The greenAlps project: lessons learnt€¦ · Stakeholder dialogue Kalkalpen (A): local people do not see the economic opportunities coming from the presence of the park – stakeholders

The greenAlps project: lessons learnt

M. Badura, G. Plassmann, A. Ullrich-Schneider, F. Favilli, C. Walzer, S. Santi

Final conference14.10.2014, Chambéry

connecting mountains people nature

Final Conference

GreenAlps

- Capitalisation of former ASP projectresults

- Communication of project results- Recommendations to ASP programme

2014-2020

2Chambéry, 2014-10-14


Final Conference

Methodology:

- Desk review and interviews- Workshop and site visits- Work with Pilot areas- Policy recommendation- Recommendations to the ASP

programme

3Chambéry, 2014-10-14


Final Conference

4Chambéry, 2014-10-14

Different levels – low interactionlocal – regional – national – EU


Final Conference

One example for contradictory objectives ofplanning instruments:Bavarian Biodiversity Action programBavarian State Development Plan (LEP) on spatialplanning for ‚industrial/commercial areas‘

5Chambéry, 2014-10-14


Workshops

6Chambery, October 16th 2014

Leaflet


Qualitative contribution to the JECAMI tool


CONTINUUM SUITABILITY INDEX

THANKS TORuedi Haller, Swiss National Park

Sara Moruzzi, thesis student ‐ University of UdineMichel Zuliani, Mountain Community of Carnia


Needs and EU projects in PRs

- Pilot Regions and their protected areas reflect a very different attitude towards thesame environment

- The needs are based on the relationship with the environment, the local history, themorphology of the landscape, the main ESS

- In terms of financial issues, the PRs suffer for lack of funding for the basic activitiesand have always less staff for „additional tasks“ as EU projects

- EU projects in the past (in many cases) have not produced concrete results becauseof absence of subsequent implementation

- EU projects are not related to local needs and local SH are not taken in consideration

- Biodiversity targets are not included in other sectors

- Ecological connectivity is a way to connect the people

9greenAlps Final Conference, Chambery, France



Kalkalpen (A): valorize biodiversity and wildnerness through theimprovement of ecological connectivity – absence of a nationalframework for connectivity

Ecological connectivity connects nature and people (NetzwerkNaturwald project / Biosphere Reserve) / overcoming localdifferences / encourage inter-state cooperation

Triglav (SL): Lack of funding, low involvement of local communities inpark‘s management, new programs for PES, valorize the UNESCOBiosphere

Valorise local ESS through the enhancement of transboundarycooperation (with Prealpi Giulie) / open the Park to the people




Berchtesgaden (D): shift from a “local development” to a “plannedregional development” / develop a network of stakeholder / valorizelocal products

ESS valorization done through stakeholder cooperation / connectionof people, valorization of differences is valorization of theenvironment

Prealpi Giulie (I): Valorize the Park as depositary of historical/culturalknowledge / expand the boundaries / improve transboundarycooperation (Triglav)

Valorise local ESS and connectivity through the inclusion in theTriglav Biosphere / promote SH exchange / encouragetransboundary tourism



Stakeholder dialogue

Kalkalpen (A): local people do not see the economic opportunitiescoming from the presence of the park – stakeholders have low trust inEU projects (i.e., after ECONNECT)

New projects to enhance internal cooperation and concreteimplementation on the ground – people are tired of „words“

Triglav (SL): recharge.green potential of biomass energy –stakeholders are not aware of this project

Promote local and transboundary stakeholder dialogue andexchangeWith Prealpi Giulie, connect the European Green Belt with theAlpine ecological network



Stakeholder dialogue

Berchtesgaden (D): many concrete actions done in EU projects withSH involvement. Low connection among different sectors

Develop initiative involving different sectors – create a local networkof SH – develop regional management plan

Prealpi Giulie (I): Local stakeholder don‘t feel involved and valorized /influence of political power

Develop a dialogue process with SH regarding the Biospherehypothesis – encourage transboundary SH dialogue



Cooperation in border regions: Alpine Rhine: 1 valley, 3 countries, many uses

• In borderregions, national borders arepresent

• International cooperationactivities canimprove this

• Good practiceexamples asstarting point

© CIPRA

International


• Denselypopulated, fragmented byinfrastructures

• Many goodinitiatives

• Not enoughcooperationacross borders

15Vienna, 3rd July 2014


Stakeholder workshop in Mäder/A, 2nd Sept 2014

16

© M

artin

Walser

• Make sure peoplefrom all countries, administrative levels and sectorsspeak to eachother

• Build on existinginitiatives

• Ensure long-term activities in «working regions»


Selected results_Policy Gaps


Binding targets and non‐binding objectives by categorySource: EEA Report No 8/2013 “Towards a Green Economy in Europe” (EEA 2013b)


Selected results_Policy Gaps


A rough and unedited text analysis of the EU Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe (EC 2011b) while “biodiversity” is visible but less prominent than would be warranted


Selected results_Impact and Involvement

19Transsectoral Workshop in Grenoble

Difficult to involve

Influential

N = 53 - 65 according to dimension and stakeholder group.


Selected results_Difficult to involve

20Forum Alpinum 17-19 Sept. Darfo Boario Therme


Selected results_Contact network

21Forum Alpinum 17-19 Sept. Darfo Boario Therme


[email protected]


Documents

The greenAlps project: lessons learnt€¦ · Stakeholder dialogue Kalkalpen (A): local people do not see the economic opportunities coming from the presence of the park – stakeholders