Approaches to Change - Universal values at local scale: The example of the Swiss Alps World Natural Heritage Site [Karina Liechti]

APPROACHES TO CHANGE UNIVERSAL VALUES AT LOCAL SCALE The example of the Swiss Alps World Natural Heritage Site

Karina Liechti Centre for Development and Environment CDE University of Bern, Switzerland

08/12/2010

UNIVERSAL VALUES AT LOCAL SCALE - The example of the Swiss Alps World Heritage Site

2

08/12/2010


3

Natural landscape

Cultural landscape

08/12/2010


4

WH Sites as sites of universal value

“Heritage is our legacy from the past, what we live with today, and what we pass on to future generations. Our cultural and natural heritage are both irreplaceable sources of life and inspiration. […]. What makes the concept of World Heritage exceptional is its universal application. World Heritage sites belong to all the peoples of the world, irrespective of the territory on which they are located.”

(UNESCO World Heritage Centre 2010)

08/12/2010


5

Universal values of the Swiss Alps WHS

The justification for inscription of the Swiss Alps Jungfrau-Aletsch region in the list of World Natural Heritage Sites 2001 was threefold:

(1) The region covers the most glaciated part of the Alps, containing Europe‟s largest glacier and a range of classic glacial features, and it provides an outstanding geological record of the uplift and compression that formed the High Alps.

(2) A range of alpine and sub-alpine habitats harbor a great diversity of wildlife, and plant colonization in the wake of retreating glaciers provides an excellent example of plant succession.

(3) The impressive vista of the north wall of the High Alps has played an

important role in European tourism, literature, and art.

(UNESCO World Heritage Centre 2003)

08/12/2010


6

Universal values of the Swiss Alps WHS

Glacial features Range of habitats Role in tourism

Universal values: How are they reflected at local scale?

08/12/2010


7

Data

Universal values: How are they reflected at local scale?

Our data

> Controversial debates at the forefront of the World Heritage candidature

Analysis of media coverage 1998-2001 (newspaper)

> Participatory process after the inscription into the World Heritage List (2003-2005)

Active participation in its setting, carrying though, and analysis

> Outlook to the situation today

observer (since 2005)

08/12/2010


8

Debate in the media 1998-2001

Uniqueness of the region never questioned (neither by proponents or opponents of the inscription of the region into the World Heritage List)

Uniqueness is mainly related to the beauty of the region

“This unique landscape is formed by wind, coldness, sun and the powerful flow of the glacier. Fauna and flora cover this landscape in every season, so that it bristles with beauty” (WB, letter to the editor, 09/03/2000).

Complex interrelationships in an ecosystem, biodiversity, and issues such as climate change were rarely a subject of discussion, even though they finally were the criteria for the inscription as a WHS

Walliser Bote (WB) - newspaper

> general articles (76)

> letters to the editor (26)

> political forums (12)

> comments (8)

08/12/2010


9

Controversial debate in the media

Generalized characteristic statements (+/- : in favour/against the WHS)

1 Aesthetics The region‟s natural beauty is unique and irreplaceable. (+/-)

2 Expropriation Outsiders will prevent local people from taking their own decisions about the future of the region. (-)

3 Loss of income Expansion of infrastructure and related economic development will be impeded. (-)

4 Increase of income The provision of an unspoiled landscape will generate additional income for the region. (+)

5 Endangered humans Natural dangers (wolves, avalanches etc.) will threaten our way of life. (-)

6 Endangered nature The unique ecosystem should remain untouched and needs protection. (+)

08/12/2010


10

Sustainability debate - future generations

Future generations and their welfare were most important for both parties.

> Supporters argued that the status of the area should be kept as it was: unspoiled. They referred to ecology, which should not be compromised:

“The unique landscape in the Aletsch region is not interchangeable just as you like […]. It has an inestimable value. Coming generations will be thankful for this”. (WB, comment, 09/03/2000)

> Opponents argued that economic restrictions would follow inscription on the WH list. Their arguments referred to the economy, which should not be compromised:

“It is our uppermost duty to keep [infrastructural] extension possibilities open in order to provide future generations a secure livelihood”. (WB, general

article, 02/04/1998)

“Nature protection alone is not enough – our descendants also want to eat and to drink”. (WB, comment 07/03/2000)

08/12/2010


11

Sustainability debate - future generations

Opponents present the creation of a WHS as a sign of mistrust of the coming generations:

“The big restrictions caused by sustainable development approaches and by taking over regulations from the UNESCO can be enormous for all circles concerned, depending on their economic development. Do we not trust the coming generations? Do we think that they are unable to care for this region?”.

(WB, letter to the editor, 04/03/2000)

08/12/2010


12

Sustainability debate – former generations

Reference to the efforts of past generations

> The supporters of the World Heritage candidature saw inscription as the „gold medal‟ for past nature protection measures.

“Inscription on the WH list is an award for efforts and achievements in protecting this unique landscape”. (WB, letter to the editor, 09/03/2000)

> Opponents argued that responsibility could be carried by the local people alone, as it always was. Past generations maintained the landscape in a sustainable way without any label ordering them to do so.

“Our ancestors have cared for the region, protected it, used it and placed it to the tourism‟s disposal. We have taken this region over with care and have continued using it under the motto of nature, environment, guests, and wanderers, up to now”. (WB, letter to the editor, 04/03/2000).

08/12/2010


13

The Charter of Konkordiaplatz

“We are proud that our Jungfrau-Aletsch-Bietschhorn region has been nominated for inscription in the UNESCO World Heritage List. This nomination testifies to our past efforts – undertaken in conjunction with the cantonal and federal authorities, the regions and environmental associations – to protect, conserve and enhance this landscape. This charter is an expression of our determination to continue to seek and to promote sustainable landscape development. The inclusion of the region on the list of UNESCO World Heritage sites would be a mark of international recognition for these endeavours”.

(Charter of Konkordiaplatz 2001)

08/12/2010


14

After the inscription into the WH list

Participatory process Core group

Preparatory Workshop

Final Meeting

Core group

Core group

Core group

Core group

FORUM A

Objectives

FORUM B

Measures

FORUM C

Actions

FORUM A

Objectives

FORUM B

Measures

FORUM C

Actions

Canton Valais Canton Berne

08/12/2010


15

Controversies remain…

50%

100%

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Agriculture/forestry

Tourism

Nature conservation

Transport/craft/trade

Education/culture

Public administration

Actor categories

Objectives

1. Maintenance of current conservation status

2. Reinforcement of nature protection

3. Preservation of current cultural landscape

4. Increased economic use of space and resources

5. Improved planning for regional development

6. Sensitization and awareness creation

7. Enhancement of regional resource cycles

8. Concerted promotion and marketing

External actors can afford to pronounce very broad objectives regarding the

environmental functions and values of a specific region. These values are related to

the „universal values‟ that were given as reason for the inscription into the World

Heritage List.

08/12/2010


16

Achievements of the participatory process

> the momentum of the inscription could be carried on

> a common product in the form of a Management Plan was elaborated

> several projects were developed by local people and partly implemented

> ownership could be created

However

> Structural changes, new leadership, consolidation of the Management Centre and administration are time consuming

> Implementation of concrete activities takes a long time, which partly leads to disappointment and withdrawal of local participants

Do local views/values have an adequate impact in the concretisation of the WHS?

Do only the „universal values‟ prevail?

08/12/2010


17

Policy implications

Include the “After-participatory-process-phase” into planning OR see the process as a “Long term participation” Reflect on how to keep momentum

Reflect on how to include local views/values

(projects, ideas) into the implementation phase

- Keep contact with local people

- Implement some projects fast

- Is there adequate funding for local projects?

Reflect on how to create an atmosphere that

motivates local people to take the initiative (creating ownership) and how to support those initiatives

Research gap

Research gap

Research gap

08/12/2010


18

Thank you for your attention