Sodelovanje in konflikti med deležniki pri pripravi Program upravljanja

Gallo M., Pezdevšek Malovrh Š., Laktić T., De Meo I., Paletto A. 2018. Collaboration and conflicts between stakeholders in drafting the Natura 2000 Management Programme (2015–

2020) in Slovenia. Journal for nature conservation, 42: 36–44.

Izvleček: Natura 2000 je omrežje zavarovanih območij za ohranjanje ekološke raznolikosti in habitatov v Evropski uniji. Vključevanje zasebnih in javnih deležnikov v izvajanje in upravljanje območij Nature 2000 je osnova za uspešnost omrežja. Kakovost participativnega procesa je povezana z relacijskim socialnim kapitalom (odnosi med deležniki in norme vzajemnosti in zaupanja, ki iz njih izhajajo). Ta članek raziskuje spremembe v relacijskem socialnem kapitalu po izvedbi participativnega procesa, razvitem med pripravo Programa upravljanja območij Natura 2000 (2015–2020) v Sloveniji. Te spremembe so analizirane skozi dva glavna dejavnika: raven zaupanja v ostale deležnike in konflikte med deležniki.

Rezultati prikazujejo povečanje ravni zaupanja javni upravi in hkratno znižanje ravni zaupanja drugim deležnikom. Večina anketirancev izpostavlja prisotnost štirih vrst konfliktov: konflikti zaradi omejitev človeških dejavnosti; konflikti, ki so posledica povečanja birokratskih postopkov; konflikti zaradi nestrinjanja glede opredelitve institucionalnih vlog; konflikti zaradi pomanjkanja popolnih informacij o zahtevah Nature 2000. Študije o vlogi socialnega kapitala pri upravljanju z naravnimi viri bi lahko izboljšale kakovost participativnega procesa s povečanjem medsebojnega zaupanja in z zmanjšanjem konfliktov med deležniki. Prihodnje študije bi se morale osredotočiti na vlogo socialnega kapitala pri upravljanju z naravnimi viri v različnih sociološko-ekonomskih in kulturnih okoliščinah.

56 Abstract

Natura 2000 is a network of protected areas for the conservation of ecological diversity and habitats in the European Union. The involvement of private and public actors in the implementation and management of the Natura 2000 sites is a pillar for the success of the network. The quality of participatory process is linked to the relational social capital (relationships among stakeholders and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them). This paper investigates the changes in relational social capital after the participatory process developed in drafting the Natura 2000 Management Programme (2015–2020) in Slovenia. Such changes were analysed through two main factors: level of trust in other stakeholders; and, conflicts between stakeholders. The results show an increase in the level of trust in public administrations and a simultaneous decrease in the level of trust in other stakeholders. The majority of respondents highlight the presence of four types of conflicts: conflicts due to restrictions to human activities; conflicts determined by an increase of bureaucratic procedures; conflicts caused by a not fully accepted definition of institutional roles; and, conflicts due to a lack of complete information about Natura 2000 requirements. Studies on the role of social capital in natural resources management could improve the quality of participatory process, by increasing mutual trust and by reducing conflicts between stakeholders. Future studies should focus on the role of social capital in managing natural resources in different socio-economic and cultural contexts.

Keywords

Habitats Directive; Birds Directive; Multilevel governance; Public participation; Protected areas; Level of trust

57 1. Introduction

The priority objective of the European Union (EU) nature protection policy is to protect nature heritage and to maintain the quality of the environment for European citizens (Krott, 2000). The main instrument to achieve the objectives of EU nature protection policy is the Natura 2000 ecological network of protected areas. In 1979, the Birds Directive (European Council Directive 79/409/EEC) established protected areas for endangered bird species as a first step in the protection of Europe’s biodiversity. Subsequently, in 1992, the EU adopted the Directive on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora (Directive 92/43/EEC, also known as Habitats Directive) with the purpose to ensure the identification, protection and conservation of European natural habitats and endangered species (Ferranti, Beunen, & Speranza, 2010; Wätzold & Schwerdtner, 2005). The Habitats Directive established a European network of protected areas – Natura 2000 network – to ensure the long-term protection of biodiversity in Europe; the Directive defined two types of protected areas: Sites of Community Importance (SCIs for the Habitats Directive), and Special Protection Areas (SPAs for the Birds Directive). This network is intended to deliver the sustainable management of protected sites, which guarantees the conservation of the territories and provides multiple benefits for the local population (Jones, Filos, Fates, &

Dimitrakopoulos, 2015; Pietrzyk-Kaszyńska, Cent, Grodzińska-Jurczak, & Szymańska, 2012). In other words, the formulation of the conservation objectives within each site should be based on the ecological requirements of habitats and species, but without neglecting the economic, social and cultural requirements (Louette et al., 2011).

National governments of EU Member Countries (or delegated regional or local public authorities) are responsible for developing the implementation procedures of the Natura 2000 network, and for achieving the conservation objectives while balancing the various interests at stake in the areas where the sites have been located (Beunen & de Vries, 2011; Winter et al., 2014). The idea of the European legislators is to safeguard the environment without blocking the economic activities in and around the protected sites of the network (Brescancin, Dobšinská, De Meo, Šalka, & Paletto, 2017). The Habitats Directive indirectly recognises the importance of public participation and the need for stakeholders’ involvement in the establishment and management of protected sites (Apostolopoulou, Drakou, & Pediaditi, 2012). However, no regulatory standards are established about stakeholders and local communities’ involvement in the process of designation, implementation and management of the sites (De Meo, Brescancin, Graziani,

& Paletto, 2016; Rauschmayer, Paavola, & Wittmer, 2009).

Article 2.3 of the Habitats Directive states that measures shall take into account human requirements (economic, social and cultural) and local characteristics, but the site designation is based only on scientific criteria while social criteria are not even mentioned.

Moreover, the Habitats Directive imposed that designation of the sites had to be concluded in 2004, but no specifications were provided about the procedure. For this reason, the participatory approaches were firstly ignored in many EU Member Countries, and the numerous conflicts and court processes linked to Natura 2000 sites designation and management are widely the result of the absence of formal processes of stakeholders' involvement (Blicharska, Orlikowska, Roberge, & Grodzinska-Jurczak, 2016; Boh, 2004; Bryan, 2012; Lovrić, 2014; Paavola, 2004; Pinton et al., 2007; Sarvašová, Šálka, &

58

Dobšinská, 2013). Consequently, the designation of Natura 2000 sites has encountered strong national or local opposition from different groups of stakeholders in many European countries (Blicharska et al., 2016; Bryan, 2012; Eben, 2006; Hiedanpää, 2002; Milligan, O’Riordan, Nicholson-Cole, & Watkinson, 2009; Stoll-Kleemann, 2001).

The opposition and conflicts arising from Natura 2000 implementation have been officially acknowledged by the EI Teide Declaration (European Commission, 2002) where it is stated that "[…] the success of Natura 2000 will require the support of European citizens, [….]

their participation in the decisions on the implementation of the conservation and management of the areas involved", and they are recognised as one of the factors underpinning the role of participation as a component of multi-level environmental governance (Rauschmayer et al., 2009).

The Habitats Directive does not clearly establish participatory approaches. Nevertheless, in the various EU Member Countries participatory approaches have emerged at different levels in order to ensure proper management of the Natura 2000 network. In particular, it is important to highlight that Natura 2000 is one of the few EU policies involving stakeholders at many levels and not limiting the participation to public actors and élite groups (Baffert, 2012). If the formal designation of sites is based on scientific criteria and the designation was in most cases coordinated by national governments, at local level the integration of conservation objectives with other interests and human activities is a challenge shared among many authorities throughout the EU (Beunen & de Vries, 2011).

Natura 2000 policy is an example of multi-level governance; the power is shared among different levels (European, national, regional and local) that interact with each other: the EU and national governments delegate the responsibilities to regional or local authorities and agencies, which have to coordinate the process and interact with a variety of different stakeholders. Therefore, the governance of Natura 2000 sites can be defined as a complex network model (Beunen & de Vries, 2011). In this model, the success of the management of protected sites is based on collaborative policy making and implementation, and on the collaboration between civil society organizations, private and public actors (Humphreys, 2006). In addition, in the implementation of nature conservation policy, the inter-institutional cooperation among forestry, agriculture and nature protection sectors is an essential aspect for the success of the participatory decision-making process at various levels (local, regional and national levels). The participatory or deliberative process aims to improve the quality of decision-making processes, so that the outcome is implementable, acceptable to all stakeholders, transparent and enduring. The participatory process generates two types of advantages: personal advantages; and, collective advantages. The personal advantages for the participants are the creation of a personal network and the easier access to information. Conversely, the collective advantages are linked to the fact that the results of the process are deemed legitimate and accepted by all stakeholders.

In a complex network model, the social capital plays a crucial role to increase the collaboration among stakeholders at all decision-making levels and to reduce the potential conflicts between parties with opposing interests and different views. The social capital is defined as the set of characteristics of society - trust, norms, and relationship networks - that improves its efficiency by facilitating coordinated actions (Putnam, 2000, 1993). The social capital is composed by three dimensions (Górriz-Mifsud, Secco, & Pisani, 2016); structural

59

dimension, cognitive dimension; and, relational dimension. Particularly, the relational dimension of social capital refers to the formal and informal norms ruling the interactions among stakeholders and the strategies to ensure their application, prominently trust, peer control and informal sanctioning (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998).

Trust – the main component of relational social capital – can be defined as "the expectation that arises within a community of regular, honest, and cooperative behaviour, based on commonly shared norms" (Fukuyama, 1995, p. 27). Trust is a critical aspect of social cohesion in a community and a lubricant of cooperation between stakeholders reducing the transaction costs (Coleman, 1988), creating a social obligation (Pretty & Smith, 2004) and increasing the overall efficiency (Bowles & Gintis, 2002). According to Fukuyama (2001), the communities are as a set of concentric circles of trust networks ("radius of trust") where each circle represents the people among whom a set of cooperative norms are operative.

Therefore, it is conceivable that the level of trust decreases from within the group (intragroup) to outside the group (intergroup). In addition, trust in institutional actors (i.e., public administrations) has a key importance in natural resources co-management because distrust in institutions lowers the degree of participation of individuals and groups in the decision-making process (De Meo, Giacovelli, Grilli, & Paletto, 2013). In this field of study, the main gap in current knowledge concerns the effects of the participatory process on the relationships between stakeholders. Approaches and techniques used to lead a participatory process can affect both trust in institutional actors and trust in other stakeholders. Besides, an inclusive and well-structured participatory process can overcome conflicts between opposing groups of interest. Furthermore, it could increase mutual trust with positive long-term effects on local social capital.

Currently, few studies have investigated the relationship between participatory process and change in the level of trust or conflict between social actors.

Starting from these considerations, the hypothesis of this study is that a successful participatory process in the implementation of the nature conservation policy is a crucial element to enhance relational social capital with special regard to trust.

The main aim of this paper is to investigate the changes occurred in the relational social capital components after the participatory process developed in drafting the Natura 2000 Management Programme (2015–2020) in Slovenia. The changes in the relational social capital after participatory process are investigated, analysing two main components: level of trust in other stakeholders; and, conflicts between groups of stakeholders.

60 2. Natura 2000 network in Slovenia

The Natura 2000 network in Slovenia is currently composed by 354 sites representing more than 37% of the national territory, this being the highest rate in the EU. Forests cover 75%

of Slovenian Natura 2000 areas, and these same areas represent 45% of the forests of the country (Danev, Gulič, & Krajčič, 2010). This is surely due to a long-lasting tradition of sustainable and planned forest management by Slovenian foresters, who, as stated in the Forest Act (1993), dispose "…of forests as natural resources with the aim of ensuring their close-to-nature and multipurpose management". This means that, in Slovenia, forest management has the aim to ensure forest preservation and biological balance and to increase the variety of autochthonous plant and animal species, by mimicking the natural processes and structures, by constantly monitoring and learning. At the same time, forest management must guarantee the multifunctional role of this natural resource through the coexistence of its productive, ecological and social functions (Golob, 2006; Veselič et al., 2008).

The Slovenia Forest Service (SFS) is the public forestry service responsible for forest management, at a broad and at a detailed level. It is in charge of drawing up regional forest management and wildlife management plans for all forests of the 14 Slovenian forest regions. The SFS is obliged to take into account the nature conservation guidelines provided by the Institute of the Republic of Slovenia for Nature Conservation (IRSNC) for the management of forest areas in Natura 2000 sites. Such guidelines are written in the Natura 2000 Management Programme for forest species and habitat types under Natura 2000 regime (different degrees of requirements considering different conservation status of the species or habitat and among different sites) (Golob, 2006). Forest management plans for forest management units become operational only after the suitable integration of the above mentioned guidelines by the SFS, and after a positive assessment by the IRSNC. All costs are of an administrative nature: from the cost of drafting management plans (SFS) and nature conservation guidelines and opinions (IRSNC), to the cost of writing relevant procedures regulating the adoption of both plans and guidelines. The above mentioned costs are financed from the budget of the Republic of Slovenian, regardless of ownership (Bibič, 2015).

A budgetary fund, so called Forest Fund (Article 33), has been established, based on the changes in the organizational structure of the state forest management body and on the adoption of the "Management of State Forest Act" in 2016. The Forest funds are intended to cover, among others, measures in private forests within Natura 2000 areas, in accordance with Natura 2000 Management Programme and programme investments in forests, with the latter established on the basis of the National Forest Programme prepared by SFS in accordance with the Forest Act (Management of State Forests Act, Official gazette of Republic of Slovenia number 9/2016).

61

3. Participatory processes in Natura 2000 network in Slovenia

Three main separate stages have been identified, following the analysis of the participatory processes in the implementation of Natura 2000 network in Slovenia: (1) a first one corresponding to the designation of protected areas, starting at the end of 2002 and ending in 2004 with the entry of Slovenia in the EU; (2) a second one from 2005 to 2007 coinciding with the preparation of the Natura 2000 Management Programme (2007–2013) – as defined in art.12 and art.13 of the Decree on special protection areas – Natura 2000 sites (2004); (3) a third one from 2012 to 2015 corresponding to the writing of the Natura 2000 Management Programme (2015–2020).

3.1. Designation of Natura 2000 sites (2002–2004)

In Slovenia, the identification, designation and implementation of the list of nature conservation sites of EU importance was prepared from the end of 2002 to the end of 2004 (Hlad, Miklič, & Ogorelec, 2004). At the end of April 2004, the Slovenian Government approved 286 Slovenian Natura 2000 sites (Official Journal of RS, No. 49/2004), representing 35.5% of Slovenian territory (Skoberne, 2006).

In the first stage of Natura 2000 sites designation process, due to time constraints, all efforts were concentrated on the elaboration of a communication strategy, aimed at the network implementation. The communication plan was intended to provide information to key stakeholders and to increase acceptability of the concept of nature conservation in the public opinion. The main objectives of this stage were: to reduce the risk of potential resistance and new conflicts; to change people's attitude towards nature conservation; and, to identify the interests to enable active participation in implementing conservation purposes. The designation process has been characterised by a low level of politicisation, relatively little controversies, and the inclusion of different NGOs almost exclusively for the purpose of acquiring the knowledge needed to designate areas and scientifically legitimate the decisions (Boh, 2004). On one hand, personal approach and early communication with selected stakeholders contributed to a better understanding of the network function and to the reduction of opposition. On the other hand, the lack of early communication in some areas caused mistrust and bigger problems in the implementation of the next stages (Hlad et al., 2004). Despite the fact that public participation in Natura 2000 is not specified in the national legal order, communities were allowed a period of six days for expressing their opinion, before the final admission of the areas (Nastran & Pirnat, 2012). Because of the short time available, broader interests were not expressed and contra interests were not clearly articulated (Boh, 2004).

In designation stage, an analysis of key stakeholders was carried out by representatives of the Ministry of the Environment and the Spatial Planning and of the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food. At the end of it, three categories of stakeholders were identified: (1) strategic partners in the communication network (SFS, IRSNC, and CAFS); (2) primary stakeholders (Government, National Assembly, European Commission, local communities and landowners); and, (3) other stakeholders (general public, media, Non-Governmental Organizations-NGOs) (Hlad et al., 2004).

62

A communication strategy was defined through the cooperation with SFS, IRSNC and CAFS and with foreign communication experts, and based on the experience of other EU Member Countries or other Slovenian protected areas; such a strategy was tested in pilot workshops held with primary stakeholders on 30 sample areas.

The analysis of previous experiences was intended to give an insight into some common mistakes in communicating with stakeholders (e.g., too impersonal information, too scientific information, insufficient focus on positive effects due to the creation of protected areas) (Hlad et al., 2004). A two-way approach was chosen for the communication plan; a face-to-face, direct and personal communication was preferred to an indirect communication (e.g., through media, leaflets, brochures), meant just as a support.

3.2. Preparation of the Natura 2000 Management Programme (2007–2013)

In the following stages of nature conservation measures implementation and management programmes preparation, the participatory processes were facilitated by the concurrence of two LIFE projects, also developed with EU financial contribution. The main purposes of the LIFE projects were: to "raise awareness on nature conservation and Natura 2000 among the general public" (IRSNC, 2007) and to "communicate measures of Natura 2000 to different stakeholders and target groups, raise their awareness of Natura 2000 and increase the awareness of general public of the importance of the network" (Ogorelec, Kačičnik, & Nose, 2015).

From 2005 to 2007, in five different Slovenian sites – which have been listed as Natura 2000 sites – the LIFE project "Natura 2000 in Slovenia – Management Models and Information System" was developed. The IRSNC was its beneficiary, and the SFS, the CAFS, the Institute for Water of the Republic of Slovenia (IWRS), the Fisheries Research Institute of the Republic of Slovenia (FRIS) and some local institutions from sample areas were the Slovenian partners. The project worked as a pilot project by laying the theoretical foundations for the preparation of management plans – among the project’s objectives there was the preparation of tools for management of Natura 2000 sites in Slovenia – and by presenting examples for concrete management of Natura 2000 sites (Habič, Danev, & Vrček, 2006).

Involvement of all stakeholders was sought only for small field scale; in the five sites taking part in the LIFE project, information boards were assembled, brochures and articles were

Involvement of all stakeholders was sought only for small field scale; in the five sites taking part in the LIFE project, information boards were assembled, brochures and articles were