Collective efforts to manage cultural landscapes- Examples from Europe -

Katrin Prager

ACES Seminar Series 21-1-2011

Introduction

Cultural landscapes

IntroductionWhy investigate collaborative groups?

Defining and working towards sustainable landscape

management

Coordination, contiguous management

A group can achieve more than individuals on their own

How to evaluate? Who evaluates?

If worthwhile – how support?

Continuity?

IntroductionBackground

LandscapePartners project (macaulay.ac.uk/LandscapePartners)

Collaborative, community-based natural resource management in Australia (Landcare)

Methods

desk-based review, telephone inquiries, key informant interviews

Approach/ theory

Resilience theory

Resilience Theory System dynamics, social-ecological systems

Resilience = the ability of a system to absorb disturbances and

to reorganise while undergoing change so as to still retain the

same structure and function (Holling, Gunderson, Folke, Walker)

One of three responses to disturbance (adaption,

transformation)

Social-ecological systemdisturbance

Social system(s)

Ecological system(s)

state

groups

communities

economy

Role of social subsystems in social-ecological systems

Habitat management activities, marketing of local foods

Horizontal/ vertical coordination between land managers/ authorities

Lower transaction costs for policy implementation

Resilience Theory

CulturalLandscape

Local/regional groups

Ecological system

change

disturbance

Collaborative groups Focus on cultural landscapes (several components and

landuses)

Groups with stakeholders from diverse sectors

Local or regional level (district, county)

DE – Landschaftspflegeverbände (LPV)

UK – Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group (FWAG)

AU – Distelverein

NL – Environmental cooperatives (EC)

Characteristics of groups IFirst group in

Structure No of groups in 2009

No of people involved

Area size Staff

Dutch EC 1992 Individual groups and umbrella organisation (NPN)

125 number has increased

10,000 members

500 ha –3500 ha

Not available

German LPV

1986 independent groups and umbrella organisation (DVL)

Approx. 150, number has increased

20,000 farmers under contract

District(approx. 1.500 to 7.500 km²)

About 2 per district = approx. 290

Austrian Distel-verein

1987 Single group without sub-groups

1, disbanded at the end of 2009

Contracting farmers

Lower Austria(19.177 km²)

6 (prior to 2009)

FWAG (UK)

1969/ 1984

Headquarters and teams

40 in ENG/ WAL, disbanded in SCO in 2009

10,000 members

Teams covering 1-3 counties

130 in total, 22 in Scotland (2009)

Characteristics of groups IIMain sector Other sectors involved Focus Volunteers

Dutch EC Emphasis on farmers (approx. 75% overall)

Administration Integrate nature management into farming

Less important

German LPV

Emphasis on parity of conservation, farming, community councils

Hunting, tourism, fisheries, marketing initiatives

Landscape and habitat management, sustainable rural development

important

Austrian Distel-verein

Parity between conservation, farming, hunting

Communities Maintain biodiversity in agricultural landscapes

Very important

FWAG (UK)

Farming Industry/ commercial partners, environmental groups and societies

1-1 advice for farmers and landowners on agri-environment issues

Very important, over 1000

Findings Current situation

DE and NL: number of groups stable or increasing

UK: FWAG Scotland dissolved but other branches active

AU: group dissolved, no replacement

Networks continue but less formalised; dispersed and very

localised efforts

FindingsReasons for lack of resilience of social subsystems

financial difficulties

lack of member/partner support

groups no longer needed

lack of organisational support structure

Implications for resilience of social-ecological system

Undesirable changes

Decreased adaptive capacity

Decreased sustainability

Thank you !