National policy and landscape reality – new approaches needed
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

National policy and landscape reality – new approaches needed

on

  • 297 views

This presentation focuses on assumptions about landscape policies, discusses why planning is separating people, rivers and the forest and which new approaches are needed now.

This presentation focuses on assumptions about landscape policies, discusses why planning is separating people, rivers and the forest and which new approaches are needed now.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
297
Views on SlideShare
296
Embed Views
1

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

1 Embed 1

http://localhost 1

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

National policy and landscape reality – new approaches needed National policy and landscape reality – new approaches needed Presentation Transcript

  • National policy and landscape reality – new approaches needed Przemyslaw Majewski – Baltic Landscape Project, Sweden and Silver Taiga Foundation, Russia; Gun Lidestav – Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences in Umeå; Johan Svensson - Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences in Umeå; Leif Jougda – Swedish Forest Agency, Vilhelmina; Marcus Hedblom - Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences in Uppsala; Erik Ederlöf – Swedish Forest Agency, Kristianstad
  • Assumption and verification Assumptions: 1. Policy and legislation at national level is main condition for sustainable governance in the landscape. 2. Local implementation is made by routine channels of transfer from policy to ground level. Verification: Landscape experience does not support the assumptions or Landscape reality is more complex then policy declarations.
  • Pristine forest of the Komi Republic, Russia Untouched, European conservation value and logging resource Photo P. Majewski – Komi Model Forest
  • Logging frontier in pristine taiga – River Nizhniaja Puzla - 2011 – The Republic of Komi, Russia
  • Pristine forest after logging – no consideration for landscape and river basin River Yolva Mezenskaya , the Republic of Komi, Russia logging
  • Result of pristine forest inventory in productive forests of the Komi Republic. Area covered by the inventory 21 mln ha Area of identified pristine forests 4,8 mln ha (23%) 5 stakeholders Silver Taiga Foundation State Forest Service Territorial Fund of Information
  • Silver Taiga Foundation State Forestry Agency for the Komi Republic Logging regimes in pristine forests Komi Model Forest 8 stakeholders 800 000 ha Legend out of logging - 15 000 ha limited logging - 43 000 ha normal logging - 35 000 ha 100 km Obiachevo
  • Conservation value of pristine forest landscapes (HCVF) expressed as traffic lights - Udora region 38 40 20 10 8 18 19 9 6 17 7 16 37 33 22 36 32 30 23 14 3 4 41 25 24 15 5 Total area 3 500 000 ha 26 47 39 48 2 34 13 31 45 35 12 1 44 Pristine forest 1 200 000 ha (34%) 11 high value medium value 60 fragmented areas 63 56 59 river basins 55 58 57 51 54 64 100 km 6 stakeholders 53 Silver Taiga Foundation State Forest Service Territorial Fund of Information
  • Progress (in %) in solution of pristine forest problem in the Komi Republic until 2012. 90% 100% 80% 100% 100% Silver Taiga Foundation State Forest Service Territorial Fund of Information
  • Pristine forest case - Russia Conclusions: 1. Policy and legislation at national level is late in comparison to speed of development of market and social demands. 2. Local initiative can solve also large scale problems even if national policy is not existing. 3. Knowledge on the ground is needed to deal with landscape challenges.
  • Pristine, remote river is depleted from fish resources. Model River Mezen, Russia Photo Przemyslaw Majewski, Komi Model Forest
  • Salmon harvest in Mezen River 1946-2002 (Zakharov A.B. 2010) ,00 kg Salmon 1946= 100% 2002= 1% Other fish 1980= 100% 2010= 15% ц 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 2002 1999 1991 1987 1984 1981 years 1994-1996 Годы 1978 1975 1971 1968 1961 1958 1955 1952 1949 0 1946 200
  • Why planning is separating people, river and forest? Photo P. Majewski – Komi Model Forest
  • Model River Mezen case - Russia Conclusions: 1. Policy and legislation at national level presence is not enough to ensure implementation. 2. Landscape reality is often not visible from national perspective. 3. Sectorial approach is not summing up in efficiency.
  • Drainage case – Belarus Water drainage in forest and on meadows is separated even if they belong to the same river valley. Photo P. Majewski – Baltic Landscape
  • Drainage case - Belarus Conclusions: 1. Policy and legislation based on sectorial borders is not enough for landscape management. 2. Integration of landscape planning is blocked by sectorial approach and formal borders of competence. 3. Even obvious needs of integration are not addressed for years.
  • Territorial planning case - Poland Democracy vs Expertise Advantages: flexibility Advantages: expertise local area for locals detailed plan Disadvantages: limited relevant knowledge corruption charges Disadvantages very expensive city experts no flexibility 90% of land has no territorial plans
  • Territorial planning case - Poland Conclusions: 1. Policy and legislation good intentions are not enough on landscape level. 2. Timed reaction for feedback from local level is needed. 3. Small gaps in strict policy can cause large scale problems.
  • Hydropower case – Sweden - River Ångermanälven, 1936 es. Fosmo, Ångermanälven , courtesy of Vilhelmina Model Forest
  • Hydropower case – Sweden - River Ångermanälven, now. No ladders for migratory fish and river temporary without water photo Mikael Strömberg, courtesy of Vilhelmina Model Forest
  • Hydropower case - Sweden Conclusions: 1. Policy and legislation based on sectorial borders is not enough for landscape management. 2. Green light for green energy is creating landscape “secret, saint cows” which are sometimes good sometimes destructive. 3. Nationally declared participation of stakeholders is often superficial.
  • What is needed? 1. National policy and legislation should be followed by local efficient and agreed tools for implementation, 2. Cross sectorial gradual integration of planning is needed on landscape level, 3. Efficient feedback and timed corrections should be included into national programs, 4. Localities should be supported by relevant knowledge and experience, 5. Network of case landscapes should be developed to support identification of local needs and barriers and development of local new approaches and innovations.
  • National policy and landscape reality – Paddling on both ends is more efficient