Collective efforts to manage cultural landscapes: Examples from Europe


Published on

ACES seminar by Katrin Prager, January 2011

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Collective efforts to manage cultural landscapes: Examples from Europe

  1. 1. Collective efforts to manage cultural landscapes - Examples from Europe - Katrin Prager ACES Seminar Series 21-1-2011
  2. 2. Introduction Cultural landscapes
  3. 3. 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?
  4. 4. IntroductionBackground LandscapePartners project ( Collaborative, community-based natural resource management in Australia (Landcare)Methods desk-based review, telephone inquiries, key informant interviewsApproach/ theory Resilience theory
  5. 5. 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) state communities Social system(s) groups economy disturbance Social-ecological system Ecological system(s)
  6. 6. Resilience Theory Role of social subsystems in social-ecological systems disturbance Local/regional groups Cultural Landscape change Ecological system  Habitat management activities, marketing of local foods  Horizontal/ vertical coordination between land managers/ authorities  Lower transaction costs for policy implementation
  7. 7. 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)
  8. 8. Characteristics of groups I First Structure No of groups No of Area size Staff group in in 2009 people involvedDutch EC 1992 Individual 125 number 10,000 500 ha – Not groups and has increased members 3500 ha available umbrella organisation (NPN)German 1986 independent Approx. 150, 20,000 District About 2 perLPV groups and number has farmers (approx. district = umbrella increased under 1.500 to approx. 290 organisation contract 7.500 km²) (DVL)Austrian 1987 Single group 1, disbanded at Contracting Lower 6 (prior toDistel- without sub- the end of farmers Austria 2009)verein groups 2009 (19.177 km²)FWAG 1969/ Headquarters 40 in ENG/ 10,000 Teams 130 in total,(UK) 1984 and teams WAL, members covering 1-3 22 in disbanded in counties Scotland SCO in 2009 (2009)
  9. 9. Characteristics of groups II Main sector Other sectors involved Focus VolunteersDutch EC Emphasis on farmers Administration Integrate nature Less important (approx. 75% management into overall) farmingGerman Emphasis on parity Hunting, tourism, Landscape and importantLPV of conservation, fisheries, marketing habitat management, farming, community initiatives sustainable rural councils developmentAustrian Parity between Communities Maintain biodiversity Very importantDistel- conservation, in agriculturalverein farming, hunting landscapesFWAG Farming Industry/ commercial 1-1 advice for Very important,(UK) partners, environmental farmers and over 1000 groups and societies landowners on agri- environment issues
  10. 10. 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
  11. 11. FindingsReasons for lack of resilience of social subsystems  financial difficulties  lack of member/partner support  groups no longer needed  lack of organisational support structureImplications for resilience of social-ecological system  Undesirable changes  Decreased adaptive capacity  Decreased sustainability
  12. 12. Thank you !