die Koordinati-

212

on von Forschungsaktivitäten in dem Gebiet. Sie nimmt somit in einigen Bereichen die Rolle eines

diskursiven Fazilitators ein.

Als potentielle Modellgebiete für nachhaltige Ressourcennutzung können die Außengrenzen der

Biosphärenreservate auf Rügen und im Schärenmeer in Finnland nicht als adäquat betrachtet wer-

den. Obwohl die Außengrenzen flexibel gehandhabt werden, sind drei Hauptinseln des finnischen

Gebietes nicht im Biosphärenreservat und das Biosphärenreservat Südost-Rügen umfaßt nur unge-

fähr 10% der Insel. Die Außengrenzen der Fallbeispielgebiete wurden somit zum Teil ein wenig

abweichend von denen der Biosphärenreservate definiert. Sie beziehen sich jedoch auf die Gebiete,

die durch die Aktivitäten der Biosphärenreservatsverwaltungen beeinflußt werden.

Zwei der Biosphärenreservate wurden Ende der Achtziger / Anfang der Neunziger Jahre, in Zeiten

großer gesellschaftlicher und politischer Umbrüche, gegründet. Die Gründung des Biophärenreservats

Südost-Rügen in der ehemaligen DDR und die Gründung des Biosphärenreservats Estnische Schä-

ren in der ehemaligen Sowjet Union sowie die Planungen, die danach durchgeführt wurden, müssen

im Zusammenhang mit einer tiefgreifenden Veränderung des politischen und administrativen Sy-

stems gesehen werden (Estland hat 1991 die Selbständigkeit wiedergewonnen und die DDR wurde

1990 mit der BRD wiedervereinigt). In Finnland fanden keine so dramatischen Veränderungen statt,

eine Ausnahme ist der Beitritt Finnlands zur Europäischen Union.

Tiefgreifende und schnelle Veränderungen können rationale Planung erschweren, da die Gesetz-

gebung entwickelt werden muß, behördliche Zuständigkeiten geklärt werden müssen und soziale

Sicherung hergestellt werden muß. Gleichzeitig kann eine solche Situation die Möglichkeit bieten,

innovative Planungsansätze zu erproben. Auf europäischer Ebene gibt es mehrere Versuche, einen

integrierten Ansatz für Küstenplanung zu fördern. Einige dieser Pilotprojekte wurden auch in den

Fallbeispielgebieten durchgeführt. Forschungsschwerpunkt in dieser Studie ist jedoch die ‚norma-

le‘ Planungspraxis in der Umwelt- und Entwicklungsplanung.

Integriertes Küstenmanagement (im Englischen ‚integrated coastal management‘, ICM) ist ein

relativ neuer Ansatz, der auf mehrere Schlüsselprobleme der herkömmlichen Planung eingeht und

nach Verbesserungen sucht. Eines der bedeutendsten Probleme sind die sektoralen, konkurrierenden

und gelegentlich überlappenden Kompetenzen der verschiedenen Behörden. Wichtige Ansätze des

integrierten Küstenmanagements sind es, wissenschaftliche Erkenntnisse für Planungs- und

Managementprozesse zu nutzen und Land- und Wassernutzungsplanung miteinander zu verknüp-

fen. Obwohl es viele verschiedene Definitionen für integriertes Küstenmanagement gibt, kann es als

ein eigener Planungs- und Managementansatz verstanden werden. Die Bedeutung dieses Ansatzes

213

wurde durch das UN Aktionsprogramm Agenda 21 befördert. Die Weiterentwicklung dieses Ansat-

zes wird bislang dadurch erschwert, daß es keine gemeinsame theoretische Grundlage für integrier-

tes Küstenmanagement gibt und sich das Vokabular noch entwickelt.

In dieser Studie werden Schlüsselcharakteristika für “gute Küstenplanung” aus der Literatur zu “In-

tegriertem Küstenmanagement” abgeleitet. Dieses wird durch Literatur zur Planungstheorie, insbeson-

dere zur kritischen Planungstheorie unterstützt. In der Literatur zur kritischen Planungstheorie wird

besonders der demokratische Ansatz in der Planung betont; die Literatur zu integriertem Küsten-

management mißt Bürgerbeteiligung ebenfalls eine Bedeutung bei. Während jedoch ICM mit Bürger-

beteiligung das Ziel verfolgt, die Qualität der Planung zu verbessern oder Planungsprozesse zu be-

schleunigen, hat kritische Planungstheorie den Anspruch, das gesamte Planungs- und

Entscheidungsfindungssystem transparenter und verantwortungsvoller zu gestalten. Der Planer kann

eine aktive Rolle übernehmen, indem er z.B. schwach- oder nicht-organisierte Interessensgruppen un-

terstützt. In dieser Bedeutung wird Planung zu einem kommunikativen, interesse-richtenden Prozeß.

Die Schlüsselkriterien für ‚gute Planung‘ sind: umfassende Betrachtung, Bürgerbeteiligung, Koope-

ration zwischen Behörden und Feedback. Umfassende Betrachtung (comprehensiveness) bedeutet u.a.

integrierte Planung von Land- und Wassergebieten. Da Küstengebiete in den seltensten Fällen

Verwaltungs- oder Planungseinheiten entsprechen, sollte sich das Planungsgebiet an den natürlichen

Ökosystemen orientieren. Pläne und Programme sollten durch einen breiteren Ansatz gekennzeichnet

sein, als es bei sektoraler Planung üblich ist. Bürgerbeteiligung bedeutet, daß alle relevanten Akteure

die Möglichkeit haben, sich bei der Problemdefinition, der Auswahl der Problemlösungsstrategien und

der Auswahl von Alternativen zu äußern. Bürger und Verbände sollten klare Anlaufstellen in der öffent-

lichen Verwaltung haben. Kooperation bedeutet Kommunikation und Abstimmung zwischen verschie-

denen Fachbehörden und Verwaltungsebenen. Wichtig für zwischenbehördliche Zusammenarbeit, so-

wie Bürgerbeteiligung ist, daß Expertenwissen für Nichtexperten und Experten in anderen Bereichen

übersetzt wird. Feedback zielt darauf, daß Planung als iterativer Prozeß verstanden wird. Die Auswir-

kungen der Pläne und Programme sollten regelmäßig evaluiert werden. Ebenso sollten die Planungs-

prozesse evaluiert werden, hierbei sollte die Kontinuität der gemeinsamen Planung und die Fairneß der

Prozesse untersucht werden. Die erläuterten vier Kriterien werden als notwendige Voraussetzungen für

eine nachhaltige Nutzung der Ressourcen der Küstengebiete betrachtet.

Auf Grundlage dieser Kriterien erfolgt eine Analyse von exemplarischen Planungsprozessen. Bei-

spiele strategischer Regionalentwicklungsplanung, sektoraler Planung (forstliche Planung),

Landnutzungplanung, Wassernutzungsplanung, Planung von Küstenökosystemen und sonstiger Pla-

214

nung im Biosphärenreservat werden detailliert analysiert. Als Untersuchungsmaterial dienen insge-

samt ca. 90 strukturierte Interviews, die in den Beispielgebieten durchgeführt wurden, sowie schrift-

liches Material in Form von Planungsdokumenten und Zeitungsartikeln.

Das erste der Beispiele ist strategische Regionalentwicklungsplanung auf Rügen. Eine Vielzahl

sektoraler Fachkonzepte wurden nach 1990 auf Rügen erstellt. Ziel war es, diese Konzepte zu einem

Kreisentwicklungsplan zu integrieren. Bei der Erstellung der Pläne gab es wenig Bürgerbeteiligung.

Die öffentliche Diskussion um Umwelt und Entwicklung, die ohnehin sehr polarisiert war, spitzte

sich in der Diskussion um die Ausweisung neuer Landschaftsschutzgebiete zu. Nach der Eskalation

des Konfliktes wurden zahlreiche öffentliche Anhörungen durchgeführt und in den lokalen Medien

fand eine intensive Diskussion statt. Die geführten Diskussionen haben nach Ansicht der Beteiligten

wenig dazu beigetragen, einen Konsens über die Zukunft der Insel zu finden. Der Kreisentwicklungs-

plan wurde nicht verabschiedet, statt dessen bemühen sich die Kreis- und die

Biosphärenreservatsverwaltung, umsetzungsorientierter zu agieren.

Das zweite Beispiel behandelt strategische Planung auf der Insel Hiiumaa. Der Hiiumaa

Development Action Plan (HDAP) 2010 war ein Versuch einen „koordinierten demokratischen Ent-

wicklungsprozeß einzuleiten“. Der Prozeß wurde durch aktive Bürger der Insel und durch die weni-

gen organisierten Gruppen unterstützt. Fünf thematische Arbeitsgruppen mit den Themen Touris-

mus, ländliche Entwicklung, Informationstechnologie, Bildung und Kultur wurden gegründet. Zu-

sätzlich wurden lokale Arbeitsgruppen in den Gemeinden und Dörfern eingerichtet. Nur eine kleine

Zahl von Inselbewohnern war in den Prozeß involviert, während die meisten dem Prozeß und dem

Einsatz der finanziellen Mittel, die vom United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) zur Ver-

fügung gestellt wurden, skeptisch gegenüber standen.

Als Beispiel für sektorale Planung wurde forstliche Planung ausgewählt.Auf Rügen und auf Hiiumaa

fand intensive Zusammenarbeit zwischen den Forstbehörden und der Biosphärenreservatsverwaltung

statt. Somit konnte in der Regel ein Konsens über die Nutzung und am Schutz der Wälder hergestellt

werden. Im Gegensatz zu vielen anderen Sektoren, wie z.B. Bauen oder Verkehr, waren die Konflikte

relativ gering. Auf Rügen hat die Biosphärenreservatsverwaltung die Forstwirtschaft zu einem

Schlüsselthema bestimmt, um zu demonstrieren, wie lokale Ressourcen für lokale Bedürfnisse mit

lokaler Beschäftigung genutzt werden können. Im Schärenmeer in Finnland nahm die Forstwirt-

schaft keinen zentralen Stellenwert in den Aktivitäten des Biosphärenreservats ein.

Landnutzungsplanung auf lokaler Ebene wird von den Gemeinden durchgeführt. Der gesetzliche

Rahmen wird durch die nationale Bau- und Planungsgesetzgebung vorgegeben. Bauen im Küstenge-

215

biet ist eines der kontroversesten Themen im Küstenzonenmanagement. Es werden zwei Konflikte

untersucht, in denen die Biosphärenreservatsverwaltungen involviert waren. Auf Rügen hat das Thema

Bauen zu erheblichen Konflikten zwischen einigen Gemeinden und der Biosphärenreservatsverwaltung

geführt und ist politisch intensiv debattiert worden.Als Beispiel für intensive Konsultation mit Landbesit-

zern wird die gemeindliche Planung in den finnischen Schären geschildert.

Planung der marinen Gebiete umfaßt eine Bandbreite von Themen wie Wasserqualität, Schiffahrts-

rinnen und Nutzung von Bodenschätzen im Meeresboden. Fischzucht war eines der besonders strit-

tigen Themen auf Rügen und insbesondere im finnischen Schärenmeer, wo Fischzucht eine wichtige

lokale Einkommensquelle ist. Eine geplante Fischzuchtanlage in der Nähe von Binz wurde sowohl

von der Tourismusindustrie als auch von Vertretern der Naturschutzverbände angegriffen. Nach starken

Protesten waren die zuständigen Behörden gezwungen, die bereits erteilte Genehmigung zurückzu-

ziehen. Im Schärenmeer wurde Fischzucht im Zusammenhang mit der fortschreitenden Eutrophie-

rung der Küstengewässer heftig debattiert. In beiden Fällen wurden die Genehmigungsverfahren

unabhängig von anderen Planungen wie z.B. Landnutzungsplanung durchgeführt.

In den Fallbeispielgebieten fand nur ein ausdrücklich als „integriertes Küstenmanagement“ be-

nannter Prozeß statt. Dieses war ein Plan, der für die Käina Bucht auf Hiiumaa erstellt wurde. In

diesem Plan wurden sowohl Fragen der Land- als auch der Wassernutzung behandelt. Er wurde in

enger Konsultation mit verschiedenen Nutzergruppen erstellt. Zur Erstellung des Planes wurden

Daten über das Ökosystem sowie die sozialen Strukturen erhoben und ausgewertet.

Die „Seville Strategy“ der UNESCO empfiehlt die Gründung eines Beirates bzw. eines Kuratori-

ums für die Biosphärenreservate. Beiräte wurden im finnischen Schärenmeer und in Südost-Rügen

eingerichtet. Auf Rügen wurde die Gründung (die erst 5 Jahre nach der Biosphärenreservatsgründung

in Angriff genommen wurde) durch die Konflikte zwischen der Biosphärenreservatsverwaltung und

einigen Gemeinden erschwert. Einige Bürgermeister stellten besondere Forderungen an den soge-

nannten ‚Biosphärenrat‘, unter anderem forderten sie den Ausschluß von Verbänden. In den finni-

schen Schären wurde der Beirat durch einen Erlaß gegründet, dies geschah fast gleichzeitig mit der

Gründung des Biosphärenreservats. Obwohl viele Interviewpartner den finnischen Beirat als infle-

xibel und bürokratisch einschätzten, waren sich alle einig, daß er für die langfristig angelegte Kom-

munikation zwischen der Biosphärenreservatsverwaltung, verschiedenen Behörden und Gemeinden

von Bedeutung ist. Auf Hiiumaa existiert kein entsprechender Beirat.

Basierend auf den obengenannten Beispielen wird die Planungspraxis in den jeweiligen Gebieten

mit den Kriterien der „guten Küstenplanung“ verglichen. Im Hinblick auf umfassende Betrachtung

216

wurde deutlich, daß Fragen, die über die gemeindlichen Grenzen hinausgehen, selten adäquat be-

handelt werden. Zum Beispiel wird gemeindliche Landnutzungsplanung in allen Fallbeispielgebieten

getrennt von den Nachbargemeinden durchgeführt; ebenso zeigt sich eine deutliche Trennung zwi-

schen Land- und Wassernutzungsplanung.

Zwischen den Fallbeispielgebieten zeigen sich große Unterschiede in den treibenden Kräfte für

mehr Bürgerbeteiligung. Auf Rügen waren es vor allem Bürgerproteste, von Bürgerinitiativen durch-

geführte alternative Planung und Kampagnen der Verbände, die dazu führten, Planung bürger-

orientierter auszurichten. Demgegenüber kam die Unterstützung für mehr Bürgerbeteiligung auf

Hiiumaa hauptsächlich von internationalen Akteuren wie z.B. UNDP oder Helsinki Commission.

Die Biosphärenreservatsverwaltung auf Hiiumaa war besonders daran interessiert, Planungsansätze

zu fördern, die mehr Bürgerbeteiligung beinhalteten. In den Finnischen Schären hat es im Gegensatz

zu Rügen keine lauten Forderungen nach mehr Bürgerbeteiligung gegeben. Ausnahmen sind die

Ausweisungen von Schutzgebieten, bei denen Landbesitzer fehlende Beteiligung kritisierten. An

den gemeindlichen Landnutzungsplänen wurden die Landbesitzer intensiv Beteiligt. Die starke Aus-

richtung auf Interessen der Landbesitzer wurde von einigen Interviewpartnern kritisiert.

Kooperation zwischen Fachbehörden und Verwaltungsebenen findet sowohl formell als auch in-

formell statt. In allen drei untersuchten Gebieten gibt es Konflikte zwischen den Behörden, die un-

terschiedlichen Interessen und Positionen sind jedoch den Beteiligten bekannt. Dies gilt nicht für

einzelne Bürger oder Gruppen, deren Ziele oftmals unklar oder widersprüchlich erscheinen. Auf

Rügen gab es enge Kooperation in der täglichen Zusammenarbeit, während auf mehr strategischer

Ebene die Methoden der Kooperation weniger entwickelt waren. Auf Hiiumaa hielten die meisten

Interviewpartner den Informationsfluß für unzureichend. Im Schärenmeer in Finnland gibt es meh-

rere Komitees, die aber keine klare koordinierende Funktion übernommen haben.

In keinem der drei Gebiete existiert ein ausgearbeitetes System für Evaluation und Monitoring

(Feedback). Planung wird generell nicht als iterativer Prozeß verstanden und es gibt weder Verfah-

ren noch Kriterien, um den Erfolg von Planung zu beurteilen. In allen drei Gebieten sind die

Biosphärenreservatsverwaltungen darum bemüht, Rückkopplungen z.B. in Form von Akzeptanz-

studien zu erhalten.

Es können vier Planungsstile unterschieden werden, die die Intensität der Bürgerbeteiligung und

der Zusammenarbeit zwischen Behörden charakterisieren: expertendominierte sektorale Planung

(routine planning), bürgerbeteiligungsorientierte sektorale Planung (sector-based participatory

planning), expertendominierte integrierte Planung (social and environmental engineering) und Pla-

217

nung als wechselseitiger Lernprozeß (planning as mutual learning). Expertendominierte sektorale

Planung meint, daß die verschiedenen Fachbehörden Planungen unabhängig voneinander durchfüh-

ren. Bei bürgerbeteiligungsorientierter sektoraler Planung findet Bürgerbeteiligung zwar statt, brei-

tere Themen, die über Grenzen der Fachplanung hinausgehen, werden jedoch nicht systematisch

behandelt und verschiedene Wissensbereiche (ökologisch, sozial und ökonomisch) werden nicht

integriert betrachtet. Expertendominierte integrierte Planung bezeichnet den Fall, daß die Behör-

den intensiv miteinander zusammenarbeiten, aber die Werte und das Wissen der lokalen Bevölke-

rung nicht beachten. Es finden keine Bemühungen statt, Expertenwissen in allgemeinverständlicher

Sprache an die Bürger zu vermitteln. Planung als wechselseitiger Lernprozeß entspricht der optima-

len Situation, daß die Aktivitäten der verschiedenen Behörden durch Kommunikation koordiniert

werden und frühzeitige Bürgerbeiteiligung schon in der Phase der Problemdefinition stattfindet.

Die vorherrschenden Planungsstile in den Beispielgebieten können in diese Kategorien eingeord-

net werden. Diese Einordnung basiert auf den obengenannten Beispielen und der Wahrnehmung der

Interviewpartner sowie der öffentlichen Meinung (wiedergegeben in lokalen Medien). In keinem

der Gebiete überwiegt der Ansatz ‚Planung als wechselseitiger Lernprozeß‘. Beispiele für diesen

Planungsstil wurden vereinzelt festgestellt, blieben aber unzusammenhängend. Auf Rügen kann der

vorherrschende Planungstil als ‚expertendominierte integrierte Planung‘ betrachtet werden. Bürger-

proteste und die von Bürgerinitiativen durchgeführte alternative Planung deuten darauf hin, daß es

zu wenig Möglichkeiten gibt, Einfluß auf Planungen zu nehmen und mitzuwirken. Demgegenüber

ist die Zusammenarbeit zwischen verschiedenen Behörden intensiv.

Auf Hiiumaa ist das Planungssystem noch nicht sehr weit entwickelt, jedoch herrscht der Planungs-

stil ‚expertendominierte sektorale Planung‘ vor. Es gibt aber deutliche Versuche wie den HDAP

2010 unf den Management Plan für die Käina Bucht die in Richtung des Ansatzes ‚Planung als

Lernprozeß‘ zeigen. Dennoch wird Planung von den meisten Inselbewohnern als eine experten-

dominierte Tätigkeit empfunden. Die unterschwelligen Traditionen des ehemaligen politischen Sy-

stems haben die Bereitschaft zur Bürgerbeteiligung stark beeinflußt.

Im finnischen Schärenmeer kann die vorherrschende Planungspraxis als

‚bürgerbeiteiligungsorientierte sektorale Planung‘ betrachtet werden. Bürgerbeteiligung findet nicht

in allen Planungsprozessen statt, aber in einzelnen Prozessen wie z.B. in gemeindlichen Landnutzungs-

planungen findet intensive Konsultation statt. Die Biosphärenreservatsverwaltung verfolgt einen

kommunikativen und offenen Ansatz. Trotz der zahlreichen Planungskomitees bleibt das Planungs-

system unzusammenhängend. Kooperation zwischen den Behörden findet teilweise statt.

218

Für die Verbesserung der Planungspraxis werden zwei Ansätze vorgeschlagen: eine graduelle Re-

form und ein programmatischer Ansatz. Der graduelle Ansatz zielt darauf, Kooperation und Bürger-

beteiligung innerhalb des existierenden Planungssystems zu verbessern. Dieses kann in Form eines

Planungsbeirates oder z.B. eines Biosphärenrates stattfinden. Der programmatische Ansatz versucht,

die verschiedenen sektoralen Nutzungsaktivitäten im Rahmen eines Programms zu koordinieren.

Vorteile des programmatischen Ansatzes sind, daß er gut strukturiert ist, mit einem festgelegten

Zeitplan und mit potentiell mehr öffentlichem Interesse durchgeführt werden kann.

Die Biosphärenreservatsverwaltungen sollten stärker als bisher einen wechselseitigen Lernprozeß

unterstützen und als parallele Lernorganisationen fungieren. In Fällen, in denen

Biosphärenreservatsverwaltungen keine starke regulierende Rolle haben, könnten sie als Initiator

und Mediator für die Verbesserung von Bürgerbeteiligung und Zusammenarbeit fungieren. Diese

Funktion nehmen die Biosphärenreservatsverwaltungen in Estland und Finnland ansatzweise be-

reits ein. Bessere Kommunikation könnte durch die Stärkung und die Erweiterung der

Biospärenreservatsräte um Interessensgruppen und Organisationen erreicht werden. Ein neutraler

Moderator kann eingesetzt werden, um die Zusammenarbeit praktisch zu unterstützen. Weiterhin

könnte ein Küstenmanagementprogramm initiiert werden, um die zahlreichen sektoralen Planungen

zu koordinieren und um die Transparenz zu erhöhen.

Auf Grund von Skepsis gegenüber Bürokratie und allumfassenden Plänen ist es wichtig, sich auf

ausgewählte Fragestellungen zu konzentrieren und Planung als iterativen Prozeß zu verstehen. In

allen drei Gebieten ist die Biosphärenreservatsverwaltung ein neuer Akteur der per Definition eine

ganzheitliche Sicht auf Fragen der Umwelt und Entwicklung hat. Dieser einzigartige Status hat im

administrativen System bisher gefehlt.

219

The encouragement and support of my academic supervisor Prof. Dr. Johannes Küchler (Institute

for Management in Environmental Planning, TU Berlin) was of utmost importance for the research

project. Also Prof. Dr. Bernhard Glaeser (Human Ecology Section, Göteborg University, Social Sci-

ence Research Center Berlin) as the second supervisor gave me valuable support. Representatives of

the biosphere reserves who supported me during the field visit include Coordinator Martin Öhman

(Archipelago Sea), Reserve Manager Ruuben Post and Reserch Director Toomas Kokovkin (Hiiumaa)

and Director Dr. Michael Weigelt (Rügen), to whom I am grateful for making my work in the case

study areas pleasant.

Many Finnish colleagues provided me with material and comments on drafts on my paper. Maisa

Siirala (Finnish Environment Institute) supported the research project and provided valuable mate-

rial on earlier integrated coastal management efforts in Finland. I am indebted to Marjatta Hytönen

at the Finnish Forest Research Institute, for introducing me to the concept of ‘integrated coastal

management’ (ICM). Prof. Markku Turtiainen (University of Helsinki, Department of Economics

and Management) helped me to put together the theoretical framework of the study.

In Germany Prof. Dr. Volkmar Hartje (TU Berlin) kindly provided me with valuable comments on

chapters on ICM. Dr. Waltina Scheumann (TU Berlin) gave me valuable critique in the final phase of

my writing and urged me to sharpen my analysis. Andreas Kannen (University of Kiev) made impor-

tant observations on the first two chapters. Stefanie Schwemmler located a number of language

inconsistencies and mistakes in my manuscripts.

It was pleasant to work with Terhi Ahde and Sonja Pekkola who conducted sub-studies on Hiiumaa

and in the Archipelago Sea. Mari Jüssi helped me with the translations and transcriptions on Hiiumaa.

The opportunity to present ideas and preliminary results at various international seminars, confer-

ences and workshops (in Germany, Finland, Estonia, Sweden, Spain and Russia) were of great im-

portance to the research project. Interesting discussions with numerous colleagues were stimulating

for the study. Esther Hoffmann supported my work along the final phases of my work. Francesca

Rogier did a good job in improving my English manuscript (I am responsible for the additions made

at the very final stage).

Acknowledgements

220

The Finnish Academy and the Maj and Tor Nessling Foundation provided the necessary funding

for making this Ph. D. study. The Berlin Technical University supplied the necessary facilities as

well as room and board.

My sincere thanks to all!

Berlin, February 1999

Martin Welp

221

1 Kreisentwicklungsplan 1994-1998. Landkreis

Rügen.

Abfallwirtschaftskonzept Landkreis Rügen. 1995.

Landkreis Rügen. 89 p. + annexes.

Albrecht, J. 1985. Planning as Social Process. The

Use of Critical Theory. Democracia experimentalis.

Schriften zur Planungsbeteiligung. Band 6. Verlag

Peter Lang. Frankfurt am Main, Bern, New York.

114 p.

Ahde, T. 1998. Metsätalouden suunnittelu Viron

Hiidenmaalla (Forestry Planning on Hiiumaa in Es-

tonia). Helsingin yliopisto, metsäekonomian laitos.

(Master’s thesis). 63 p.

Ahonen, P. 1985. Hallinnon arvioinnin

lähestymistapoja. Valtiovarainministeriö,

järjestelyosasto. Valtion painatuskeskus (VAPK).

Helsinki. 151 p.

Alestalo, M. 1992. European Integration And Com-

parative Research. In: Kosonen, Pekka (ed.) 1992.

Changing Europe And Comparative Research. Pub-

lications of the Academy of Finland. VAPK-Pub-

lishing, Helsinki. 102 p. Appendix 11 p. 21-30.

Andersson, K. 1997. Skärgårdspolitiken växer fram.

Skärgård 20(2): 12-15.

Applying the Biosphere Reserve Concept to the Land-

Water Interface. 1994. Biosphere Reserves. Bulle-

tin of the international network. 94(1): 16.

Arén, H. 1994.Allt är möjligt. Planering utifrån lokala

livsformer. Byggforskningsrådet. Stockholm. 143

p. (ISBN 91-540-5681-0)

Armitage, D. 1995. An Integrative Methodological

Framework for Sustainable Environmental Planning

and Management. Environmental Management

19(3): 469-479.

Arnstein, S.R. 1969. A Ladder of Citizen Participa-

tion. Journal of the American Institute of Planners

XXXV(4): 216-224.

Ballinger, R.C., Smith, H.D. & Warren, L.M. 1994.

The Management of the Coastal Zone of Europe.

Ocean & Coastal Management 22(1): 45-85.

Bass, S.M.J. 1993. Ecology and economics on small

islands: constructing a framework for sustainable

development. In: Barbier, E.B. (ed.) 1993. Econom-

ics and Ecology: New frontiers and sustainable de-

velopment. Chapman & Hall, London. 198 p. + in-

dex.

Batisse, M. 1982. The Biosphere Reserve: A Tool for

Environmental Conservation and Management.

Environmental Conservation 9(2): 101-111.

Batisse, M. 1986. Developing and focusing the bio-

sphere reserve concept. Nature and Resources

XXII(3): 2-11.

Belfiore, S. 1996. The role fo the European

Communitty in the Mediterranean coastal zone

management. Ocean & Coastal Management 31(2-

3): 219-258.

Better Management of Coastal Resources. A Euro-

pean programme for integrated coastal zone man-

agement. 1997. European Commission. (Bro-

chure.) 47 p.

References

222

Biosfäärialueiden perustaminen Suomeen. 1989.

Biosfäärialuetyöryhmän mietintö.

Ympäristöministeriö, ympäristönsuojeluosasto.

Mietintö 46. Helsinki. 91 p. + appendix 2 p.

Biosphere reserves: The Seville Strategy and the

Statutory Framework of the World Network. 1996.

UNESCO. Paris. 18 p.

Biosphärenparke. Perspektiven für den Schutz der

Kulturlandschaft. 1993. Position-paper of the

Naturschutzbund Deutschland. 4 p.

Biosphärenreservat Südost-Rügen, Das 1994.

Nationalparkamt Mecklenburg-Vorpommern.

(Leaflet.)

Biosphärenreservate in Deutschland. Leitlinien für

Schutz, Pflege und Entwicklung. 1995. Ständige

Arbeitsgruppe der Biosphärenreservate in

Deutschland. Springer Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg.

371 p. + index 5 p.

Björn, I., Eistö, I. & Rannikko, P. 1995.

Tieteidenvälinen ympäristötutkimus: esimerkkinä

biosfäärialueiden tutkimus UNESCOn MAB-

ohjelmassa. Alue ja Ympäristö 24(1): 35-46.

Born, S.M. & Sonzogni, W.C. 1995. Integrated Envi-

ronmental Management: Strengthening the

Conceptualization. Environmental Management

(19)2: 167-181.

Bourne, L.S. 1984. Cross national planning studies.

Commentary. Town Planning Review 55(2): 150-

151. (Comment on the article of Masser, I. in the

same issue.)

Brookfield, H.C. 1990. An Approach to Islands. In

Beller, W., d’Ayala, P and Hein, P. (eds.) 1990. Sus-

tainable Development and Environmental Manage-

ment of Small Islands. Man and the Biosphere Se-

ries. Volume 5. UNESCO & The Parthenon Pub-

lishing Group. Paris, Carnforth & New Jersey. 414

p. + index. 23-33.

Brunckhorst, D.J. (Ed.). 1994. Marine Protected Areas

and Biosphere Reserves: ‘Towards a New Paradigm’.

Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on

Marine and Coastal Protected Areas. Canberra, Aus-

tralia. August 1994. Australian Nature Conservation

Agency, Canberra. 96 pp. ISBN-0-642-16815-5.

Brösse, U. 1994. Dauerhafte und umweltgerechte

Raumentwicklung. In: Dauerhafte, umweltgerechte

Raumentwicklung. 1994. Akademie für

Raumforschung und Landesplanung.

Arbeitsmaterial Nr. 212. 306 p. 24-42.

Burghoff, C. 1993. Stilleben mit Schafen und

Touristen. Das Biosphärenreservat Rhön wird zu

einer ökologischen Modellregion mit

wirtschaftlichen Impulsen entwickelt. Die

Tageszeitung 3.4.1993.

Carroll, M.S. and Hendrix, W. G. 1992. Federally

protected rivers. The need for effective local in-

volvement. Journal of the American Planning As-

sociation. 58(3): 346-352

Cicin-Sain, B. 1993a. Introduction to the Special Is-

sue on Integrated Coastal Management: Concepts,

Issues and Methods. Ocean & Coastal Management

21(1-3): 1-9.

Cicin-Sain, B. 1993b. Sustainable Development and

Integrated Coastal Management. Ocean & Coastal

Management 21(1-3): 11-43.

References

223

Clark, J.R.1992. Integrated management of coastal

zones. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 327. Food

andAgriculture Organization of the United Nations.

Rome. 167 p.

Clark, J.R. 1995. Coastal Zone Management Handbook.

CRC Press. Boca Raton, Florida. 720 p.

CoastalArea Resource Development: Energy in Small

Islands. 1988. United Nations. Department of In-

ternational Economic and SocialAffairs. New York.

94 p.

Coastal Zone Management. Integrated Policies. 1993.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and De-

velopment (OECD). Paris. 125 p

Coastal Zone Management. Selected Case Studies.

1993. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and

Development (OECD). Paris. 310 p.

Communication from the Commission to the Council

and European Parliament on the integrated manage-

ment of the coastal zones. 1995. COM(95)511. 35 p.

Community Inititative concerning Transnational Co-

operation on Spatial Planning. INTERREG II C

Baltic Sea Region. Operational Programme 1997-

1999. 97/321/EG.

Conclusions and Recommendations of the EUROMAB

workshop on Societal Dimensions of Biosphere Re-

serves - Biosphere Reserves for People in

Königswinter, January 23-25, 1995. In: Kruse-

Grauman, L. (ed.). 1995. Societal Dimensions of Bio-

sphere Reserves - Biosphere Reserves for People. Pro-

ceedings of the EUROMAB workshop, 23-25 Janu-

ary 1995, Königswinter. Deutsches Nationalkomitee.

MAB-Mitteilungen 41.157 p. 9-11.

Cortner, H.J. & Moote, M.A. 1994. Trends and Is-

sues in Land and Water Resources Management:

Setting the Agenda for Change. Environmental

Management 18(2): 167-173.

Crawford, B.R., Cobb, J.S. & Friedman, A. 1993.

Building Capacity for Integrated Coastal Manage-

ment in Developing Countries. Ocean & Coastal

Management 21(1-3): 311-337.

Crawford, B.R., Cobb, J.S. and Ming, C.L. (eds.)

1995. Educating Coastal Managers. Executive sum-

mary. Proceedings of the workshop, March 4-10,

1995, Alton Jones Campus, University of Rhode

Island. [http://brooktrout.gso.uri.edu/

vii_xi_Exec_Sum.html]. 10.1.1997.

Crosby, N., Kelly. J.M. & Schaefer, P. 1986. Citizen

Panels: A New Approach to Citizen Participation.

Public Administration Review 46(2): 170-178.

Development Concept for Hiiumaa 1993. Hiiumaa

Research and Education Center Tuuru. 61 p.

Dorcey, A.H.J. 1993. Sustainable Development of the

Fraser River Estuary, Canada: Success Amidts Fail-

ure. In: Coastal Zone Management. Selected Case

Studies. 1993. Organisation for Economic Co-op-

eration and Development (OECD). Paris. 310 p.

27-39.

Dutton, I. & Saenger, P. 1994. Expanding the

Horizon(s) of Marine Conservation: The Challenge

of Integrated Coastal Management. In: Brunckhorst,

D.J. (Ed.). 1994. Marine Protected Areas and Bio-

sphere Reserves: ‘Towards a New Paradigm’. Pro-

ceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Ma-

rine and Coastal Protected Areas. Canberra, Aus-

224

tralia. August 1994. Australian Nature Conserva-

tion Agency, Canberra. p. 18-27.

Edwards, S.D, Jones, P.J.S. & Nowell, D.E. 1997. Par-

ticipation in coastal zone management initiatives: a

review and analysis of examples from the UK. Ocean

and Coastal Management 36(1-3): 143-165.

Energiekonzept der Insel Rügen. 1993. Landratsamt

Rügen. Bergen. (Kurzfassung). 79 p.

Erdmann, K.-H. & Frommberger, J. 1998. Neue

Naturschutzkonzepte für Mensch und Umwelt.

Biosphärenreservate in Deutschland. Springer. 150 p.

Erdmann, K. H. & Nauber, J. 1995. Der Deutsche

Beitrag zum UNESCO-Programm „Der Mensch

und die Biosphäre“ (MAB) im Zeitraum Juli 1992

bis Juni 1994 mit einer englischen

Zusammenfassung. Deutsches Nationalkomitee für

das UNESCO-Programm ,Der Mensch und die

Biosphäre” (MAB). 295 p.

Erste Rügener Holzmesse. Internal documention of

the Wood Exhibition 31 May to 1 June 1997.

Nationalparkamt Rügen.

Erstes Landesraumordnungsprogramm Mecklenburg-

Vorpommern. 1993. Der Wirtschaftsminister des

Landes Mecklenburg-Vorpommern.

Landesplanungsbehörde. Schwerin. 87 p.

Estonian Review, No. 6, February 01-07, 1998.

(Internet mailing list.)

First European Conference on Sustainable Island

Development. 1997. Agreements, Minorca Com-

mitments and European Island Agenda agreed on

the European conference in Menorca, 23-26 April

1997. 179 p.

Forester, J. 1982. Planning in the Face of Power. Jour-

nal of American Planning Association 48(1): 67-80.

Forester, J. 1985. Critical Theory and Planning Prac-

tice. In: Forester, J. (ed.) 1985. Critical Theory and

Public Life. The MIT Press. Massachusetts. 337 p.

202-227.

Forester, J. 1993. Critical Theory, Public Policy and

Planning Practice. Toward a Critical Pragmatism.

State University of New York Press, Albany. 200

p. + indexes.

Friedman, J. & Abonyi, G. 1976. Social learning: a

model for policy research. Environment and Plan-

ning A. Vol 8. pp. 927-940.

Fuavao, V.A. 1995. Coastal Management in Small Is-

land Developing States. In: Small Islands, Big Is-

sues. Crucial Issues in the Sustainable Develop-

ment of Small Developing Islands. UNU World

Institute for Development Economics Research

(UNU/WIDER). World Development Studies 1.

156 p. 84-111.

Fünf Jahre Nationalparkprogramm an der Ostseeküste

Mecklenburg-Vorpommerns. Der WWF zieht Bilanz.

Nationalpark Vorpommersche Boddenlandschaft,

Nationalpark Jasmund, Biosphärenreservat Südost-

Rügen. 1995. Umweltstiftung WWF-Deutschland,

Fachbereich Meere & Küsten, Projektbüro Ostsee.

Stralsund. 64 p.

Förordningen om delegationen för Skärgårdshavet.

8.12.1994

Godschalk, D.R. & Cousins, K. 1985. Coastal Man-

agement: Planning on the Edge. Journal of the

American Planning Association 51(3): 263-265.

References

225

Gommes, R., du Guerny, J., Nachtergaele, F. and

Brinkman, R. 1998. Potential Impacts of Sea-Level

Rise on Populations and Agriculture. Food and Ag-

riculture Organization of the United Nations, Sus-

tainable Development Department. Web site: ‘Sus-

tainable Development Dimension’, http://

www.fao.org/sd/EIdirect/EIre0045.htm, posted 22

March 1998.

Graham, B. & Pitts, D. 1996. Good Practice Guide-

lines for Integrated Coastal Planning. The Royal

Australian Planning Institute. 32 p. + appendix.

Granö, O., Laurila, E. & Roto, M. 1995. Rakennetut

meren rannat: Suomen merenrannikon

sulkeutuneisuus.Ympäristöministeriö, alueidenkäytön

osasto. Helsinki. (ISBN 951-37-1837-9.)

Griffith, M.D. & Ashe, J. 1993. Sustainable Devel-

opment of Coastal and Marine Areas in Small Is-

land Developing States: A Basis for Integrated

Coastal Management. Ocean & Coastal Manage-

ment 21(1-3): 269-284.

Großschutzgebiete als strukturpolitische Chance und

kulturelle Verpflichtung. 1995. Föderation der

Natur- und Nationalparke Europas, Sektion

Deutschland e.V. - FÖNAD. Tagungsbericht (2.-4.

November 1994). 99 p. (ISBN 3-9803475-7-5).

Guidelines for Integrated Management of Coastal and

Marine Areas. 1995. UNEP Regional Seas Reports

and Studies No. 161.

Guidelines for the Protection, Maintenance and De-

velopment of the Biosphere Reserves in Germany.

1995. Standing Working Group of the Biosphere

Reserves in Germany. Bonn. 99 p.

Hahtola, K. 1986. Alue ja ympäristöpolitiikka

filosofisessa umpikujassa. Kanava (14)9: 560-562.

Hahtola, K. 1990a. Pragmatic-hermeneutical human

action model for environmental planning. Hallinnon

tutkimus 94(4): 272-288.

Hahtola, K. 1990b.Ympäristöpolitiikka päätöksenteossa.

Ympäristö ja Terveys 21(3): 194-198.

Hartig, J.H. & Law, N. 1994. Institutional Frame-

works to Direct Development and Implementation

of Great Lakes Remedial Action Plans. Environ-

mental Management 18(6): 855-864.

Hartman, M. 1994. Public Participation Information

Initiative: Country Study: Public Participation in

the Federal Republic of Germany. European Bank

for Reconstruction and Development. 24 p.

Haverinen, R. 1996. Citizen Participation in Road

Planning. A Case of Local Archipelago Commu-

nity. In: Konttinen, Annamari (ed.) Green Moves,

Political Stalemates. Sociological Perspectives on

the Environment. University of Turku. Department

of Sociology. 134 p. 106-119.

Healy, R.G. & Zinn, J.A. 1985. Environmental and De-

velopment Conflicts in Coastal Zone Management.

Coastal Management: Planning on the Edge. Journal

of theAmerican PlanningAssociation 51(3): 299-311.

Hein, P.L. 1993. Economic Problems and Prospects

of Small Islands. In: Beller, W., d’Ayala, P and Hein,

P. (eds.) 1990. Sustainable Development and Envi-

ronmental Management of Small Islands. Man and

the Biosphere Series. Volume 5. UNESCO & The

Parthenon Publishing Group. Paris, Carnforth &

New Jersey. 414 p. + index. 35-42.

226

Helle, E. 1990. Research in Future Finnish Biosphere

Reserves. In: Sippola, A.-L. & Roots, E. F. (eds.)

1990. Northern Sciences Network. Report on the

Meeting in Rovaniemi, Finland 25-27 September

1990. Artctic Centre Publications 3. 140 p + At-

tachments 8 p. 123-127.

Hellström, K. 1993. Hiiumaa maastikud ajas

inimestes ja omaette. Lääne-Eesti Saarestiku

Biosfääri Kaitseala Hiiumaa Keskus. Kärdla.

20 p.

Hellström, E. & Welp, M. 1996. Environmental Forest

Conflicts in Germany: From National to International

Concern. European Forest Institute. Working Paper

No. 11. Joensuu. 53 p.

Hess,A.L. 1990. Overview: Sustainable Development

and Environmental Management of Small Islands.

In: Beller, W., d’Ayala, P and Hein, P. (eds.) 1990.

Sustainable Development and Environmental Man-

agement of Small Islands. Man and the Biosphere

Series. Volume 5. UNESCO & The Parthenon Pub-

lishing Group. Paris, Carnforth & New Jersey. 414

p. + index. 3-14.

Hiiumaa Development Action Plan 2010. Seminars

on regional planning and development. 1997. Final

report. 17 p. + annexes.

Hiiumaa - getting to know. Kärdla. 1995. 48 s.

Hirsijärvi, S. & Hurme, H. 1991. Teemahaastattelu.

5. Painos. Yliopistopaino. Helsinki. 144 p.

Hokka, S. 1992. Saaristomeren kansallispuiston

yhteistoiminta-alueen väestö- ja elinkeinorakenne.

Turun Yliopisto. Saariston kehittämisprojekti.

Julkaisu 11/1992. 17 p.

Hudson, B.H. 1979. Comparison of Current Planning

Theories: Counterparts and Contradictions. Journal

of American Planning Association 45(4): 387-398

Hägerhäll, B. 1994. A way to ensure the best possible

use of coastal areas. WWF Baltic Bulletin

94(1): 2-7. WWF International Baltic Programme.

Hägerhäll, B. 1995. Coastal Lagoons and Wetlands -

WWF-International Baltic Programme. In: Lamp,

J. (ed.) 1995. “Gemeinsam für die Ostsee”. Gesunde

Küste - Lebendes Meer. Tagungsbericht 9.

Fachtagung anläßlich des 13. Internationalen

Küstentages 1993 in Stralsund. Umweltstiftung

WWF-Deutschland. 299 p. 107-127.

Imperial, M.T., Hennessey, T. & Robadue Jr., D. 1993.

The Evolution of Adaptive Management for Estua-

rine Ecosystems: the National Estuary Program and

ist Precursors. Ocean & Coastal Management 20:

147-180.

Integrated planning of coastal areas: its role in Com-

munity environment policy. 1986. Communication

from the Commission to the Council and the Euro-

pean Parliament. COM(86)571, Brussels.

International Co-ordinating Council of the Programme

on Man and the Biosphere (MAB). 1993. Twelft

Session. MAB Report Series 63. UNESCO.

Island and Mainland Views - how to Identify and Bal-

ance the perceived Needs of Local Population and

Guests. 1995. Eco-islands Newsletter (European

Natural Heritage Fund, EURONATURE). No.2:

4-9.

Jahresbericht (Annual report of the National Park

Agency) 1994. Nationalparkamt Mecklenburg-

References

227

Vorpommern. Biosphärenreservat Südost-Rügen.

23 s.

Jahresbericht (Annual report of the National Park

Agency) 1996. Nationalparkamt Rügen. 67 p.

Jansson, A.-M. & Zucchetto, J. 1978. Energy, Eco-

nomic and Ecological Relationships for Gotland,

Sweden -a Regional Sytems Study. Ecological Bul-

letins (Swedish Natural Science Research Coun-

cil, Stockholm), No 28, 154 pp.

Johansson, L. 1995. Coastal Area Management in

Sweden. Report on comprehensive coastal planning

in the Municipality of Lysekil. Swedish Environ-

mental Protection Agency. Swedmar (A unit within

the National Board of Fisheries). 56 p. (ISSN 1400-

7738).

Järventaus, K. 1995. Euroopan rannat suojeltu

selkeillä laeilla. Suomi erottuu joukosta. Helsingin

Sanomat 9.10.1995.

Kaether, J. 1994. Großschutzgebiete als Instrumente

der Regionalentwicklung. Pilotstudie im Auftrag

der Akademie für Raumforschung und

Landesplanung (ARL).

Kapp, K.W. 1993. Environmental disruption: General

issues and methodological problems. Julkaisussa

Ullman, J.E. (ed.). Social Costs, Economic Devel-

opment and Environmental Disruption. University

Press. Lanham - New York - London. 208 p. 39-56.

Kaskinen, J. 1996. Definition of Environmental In-

formation in Road Planning. A Case of the Plan-

ning a Fixed Road Connection in Turku Archi-

pelago. In: Konttinen,Annamari (ed.) Green Moves,

Political Stalemates. Sociological Perspectives on

the Environment. University of Turku. Department

of Sociology. 134 p. 94-105.

Kenchington, R. & Crawford, D. 1993. On the Mean-

ing of Integration in Coastal Zone Management.

Ocean & Coastal Management 21(1-3): 109-127.

Kestävän kehityksen suunnitelma Saaristomeren

biosfäärialueelle. 1995. Projektinhallintakurssi.

Turun yliopiston täydennyskoulutuskeskus. 104 p.

+ appendix.

Key facts about the Baltic Islands. 1995. The Baltic

Islands Environmental Data Group. 18 s.

Knecht, R.W. & Archer, J. 1993. ‘Integration’ in the

US Coastal Zone Management Program. Ocean &

Coastal Management 21(1-3): 183-199.

Kokovkin, T. 1993. Biosphere Reserve and Develop-

ment Options on the Baltic Island of Hiiumaa. In-

sula 2(2): 43-48.

Kokovkin, T. 1995. Biosphere reserve as a model re-

gion for sustainable development. In: Ihermann, A.

& Lüsi, M. (eds.). 1995. HiiumaaAastaraamat.A.D.

1994. Hiiumaa Teadus- ja Hariduskeskus Tuuru. 105

p. 44.

Kokovkin, T. (eds) 1996. Integrated Coastal Zone

Management: Käina Bay, Estonia. HELCOM PITF

MLW, Käina Bay Area Task Team, Biosphere Re-

serve Hiiumaa Centre. Kärdla.

Konfliktregelung im Umweltschutz. Das

Mediationsverfahren als neue Form der

Konsensfindung und als innovativer Beitrag zur

Lösung von Umweltproblemen. 1995. Regionale

Umwelt-Veranstaltung der Arbeitsgemeinschaft für

Umweltfragen e.V. in Sellin/Rügen, 20.10.1995.

228

Transscription of presentations and discussions. pp.

63-127. (Unpublished manuscript.)

Konzeption zur Entwicklung der Agrarwirtschaft und

Küstenfischerei Rügens. 1992. Landratsamt Rügen.

(Entwurf: August 1992). 120 p. + annexes.

Kooperationskonzept für die Großschutzgebiete in

Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. 1994. Deutsches

Wirtschaftswissenschaftliches Institut für

Fremdenverkehr e.V. an der Universität München.

Projektberichte Sozioökonomie. 156 p. + Annex .

Kosola, M. (ed.) 1990. Kokemuksia osallistumisesta

ja vaikutusten arvioinnista vesiensuojelun

suunnittelussa. Vesi ja ympäristöhallinnon

julkaisuja, Sarja A. Helsinki. 126 p. [Absract:

Project for participatory planning and impact analy-

sis for water pollution control, p. 5].

Kosola, M., Leskinen, A., Saastamoinen, V.-L. &

Vuorela, P. 1990. Kokemuksia osallistuvan

suunnittelun ja erittelevän vertailun kehittämisestä

vesiensuojelussa. Yhteiskuntasuunnittelu 28(3-4):

32-37.

Kriterien für Anerkennung und Überprüfung von

Biosphärenreservaten der Unesco in Deutschland.

1996.Deutsches Nationalkomitee für das Unesco-

Programm “Der Mensch und die Biosphäre”

(MAB). Bundesamt für Naturschutz. Bonn. 72 p.

Kruse-Graumann, L. 1995. An Introduction to the

EUROMAB workshop in Königswinter, January

23-25, 1995. In: Kruse-Grauman, L. (ed.) 1995.

Societal Dimensions of Biosphere Reserves - Bio-

sphere Reserves for People. Proceedings of the

EUROMAB workshop, 23-25 January 1995,

Königswinter. Deutsches Nationalkomitee. MAB-

Mitteilungen 41.157 p. 1-5.

Lehtilä, K. 1994. Saaristomeren biosfäärialue - mistö

on kyse? Julkaisussa Lehtilä, K. & Brown, M

(toim.). Saaristomeren biosfäärialue. Saaristomeren

biosfäärialueseminaari. Turun Yliopisto 1993.

Tiivistelmät. Saaristomeren tutkimuslaistos. Turku.

36 p. 8-10.

Leschine, T.M. 1990. Setting the Agenda for Estua-

rine Water Quality Management: Lessons from

Puget Sound. Ocean & Shoreline Management 13(3-

4): 295-313.

Leskinen, A. 1994. Environmental Planning as Learn-

ing: The Principles of Negotiation, the

Disaggregative Decision-making Method and Par-

allel Organization in Developing the Road Admin-

istration. University of Helsinki. Department of

Economics and Management. Publications No. 5,

Land Use Economics. Helsinki 1994. 162 p.

Lichtenberg, T. & Wolf, A. 1998. Akzeptanzstudien

in zwei Großschutzgebieten auf Rügen.

Geographisches Institut, Humboldtuniversität zu

Berlin. Arbeitsberichte Heft 25. 104 p.

Limnell, H. 1994a. Saaristomeren kansallispuiston

yhteistoiminta-alueen väestön mielipiteitä ja

mielikuvia Saaristomeren kansallispuistosta kesällä

1993. In: Lehtilä, K. & Brown, M (eds.) Saaristomeren

biosfäärialue. Saaristomeren biosfäärialueseminaari.

Turun Yliopisto 1993. Tiivistelmät. Saaristomeren

tutkimuslaistos. Turku. 36 p. 30-31.

Limnell, H. 1994b. Saaristomeren kansallispuiston

yhteistoiminta-alueen väestön mielipiteitä ja

References

229

mielikuvia Saaristomeren kansallispuistosta kesällä

1993. Pro gradu -työ.

Lindblom, C.E. 1959. The science of muddling through.

Public Administration Review. 19(2): 79-88.

Lützenkirchen, M. (ed.) 1995. Wasser zwischen Land

und Meer - Flußmündungen unter

Druck.Tagungsbericht 10 der Umweltstiftung

WWF-Deutschland. Bremen. 417 p.

Lääne-Eesti saarestiku biosfääri kaitseala

põhimääruse kiinnittamine (The Ordinance of the

rules of the West-Estonian Archipelago Biosphere

Reserve) 1994. (In Estonian.)

Macelli, A. 1990. Sustainable Development and En-

vironmental Management: The Case of the Small

Mediterranean Island of Gozo. In Beller, W.,

d’Ayala, P and Hein, P. (eds.) 1990. Sustainable

Development and Environmental Management of

Small Islands. Man and the Biosphere Series. Vol-

ume 5. UNESCO & The Parthenon Publishing

Group. Paris, Carnforth & New Jersey. 414 p. +

index. 169-181.

Margoluis, R., Salafsky, N. & Symington, M. 1997.

Linking Project Design, Management and Moni-

toring in ICM Projects. Intercoast Network, Inter-

national Newsletter of Coastal Managament. Fall

1997, #29.

Masser, I. 1984. Cross national comparative planning

studies. Town Planning Review 55(2): 137-149.

McElroy, J.L. & de Albuquerque, K. 1990. Managing

small-island sustainability: towards a systems de-

sign. Nature & Resources 26(2): 23-30.

Methodological Guide to Integrated Coastal Zone

Management. 1997. UNESCO, IOC Manuals and

Guides No. 36.

Mohr, L.B. 1973. The Concept of Organisational Goal.

The American Political Science Review 67(2): 470-

481.

Moilanen, T. & Roponen, S. 1994. Kvalitatiivisen

aineiston analyysi ATLAS/ti-ohjelman avulla.

Kuluttajatutkimuskeskus. Menetelmäraportteja ja

käsikirjoja 2/1994. 84 p + appendix 6 p.

Muhr, T. 1993. ATLAS/ti. Computerunterstützte

Textinterpretation. Manual zur Version 1.0 D. 190

p. + indexes.

Nature Conservation in Estonia 1994. Estonian Minis-

try of Environment. Huma. Tallinn. 48 p.

Noordwijk Guidelines for Integrated Coastal Zone Man-

agement. 1993. The World Bank, Environment De-

partment, Land, Water and Natural Habitat Division.

Distributed at the World Coast Conference, 1-5 No-

vember 1993. Noordwijk, the Netherlands. 20 p.

Nordberg, L. 1994. Baltic Coastal Conservation. Gen-

eral Legal Protection of the Coastal Strip and

Coastal Habitats in the Baltic Sea States and Nor-

way. Ministry of the Environment, Finland. Memo-

randum 1. 12 p.

Nurmela, L. (ed.) 1994. Ympäristön tila Varsinais-

Suomessa. Vesi- ja ympäristöhallitus.

Ympäristötietokeskus. Alueelliset tilaraportit 4.

Helsinki. 120 p. (ISBN 951-47-9277-7).

Olsen, S.B. 1993. Will Integrated Coastal Manage-

ment Programs be Sustainable; the Constituency

Problem. Ocean & Coastal Management 21(1-3):

201-225.

230

Olsen, S., Lowry, K., Tobey, J., Burbridge, P., &

Humphrey, S. 1997. Current Purposes and Methods

for Evaluating Coastal Management Projects and

Programs Funded by International Donors: Univer-

sity of Rhode Islands’s Coastal Resources Center.

Osallistuminen ja yhteiskunnallisten vaikutusten

arvioiminen vesiensuojelun suunnittelussa. 1986.

Vesihallitus, monistesarja Nro. 418. Helsinki. 103

p. + appendix 12 p.

Ostermann, O. 1994. Großschutzgebiete in der

Diskussion. Drei Jahre Nationalparkamt

Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. Natur und Landschaft

69(9): 420-423.

Our Sea, Our Future. Major findings of the state of

the marine environment report for Australia 1995.

Ocean Rescue 2000 program. Department of the

Environmen, Sport and Territories. 112 p. (ISBN 0

642 17391 5).

Paldanius, J. 1994a. Public Participation Information

Initiative: Country Study: Public Participation in

Finland. European Bank for Reconstruction and De-

velopment. 47 p. + Annex 1 p.

Paldanius, J. 1994b. Katsaus osallistuvan suunnittelun

kehittämiseen Suomessa 70 p. (Non-published

manuscript.)

Paldanius, J. 1997. Vuorovaikutteisen suunnittelun

kokemuksia Suomessa. Ympäristöministeriö,

ympäristöpolitiikan osasto. Suomen ympäristö 107.

Helsinki. 67 p.

Pank, M., Eelma, K., Nelis, R., & Tork, A. 1996. Es-

tonia’s Islands. Past and present. Kuressaare: In-

stitute for Islands Development. 64 p.

Pekkola, S. 1998. Metsätalouden suunnittelun

arviointi Saaristomeren biosfäärialueella (Evalua-

tion of Forestry Planning in the Archipelago Sea

Biosphere Reserve). Helsingin yliopisto,

taloustieteen laitos, ympäristöekonomia. (Master’s

thesis). 42 p.

Petschull, J. 1993. Der Sommer der Spekulanten.

GEO 93(9): 136-154.

Post, R. 1994. Solving Environmental and Devel-

opment Problems on the Micro-Regional Scale.

In the proceedings of the Symposium: Land and

Soil Protection. Ecological and Economic Conse-

quences. 6-12 June 1994, Tallinn, Estonia. 265 p.

23-30.

Post, R. 1995: Hiiumaa is part of a biosphere re-

serve. - In: Hiiumaa - getting to know. Kärdla.

1995. 48 s. 17-23.

Post, R. 1998. Local participation in the West-Esto-

nian Archipelago Biosphere Reserve: the case of

Hiiumaa. In: Hytönen, M. (ed.). Social

sustainability of forestry in the Baltic Sea Region.

Proceedings of workshops organised by the Nor-

dic Research Programme on Social Sustainability

of Forestry (NORSUFOR) 30-31 January 1997 in

Helsinki, Finland and 10-12 September 1997 in

Kärdla, Estonia. Finnish Forest Research Insti-

tute, Research Papers 704. 354 p. 309-314.

Post, J.C. & Lundin, C.G. (eds.) 1996. Guidelines

for Integrated Coastal Zone Management. The

World Bank, Environmentally Sustainable Devel-

opment Studies and Monographs Series No. 9.

Washington, D.C. 16 p.

References

231

Preller, M. 1993. Monopoly oder Modellregion auf

Rügen? Zwischenbilanz der „Bürgerinitiative für

Rügen“. Naturschutz heute 93(2): 26-27.

Price, M.F. 1995. People and Biosphere Reserves: The

Evolution of a Concept. In: Kruse-Grauman, L.

(ed.). 1995. Societal Dimensions of Biosphere Re-

serves - Biosphere Reserves for People. Proceed-

ings of the EUROMAB workshop, 23-25 January

1995, Königswinter. Deutsches Nationalkomitee.

MAB-Mitteilungen 41. 157 p. 131-138.

Price, A.R.C. & Humphrey, S.L. (eds.). 1993. Appli-

cation of the Biosphere Reserve Concept to Coastal

Marine Areas: Papers Presented at the UNESCO/

IUCN San Francisco Workshop, 14-20 August,

1989, Marine Conservation and Development Re-

port, IUCN, Gland. 114 p.

Priscoli, J. D. 1993. Öffentliche Beteiligung bei

technologie- und umweltpolitischen

Entscheidungsprozessen in hochentwickelten

Industriestaaten - Ein Überblick. In: Zilleßen, H.

(ed.) 1993. Die Modernisierung der Demokratie:

internationale Ansätze. Westdeutscher Verlag.

Opladen. 328 p. 40-58.

Priscoli, J. D. 1997. Participation and Conflict Man-

agement in Natural Resources Decision-Making.

In: Solberg, B. & Miina, S. (eds.) 1997. Conflict

Management and Public Participation in Land Man-

agement. Proceedings of the International Confer-

ence. Joensuu, Finland, 17-19 June 1996. European

Forest Institute Proceedings No. 14. 339 p. 61-87.

Programme of Sustainable Development of the Bio-

sphere Reserve of the West-Estonian Archipelago,

The. 1993. The International Project Management

Course. Centre For Extension Studies. University

of Turku. (Second corrected edition). 78 p.

Protection of the oceans, all kinds of seas including

enclosed and semi-enclosed seas, coastal areas and

the protection, rational use and development of their

living resources 1992. United Nations Conference

on Environment and Development. Agenda 21,

Chapter 17. 14.6.1992. 39 p.

Rajasärkkä, A. (Ed.) 1987. Establishing a Biosphere

Reserve in Finland - Report of the Symposium.

(Biosfäärialueiden perustaminen Suomeen -

seminaariraportti). MAB Finland. Unesco Report

10 b. 92 p. + appendix 22 p.

Rakennuslakitoimikunnan muistio lakiuudistuksen

tavoitteista. 31.12.1997. (WWW-page of the Envi-

ronmental administration: http://www.vyh.fi/raken/

sisalto.htm; 22.5.1998.)

Rannikko, P. & Schuurman, N. (eds.) 1997. Elämisen

taika taigalla. Ihminen ja luonto Pohjois-Karjalan

biosfäärialueella. University of Joensuu. Publica-

tion of the Karelian Institute. N:o 120. Joensuu.

183 p. [Summary: The Art of Living in the Taiga.

Human Beings and Nature in the North Karelia

Biosphere Reserve.]

Reed, M.G. 1994. Locally Responsive Environmen-

tal Planning in the Canadian Hinterland: A Case

Study in Northern Ontario. Environmental Impact

Assessment Review 94(14):245-269

Rentsch, G. 1988. DieAkzeptanz eines Schutzgebietes

untersucht am Beispiel der Einstellung der lokalen

Bevölkerung zum Nationalpark Byrischer Wald.

232

Münchener Geographische Hefte Nr. 57. Verlag

Michael Laßleben. Kallmünz/Regensburg. 87 p.

Ricken, C. 1995. Nationaler Politikstil,

Netztwerkstrukturen sowie ökonomischer

Entwicklungstand als Determinanten einer

effektiven Umweltpolitik - Ein empirischer

Industrieländervergleich. Zeitschrift für

Umweltpolitik & Umweltrecht 4/95: 481-501.

Rigg, K. 1997. European Code of Conduct for Coastal

Zones. Bureau of the Committee for the Activities

of the Council of Europe in the Field of Biological

and Landscape Diversity. Strasbourg, 14 October

1997, draft 3. PE-S-CO (97) 4. 85 p.

Rijsberman, F. 1993. The Effectiveness of the Hel-

sinki Convention as a Tool for the Integrated Coastal

Resources Management of the Baltic Sea. In:

Coastal Zone Management. Selected Case Studies.

1993. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and

Development (OECD). 310 p. 285-301.

Rinken, S. 1990. Von der Bewegung zur Behörde:

Institutionalisierung von Umweltschutzinteressen.

Das Beispiel der California Coastal Commission.

Leviathan. Zeitschrift für Sozialwissenschaften.

Jahrgang 1990. Heft 4: 536-550.

Röchert, R. & Lamp, J. 1995. The thoughtless - or

malicious - elimination of a ministry. WWF Baltic

Bulletin 1/95:23-24.

Rose, R. 1973. Comparing Public Policy: An Over-

view. European Journal of Political Research 1(1):

67-94.

Rose, R. 1991. What is lesson-drawing? Journal of

Public Policy 11(1): 3-30.

Saaristomeren biosfäärialueen nykytila. 1994.

Esitutkimusraportti. Turun Yliopiston

Täydennyskoulutuskeskus. 78 p. + appendix 22.

Saaristomeren kansallispuiston runkosuunnitelma.

1994. Metsähallituksen luonnonsuojelujulkaisuja.

Sarja B, No 21. Vantaa. 41 p. + annexes 22 p.

Sairinen, R. 1994. Ympäristökonfliktit kuntien

suunnittelussa ja päätöksenteossa. Suomen

Kuntaliitto. Acta-sarja 31. 280 p.

Scherer, B. 1995. Nationalparke, Biosphärenreservate

und Naturparke neuer Prägung: zwei Ziele - ein

Anspruch. In: ,Großschutzgebiete als

strukturpolitische Chance und kulturelle

Verpflichtung”. Föderation der Natur- und

Nationalparke Europas, Sektion Deutschland e.V. -

FÖNAD. Tagungsbericht (2.-4. November 1994).

99 p. 25-29.

Schröder, Peter C. 1993. The need for International

Training in Coastal Management. Ocean & Coastal

Management 21(1-3): 303-310.

Selin, S. & Chavez, D. 1995. Developing a Collabo-

rative Model for Plannning and Management. En-

vironmental Management 19(2): 189-195.

Siirala, M. (ed.) 1990. Tammisaaren saaristoprojekti.

Vesi-ja ympäristöhallituksen julkaisuja 37. 187 s.

[English summary: Tammisaari Archipelago

Project. Development and protection of an

archipelagic area for the purpose of coastal man-

agement. p. 177-179.]

Skoglund, K. 1997. Planering ur ett lokalt perspektiv.

En studie av ett pilotprojekt i Stockholms

mellanskärgård. 74 p. (Unpublished manuscript.)

References

233

Small Islands, Big Issues. Crucial Issues in the Sus-

tainable Development of Small Developing Islands.

1995. UNU World Institute for Development Eco-

nomics Research (UNU/WIDER). World Develop-

ment Studies 1. 156 p.

Social Sciences in the Man and the Biosphere Pro-

gramme, The. Report on seven seminars held in

Asia: Bangladesh, India, Malaysia, Nepal, Pakistan,

Philippines, Thailand. 1979. Unesco. Office of the

Regional Adviser for for Social Sciences in Asia

and Oceania. 121 p. + annexes 26 p.

Sorensen, J. 1993. The International Proliferation of

Integrated Coastal Zone Management Efforts.


Sorensen, J. 1997. National and International Efforts at

Integrated Coastal Management: Definitions,Achieve-

ments, and Lessons. Coastal Management 25: 3-41.

Sorensen, J.C. & McCeary, S.T. 1990. COASTS: Insti-

tutional arrangements for managing coastal resources

and environments. Coastal Publication No 1.

Stauch, M. 1992. Natural Science, Social Science and

Democratic Practice. Philosophy of the Social Sci-

ences 22(3): 337-356.

Strukturkonzept Rügen. 1991. Landkreis Rügen.

Überarbeitete Fassung (Mai 1991). 105 p.

Support to the Coordination of the Development Process

on Hiiumaa (Draft). 1995. Hiiumaa Research and Edu-

cation Centre “Tuuru”. Kärdla. 14 p. (not published).

Susskind, L. & McCreary, S. 1985. Techniques for

Resolving Coastal Resource Management Disputes

Through Negotiation. Journal of theAmerican Plan-

ning Association. 51(3): 365-374.

Takahashi, P.K. & Woodruff, J.L. 1993. The Devel-

opment of Alternative Energy Systems for Island

Communities. In Beller, W., d’Ayala, P and Hein,

P. (eds.) 1990. Sustainable Development and Envi-

ronmental Management of Small Islands. Man and

the Biosphere Series. Volume 5. UNESCO & The

Parthenon Publishing Group. Paris, Carnforth &

New Jersey. 414 p. + index. 103-116.

Temmes, M. 1988. Reviiriajattelu suomalaisessa

hallintokoneistossa. Hallinnon tutkimus 7(3): 183-188.

Thia-Eng, C. 1993. Essential Elements of Integrated

Coastal Zone Management. Ocean & Coastal Man-

agement 21(1-3): 81-108.

Tiirinen, M. 1991. Hiidenmaan alueellisen rakenteen

kehitys feodalismista väistyvän kolhoositalouden

aikaan. Helsingin yliopisto, Maantieteen laitos.

(Master’s thesis). 130 p.

Timmel, K. 1995. Modellregion Rügen: ein

realistischer Weg oder Vision? In:

“Großschutzgebiete als strukturpolitische Chance

und kulturelle Verpflichtung”. Föderation der Natur-

und Nationalparke Europas, Sektion Deutschland

e.V. - FÖNAD. Tagungsbericht (2.-4. November

1994). 99 p. 35-42.

Tourismus-Konzeption Rügen. 1993.

Forschungsinstitut für Tourismus. Heilbronn/

Rügen. 319 p.

Turtiainen, M. 1996. Ympäristöristiriitojen

sovittelumenettely - kirjallisuuskatsaus

yhdysvaltalaisista kokemuksista. Suomen

ympäristökeskuksen moniste 40. Helsinki. 39 p.

Uljas, J., Hellström, K. & Sagara, K. 1996. Hiiumaa

234

ja hiidlane. Sotsioloogiline uurimus. Biosfääri

Kaitseala Hiiumaa Keskus. Kärdla. 76 p.

Umweltbeitrag zur Regionalplanung für das Gebiet der

Insel Rügen. 1995. Umweltbundesamt.

Abschlußbericht (Entwurf: September 1995). 221 p.

Umweltbericht. 1994. Ministerium für Bau,

Landesentwicklung und Umwelt des Landes

Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. Schwerin. 80 p.

Vallega,A. 1993.AConceptualApproach to Integrated


ment 21(1-3): 149-162.

Vallejo, S.M. 1993. The Integration of Coastal Zone

Management into National Development Planning.


van der Weide, J. 1993. A Systems View of Integrated


ment 21(1-3): 129-148.

Varsinais-Suomen saaristo-ohjelma. 1994. Varsinais-

Suomen liitto. Turku. 155 p.

Weigelt, M. 1995: Biosphärenreservate als neue

Schutzgebietskategorie - eine Chance für

Deutschland. - Nationalpark 2/95: 13-16.

Weiland, U. 1996. Systemtheorie und Umweltplanung

- ein historischer Abriß. In K. Mathes, Breckling,

B. & Ekschmitt, K. (Ed.), Systemtheorie in der

Ökologie Landsberg: ecomed. 128 p. 115-128.

Weiland, U. & Lustig, S. 1997. Local Agenda 21 proc-

esses and Integrated Urban Development Planning -

Learning from Past Experience?, The 1997 Interna-

tional Sustainable Development Research Confer-

ence. Manchester, United Kingdom: ERP Environ-

ment. p. 316-321.

Welp, M. 1997. The Concept of Integrated Coastal

Management - definition, methods and applicabil-

ity in a research project on three biosphere reserves

in Estonia, Finland and Germany. Proceedings of

the International Nordic Conference in Human Ecol-

ogy. On Northern Shores and Islands: Human Well-

Being and Environmental Change, 16-18 August

1996, Strömstad, Sweden.

Welp, M. 1998a. Kan hållbar utveckling planeras -

biosfärområdets roll i miljö- och

utvecklingsplanering (Can Sustainable Develop-

ment Be Planned - the Role of the Biosphere Re-

serve Administration in Environmental and Devel-

opment Planning). Nordenskiöld-samfundets

tidskrift, Helsingfors. 57: 49-65.

Welp, M. 1998b. Forestry planning in three coastal bio-

sphere reserves in Estonia, Finland and Germany.

In: Hytönen, M. (ed.) 1998. Social sustainability of

forestry in the Baltic Sea Region. The Finnish For-

est Research Institute, Research Papers. Proceedings

of the Nordic-Baltic Workshop on Social

Sustainability of Forestry Kärdlä, Hiiumaa, Estonia,

10-12 September 1997. pp. 123-456

Verordnung über die Festsetzung von

Naturschutzgebieten und einem

Landschaftsshutzgebiet von zentraler Bedeutung

mit der Gesamtbezeichnung Biosphärenreservat

Südost-Rügen. Gesetzesblatt der Deutschen

Demokratischen Republik. Berlin, 1. Oktober 1990.

Sonderdruck Nr. 1471.

Vickholm, M. 1986: Biosfäärialueiden perustaminen

Suomeen - taustaa ja ehdotuksia. UNESCO Report

References

235

10a. Suomen MAB-toimikunta. Suomen akatemia.

125 s.

View from the lighthouse - six self-portraits of Euro-

pean island partners i nalternative tourism. 1995.

Eco-islands newsletter (European Natural Heritage

Fund, EURONATURE). No.1: 3-12.

Wirtschaftliche Entwicklung auf Rügen -

Dimensionierung, Widerspruch und Perspektive

(Die). 1992. Schriftenreihe des

Wirtschaftsfördervereins Rügens e.V. Heft 1. 30 p.

Wirtschaftskonzept des Landkreises Rügen. 1992.

Landkreis Rügen. 54 p. + annexes.

Vision and Strategies around the Baltic Sea 2010. To-

wards a Framework for Spatial Development in the

Baltic Sea Region. 1994. Third Conference of Min-

isters for Spatial Planning and Development. Tallinn

December 7-8, 1994. 96 p.

Wolfenden, J., Cram, F. & Kirkwood, B. 1994. Ma-

rine Reserves in New Zealand: A Survey of Com-

munity Reactions. Ocean & Coastal Management

25: 31-51.

Vorschläge zur wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung der Insel

Rügen. Eine Aufforderung zum Handeln. 1993.

Bürgerinitiative für Rügen. 79 p.

Yin, R.K. 1994. Case Study Research. Design and

Methods. Sage Publications, London. 170 p.

Ympäristöä säästävän matkailun

kehittämissuunnitelma Länsi-Viroon. 1994.

Kansainvälinen projektinhallintakurssi. Turun

yliopiston täydennyskoulutuskeskus. (Interna-

tional Project Management Course. Centre For

Extension Studies. University of Turku.). 73 p.

Öhman, M. 1996: Verksamhetsplan för

Skärgårdshavets biosfärområde 1997-1999. 18 s.

(draft 2.10.1996).

Ökologisch orientiertes Verkehrskonzept für Rügen.

1993. Landratsamt Rügen. Bergen. (Kurzfassung,

Ergebnisbericht). 156 p.

Newpapers

(abbreviations used in the study in brackets)

Ostseezeitung (OZ)

Rüganer (RÜ)

Deutsche Presseagentur (dpa)

Hiiumaa (HI)

HiiuLeht (HL)

Hiiu Teataja (HT)

Åbo Underrettelsär (ÅU)

236

237

Rügen

•Director of the Landwirtschaftsamt Stralsund

•Representative of the Fremdenverkehrsverband

Rügen

•Vice-president of the Rügen Business Associa-

tion

•Officer, the State Office for Nature and Envi-

ronmental Protection, Stralsund

•Two staff members of Ministry of Building,

Land Development and Environment, Schwerin

•Director of the Chamber of Industry and Com-

merce in Stralsund

•Planner, the Building and Planning Department

of the Office of the District Councillor

•Representative of the Alliance for Rügen

•Staff member, the Rügen National Park Agency

•Head of the municipality of Middelhagen

•Director of the International Academy of Na-

ture Protection, Isle of Vilm

•Head of the municipality of Göhren

•Reporter, Ostseeanzeiger

•Project leader, World Wide Fund for Nature,

Stralsund

•Staff member, the Rügen National Park Agency

•Head of the municipality of Baabe

•Director of the Environmental Department of

the Office of the District Councillor

•Researcher, International Academy of Nature

Protection, Isle of Vilm

•Chairman, Christian Democratic Union (CDU),

Bergen

•District Councillor

•Staff member of theAmt fürWirtschaftsförderung

und Tourismus, Bergen (Office for Economic De-

velopment and Tourism)

•Representative of the environmental NGO

'Naturschutzbund Deutschland', Samtens

•Mayor of the town of Putbus

•Mayor of the town of Binz

•Director of the Forestry Department, Werder

•Officer of the Strassenbauamt Stralsund (Of-

fice of Road Construction)

•Officer of the Ministry of Building, Land De-

velopment and the Environment, Schwerin

•Deputy Director of Bergamt Stralsund

•Director of the Rügen National Park Agency

•Officer, the Ministry of Agriculture, Schwerin

•Planning Consultant, Potsdam

Hiiumaa

•Chief Editor and reporter, Hiiumaa

•Fisherman, Kärdla

•Officer, the Regional Development Department

of the Hiiumaa County Government

•Director of the Environmental Department of

Hiiumaa County Government

•Planning Consultant, Kärdla

AnnexAnnex 1 List of interviewees

238

•Chairman of the Union of Hiiumaa Local Gov-

ernments

•Research Director of the Hiiumaa Biosphere

Reserve Center

• Representative of the Kassari Educational Society

• Head of the Economic Department of the

Hiiumaa County Government

• Planning Consultant, Kärdla

• Member of the Estonian Green Movement,

Kärdla

• Head of the Land Department of Hiiumaa

County Government

• Head analyst of the Regional Development De-

partment of Hiiumaa County Government

• Director of the Tuuru Research and Education

Center

• Head of the municipality of Körgessaare

• Mayor of the town of Kärdla

• Representative of the Village Movement

• Chief Editor, HiiuTeataja

• Head of the Municipality Council of Käina

• Director of the Institute for Island Develop-

ment, Kuressaare, Saaremaa

• Project Leader, Jobs and Society Hiiumaa En-

terprise Agency, Kärdla

• Director of the Hiiumaa Biosphere Reserve Center

• President of the Hiiumaa Association of Small

Scale Entrepreneurs

• Teacher, Kärdla High School

• Head of the Department of Nature Conserva-

tion and Wildlife Management, Ministry of the

Environment

• Town planner, Kärdla

• Executive Director of the Farmers Union of

Hiiumaa

• Director of the Hiiumaa Museum

• Two tourism entrepreneurs

• Director of Palade Museum

• Tourism Developer, Hiiumaa County Govern-

ment

• Head of the municipality of Käina

• Three representatives of the Hiiumaa Forest De-

partment

• Planner, Hiiumaa Biosphere Reserve Center

• Peace Corps volunteer, Kärdla

Archipelago Sea

• Head of municipality of Houtskär

• Director of Scanfish ltd., Houtskär

• General secretary of the environmental NGO

Natur och Miljö, Helsinki

• Head of municipality of Dragsfjärd

• Chief inspector, Regional Environment Centre

of South-West Finland

• Executive Director, Archipelago Sea Develop-

ment Agency

• Regional Planning Architect, Regional Coun-

cil of South-West Finland

• Chief Inspector, Archipelago Shipping Author-

ity

• Park Director, Archipelago Park District Office

• Researcher, Department of Sociology, Univer-

sity of Turku

• Chief editor, Åbo Underrettelser

Annex

239

Annex 2 List of interview themes

• Two chief inspectors, Regional Environment

Centre of South-West Finland

• Professor, Department of Biology, Åbo

Akademi University

• Head of municipality of Nagu

• Head of municipality of Korpo

• Agent for Archipelago, Regional Council of

South-West Finland

• Fishing biologist, Turku Rural Development

Agency, Fishing Department

• Environmental Councellor of the Ministry of

the Environment, Environmental Policy De-

partment

• Project worker, Archipelago Sea Biosphere Re-

serve

• Chairman of the municipal council of Korpo

• Archipelago Research Institute, University of

Turku

• Biosphere reserve coordinator,Archipelago Sea

Biosphere Reserve, Regional Environment Cen-

tre of South-West Finland

• Land use planner, Hangö

1) Background

Brief history and fields of activities of the or-

ganization problems to which planning is ad-

dressed to type of planning carried out by the

organization:

• regulatory or promotional

• policy and/or project level planning

Legal and institutional framework in which

planning takes place:

• national legislation (are biosphere reserves an-

chored in national legislation, implications on

planning in the biosphere reserve)

• relevant national programmes

• relevant international agreements

• recent or expected changes (e.g. laws expected

to be amended)

• do sectoral policies on the national level give

special attention to coastal areas?

Regional actors and interest groups:

• actors actively involved in the region (adminis-

trative units, political parties, enterprises, NGOs,

initiatives, scientists, intellectual supporters etc.)

• unorganized or weakly-organized interest

groups

• role of the groups in planning

Biosphere reserve:

• expectations and fears concerning the designa-

tion of the biosphere reserve

• administration of the biosphere reserve as a new

actor

• role of the biosphere reserve

• impacts of the biosphere reserve (e.g. on local

agenda, planning and management)

• integration of the biosphere reserve into re-

gional/local planning

240

Polarization between “environmentalists” and

“developers”:

• conflict type (mild difference, disagreement,

dispute, campaign, litigation, war)

• orientation to each other (competitors, antago-

nists, enemies)

• goals of groups in relation to each other (to in-

clude, exclude, or eliminate other)

2) Comprehensiveness in planning practice

Regional environmental and development

agenda:

• issues considered to be most important on the

regional environmental and development agenda

• important forums for articulating positions

(newspapers etc.)

• actors influencing agenda setting (e.g. local in-

terest groups, national interest groups, bio-

sphere reserve, local media, national media,

international media, research)

• recognition of regional issues in planning and

policy making

• reasons for some issues not entering the agenda

• reasons for selecting or ignoring certain issues

in planning

• issues of “sustainable development” in relation

to regional issues

Spatial units:

• planning area (territory) of the organization

• administrative boundaries in general

(landbound and seawards)

• adoption of ecosystem or watershed approach

in planning

• activities intending to overcome the problem

of administrative and natural boundaries being

different (cooperation, new planning territory)

• reasons for choosing a certain planning area

• adequacy of the size and zonation of the bio-

sphere reserve

Comprehensiveness in planning:

• ecological issues incorporated in sectoral/eco-

nomic/development planning

• EIAs (Environmental Impact Assessment) car-

ried out on project level planning

• EIAs carried out on strategic level planning

• social issues incorporated in sectoral / eco-

nomic/development/environmental planning

• SIAs (Social Impact Assessment) carried out

on project level planning

• SIAs carried out on strategic level planning

• other methods used to incorporate environmen-

tal and social issues in sectoral/economic/de-

velopment planning

• integration of EIAs and SIAs into proper plan-

ning and decision-making processes

3) Planning and decision-making processes

General characteristics:

• is theplanningsystemuniformandunderstandable?

• is there a clear access point for individual citi-

zens and citizens groups concerning the use of

coastal resources?

Annex

241

• was the approach for solving environmental and

development problems corrective or anticipatory?

• were conflicts involved in the planning issue

or was the process characterized by consigns

and cooperation?

• forms of conflict resolution

• were the interests and opinions of citizens and

citizen groups known when planning was

started?

• were the interests and opinions of other sectoral

administration known when planning was

started?

• identification of potential actors (organized or

weakly-organized interest-groups)

• was there a systematic inquiry/survey of dif-

ferent interests and opinions? (Were the alter-

natives based on such a survey? Was this a part

of planning routines?)

• type of planning and decision-making method

used in planning

Public participation:

• direct institutional participation included in

project planning

• direct institutional participation included in

strategic planning

• methods and techniques used in public partici-

pation

• Written announcements, newsletters, direct

mail, newspaper articles, radio and TV an-

nouncements or programmes, exhibitions), pub-

lic hearings

• Surveys, questionnaires, interviews, exhibitions

with mailboxes, telephone hotlines, field trips,

site visits)

• Citizen advisory committees, joint planning

groups, negotiation committees, structured

workshops, unassisted negotiation, mediation

assisted negotiations, citizen panels)

• objectives of public participation (e.g. to inform

people, educate people, to initiate public inter-

est and discussion about values, to improve the

quality of planning and decision-making by col-

lecting and exchanging information, to gain

needed majority and acceptance for a plan, em-

powerment etc.) (Were objectives of public par-

ticipation discussed together with different ac-

tors? Were the objectives explicitly defined?)

• existence of a structured plan for the planning

process and participation

• selection of participants (e.g. planners selected,

anyone could participate)

• discussions about the playing rules

• timing of public participation (early in the plan-

ning process, in a late phase)

• how was on the content of the plans decided

(problem setting)?

• citizens role in formulating planning alternatives

• regularity and continuity of public participa-

tion (e.g. newsletters)

• demands for more institutionalized participa-

tion (who expressed such demands and when?)

• non-institutionalized participation (alternative

planning, protests, campaigning, etc.).

242

• budget/guidelines for participatory arrange-

ments in the planning organization (public

funding)

• other sources of funding (e.g. sponsoring)

• was there enough knowledge in the organiza-

tion to organize public participation?

• outside consultants involved in participatory

planning

Evaluation:

• how well were the organized interest groups

reached?

• how well were the unorganized or weakly-or-

ganized interest groups reached?

• were people involved in planning able to esti-

mate how their participation influenced plan-

ning and decision-making (e.g. views and pro-

posals in a table format)?

• problems that occurred in the course of partici-

pation

• reasons for missing participation

• prerequisites for successful participation

• was a possible joint planning procedure an in-

tegral part of planning and decision-making?

• have different groups been satisfied with pub-

lic participation arrangements?

• did participation enhance communication be-

tween different sectors?

• were the methods and techniques appropriate for

meeting the objectives of public participation?

• how do you personally see the role of public

participation in planning?

• driving forces for non-institutional participation

• driving forces for and against institutional par-

ticipation

• relations between direct and indirect institu-

tional participation (was the work of representa-

tive political bodies integrated into direct in-

stitutional participation?)

• involvement of politically elected decision-

makers in participatory procedures

• reasons for a group or actor choosing to par-

ticipate or not to participate in a planning proc-

ess?

Information/knowledge:

• access to relevant planning information

• language used in the dialogue (was it under-

standable for citizens and non-experts?)

• were the issues highly technical, biological, or

economic?

• education on the subject

• education in planning and group-working

• attempts to translate expert knowledge into lan-

guage more familiar non-experts

• independent community based projects reviews,

investigations and alternative planning

Resources:

• resources for public participation (information,

education, support for travel, preparations, pro-

ducing information)

• existence of a funding program for public par-

ticipation (e.g. on district/regional level)

Annex

243

• what methods of participation do you consider

suitable (direct participation in a hearing, par-

ticipation through representatives, surveys, in-

terviews, etc.)?

Cooperation between authorities

Vertical cooperation

• cooperation between different levels of govern-

ance

• conflicts involved between local, regional and

national levels

• level in which coordination with other sectors

primarily takes place

• sufficiency of provided information (national-

local, local-national)

• coordination between policy- and project level

planning and decision-making

Horizontal cooperation:

• sectors (agencies) that are most important from

your organization point of view

• need for coordination with other related plans

and programmes

• sectors with which cooperation is problematic/

insufficient

• conflicts between administrative bodies

• are conflicts between different authorities out-

spoken/made public

• sectors with which cooperation is sufficient

• forms of institutionalized cooperation (written

statements, multi-agency steering group or

working group, working groups, joint planning

groups, negotiation committees or councils)

• informal cooperation between sectors and dis-

ciplines (personal contacts and discussions)

• timing of cooperation

• problems that occurred in the course of coop-

eration (e.g. flexibility of cooperative arrange-

ments)

• reasons for missing cooperation (e.g. lack of

awareness, powerful planning authorities, fear

of loosing power, increased amount of work,

insufficient resources)

• prerequisites for successful cooperation

• attempts to translate expert knowledge into lan-

guage more familiar non-experts and experts

in other fields

• parallel organizations or projects enhancing co-

operation

• impact of cross-sectoral cooperation on public

participation

• was cooperation between sectors and levels of

government carried out simultaneously with

participatory procedures?

• were politically elected decision-makers in-

volved?

4) Outcome and implementation of the plan/

programme

• monitoring and evaluation concerning the im-

plementation of plans and programs (are the

results presented in the public?)

• was the planning process (implementation) suc-

cessful in tackling the problem to which it was

addressed?

244

• was the process dominated by powerful inter-

est groups?

• agencies/interest groups acting against compre-

hensive, cooperative or participate planning ar-

rangements (reasons for this)

• main sources of power used by different groups

(resource power, structural power, symbolic

power)

• has possible movement towards integrated ar-

rangements involved more centralization of

power or unification of authority?

• citizen influence on the contents of the plans

and on decision-making

Role of planner:

• did planners take an active role in dealing with

inequalities in the distribution of power (e.g.

provide information for citizens initiatives)?

• were citizen and NGO involvement encouraged

by planning agencies?

• was the message of planners: a) “You can de-

pend on me”, “You needn't get involved”, “I'll

consult you when appropriate”, or b) “We

would welcome and support you in participa-

tion”, or “We are interested in your opinions

and information”?

• other important issues that were not discussed?

• were conflicts resolved satisfactorily?

• reason for the success/failure in implementa-

tion (e.g. lack of commitment of certain groups,

situation changed, problem was no longer con-

sidered relevant)

• did participation encourage unorganized inter-

est groups to organize themselves?

• was participation introduced in later planning

processes?

• impact of the experiences on later planning

processes

• impacts on citizen and community awareness

concerning environmental and development

problems

• influence on the regional environment and de-

velopment agenda

• decisions contrasting the goals of biosphere re-

serves

• challenges to the legal and institutional frame-

work

• challenges to international agreements

5) Use of power

• legitimacy and fairness of the planning process

• the use of expert knowledge/language/position

as a source of power

• who produced and who used the information?

245

Map 1 Location of the case study areas in the Baltic Sea

Maps

246

Map 2 Rügen

Map 3 Hiiumaa

Maps

247

Map 4 Archipelago Sea

Legend for maps 2-4:

Outer boundary ofbiosphere reserve

Cities and municipalities:

> 50.000 inhabitants

10.000 - 50.000

3.000 - 10.000

< 3.000

0 10km

248

MIDDLE ELBE (GER 1)VESSERTAL-THURINGIAN FOREST (GER 2)BAYERISCHER WALD (GER 3)BERCHTESGADEN ALPS (GER 4)WADDENSEA OF SCHLESWIG-HOLSTEIN (GER 5)SCHORFHEIDE-CHORIN (GER 6)SPREEWALD (GER 7)RÜGEN (GER 8)RHÖN (GER 9)PFÄLZERWALD (GER 10)WADDENSEA OF LOWER SAXONY (GER 11)WADDENSEA OF HAMBURG (GER 12)OBERLAUSITZER HEIDE- UND TEICHLANDSCHAFT (GER 13)

Map 5 Biosphere Reserves in Germany

Maps

249

Map 6 Biosphere Reserves in Estonia

WEST ESTONIAN ARCHIPELAGO (ENA 1)

250

Map 7 Biosphere Reserves in Finland

NORTH KARELIAN (FIN 1)ARCHIPELAGO SEA (FIN 2)

Maps

251

Map 8 Biosphere Reserves in western Europe

252

253

Foreword from the Secretary of the Man and Biosphere Programme ....................... 5

Preface ...................................................................................................................................... 7

1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 9

1.1 Coastal resources under pressure and the need for new planning approaches ...... 91.2 Objectives of the study ............................................................................................... 121.3 Applying the results ................................................................................................... 13

2. Framework of the study .................................................................................................... 15

2.1 Four styles of environmental and development planning ....................................... 152.2 The concept of «integrated coastal management» (ICM) ........................................ 18

2.2.1 ICM - a response to sectoralized management .............................................. 182.2.2 Evolution of the concept .................................................................................. 192.2.3 Main dimensions of integration ...................................................................... 202.2.4 Definition of the management area ................................................................. 252.2.5 Alternative methods and strategies for introducing ICM.............................. 262.2.6 Efforts to introduce ICM within the European Union

and the Baltic Sea Region ................................................................................ 302.2.7 ICM from the perspective of planning theory ............................................... 34

2.3 A set of criteria for «good coastal planning practice» ............................................. 372.4 Research approach and outline of the study ............................................................. 412.5 Research methods ....................................................................................................... 442.6 Validity and reliability of the case studies................................................................. 48

3. Biosphere reserves as model areas for sustainable resource use .............................. 51

3.1 Origins and transformation of the concept ............................................................... 513.2 Biosphere reserve — a local partner or an «outside intervention»? ....................... 543.3 Deficits in research ...................................................................................................... 55

4. Key characteristics of the case study areas ................................................................... 57

4.1 Selection and delineation of case study areas ........................................................... 574.2 The case study areas ................................................................................................... 59

4.2.1 The island of Rügen in Germany ..................................................................... 594.2.2 The island of Hiiumaa in Estonia .................................................................. 654.2.3 Archipelago Sea in Finland .............................................................................. 70

4.3 Comparability of the case study areas ....................................................................... 76

5. The biosphere reserves of Southeast Rügen, the West Estonian Archipelago,

and the Archipelago Sea ........................................................................................................ 815.1 Designation of the biosphere reserves ....................................................................... 815.2 Structure and tasks of the administration ................................................................. 86

Contents

254

5.3 Adequate zonation?...................................................................................................... 935.4 Biosphere reserves in national legislation ................................................................ 965.5 Comparison of the biosphere reserve’s roles ........................................................... 100

6. Analysis and comparison of planning practice on Rügen,Hiiumaa, and the Archipelago Sea ..................................................................................... 103

6.1 Selection of illustrative examples .............................................................................. 1036.2 Examples of planning practice 106

6.2.1 Strategic regional planning and the designation of protected landscape areas on Rügen ......................................................................................... 106

6.2.2 The Hiiumaa Development Action Plan 2010 ................................................ 1126.2.3 Sectoral planning: Forestry planning on Rügen,

Hiiumaa and Archipelago Sea .......................................................................... 1196.2.4 Two coastal land-use conflicts on Rügen and Hiiumaa ................................ 1256.2.5 Water-use planning with special reference to fish farming

on Rügen and in the Archipelago Sea ............................................................ 1326.2.6 Käina Bay Integrated Coastal Management Plan (Hiiumaa) ........................ 1386.2.7 The establishment of an advisory board for the biosphere reserve

on Rügen and Archipelago Sea ........................................................................ 1406.3 Planning practice in comparison to the ideal model ................................................ 146

6.3.1 Comprehensiveness ......................................................................................... 1466.3.2 Participation ..................................................................................................... 1526.3.3 Cooperation ....................................................................................................... 1676.3.4 Feedback ........................................................................................................... 174

6.4 Planning styles in the case study areas ...................................................................... 178

7. Conclusions .......................................................................................................................... 181

7.1 A vision for planning in coastal areas ....................................................................... 1817.2 The «programme» or the «incremental reform» approach ...................................... 1837.3 Potential roles for biosphere reserves in the future .................................................. 184

Summary .................................................................................................................................. 189Estonian Summary ................................................................................................................... 197Finish Summary ....................................................................................................................... 204German Summary .................................................................................................................... 211

Acknowledgements.................................................................................................................. 219

References ................................................................................................................................. 221

Annex 1 List of interviewees................................................................................................... 237

Annex 2 List of interview themes........................................................................................... 239

Maps 1-8..................................................................................................................................... 245

Documents

Planning Practice on three Island Biosphere Reserves