Galloway and Southern Ayrshire Biosphere Conference Galloway and Southern Ayrshire Thursday 20 May 2010 bmarx@otis.at

Cultivated Landscape

A Landscape to Relax

Diversity of Life

Sevilla Strategie 1995 New Functions of Biosphere Reserves model region for sustainable development, involvement of local population preserving ecosystems, scenery, species of flora and fauna and their genetic heritage encouraging social and economic development while respecting nature and the local culture research and surveys, continuous observation of the environment, training and education for sustainability

Madrid Action Plan, Madrid Declaration(2008) Progress since Seville Checklist to adopt BR´s to the challenges of the 21. century: Climate change Provision of ecosystem services Urbanization as a principal driver for ecosystem-wide pressures

Requirements of the UNESCO the surface area of the reserves should be sufficiently large to allow it to carry out the functions of a biosphere reserve representative ecosystems, important for the biological diversity potential for development to a model region for sustainable development zonation in core area, buffer zone, transition area management and mechanisms to support the people in developing their biosphere reserve

Benefits and Opportunities of Biosphere Reserves Support for policy makers in finding effective ways to strike a balance between development and conservation Sites to explore and demonstrate approaches to conservation and sustainable development providing lessons which can be applied elswhere Bringing together a broad range of actors to work cooperatively towards common objectives

553 Biosphere Reserves in 107 Countries Worldwide Biosphere-Network 553 Biosphere Reserves in 107 Countries

Biosphere Reserves in Austria Nockberge

Comparison of three Austrian BR´s BR Wienerwald 58 municipalities 105.645 hectares 250.000 inhabitants 2.37 inhabitants/ha 8 employees NP Nockberge 4 municipalities 48.448 hectares 12.375 inhabitants 0.26 inhabitants/ha 13 employees BR Großes Walsertal 6 municipalities 19.200 hectares 3.366 inhabitants 0.18 inhabitants/ha 3 part-time employees Jungmeier, M., Paul-Horn, I., et al., Partizipationsprozesse in Biosphärenparks, 2009,2.2., Selected Results, pp. 14

Land use in the Biosphere Reserve Wienerwald other Forest Fields Grassland vinyards Settlements

Stepping stones towards the Biosphere Reserve 1980 Demand for protection and conservation 2002 Feasibility study Wienerwald 2003- Planning/Zoning 2005 Participative processes 2005 Approval by UNESCO Paris 2006 Legal/ organisational basic framework 2007 Biosphere Reserve Wienerwald company (Ltd) © Kovacs © MA49

Differences between a Biosphere Reserve and a National Park cat Differences between a Biosphere Reserve and a National Park cat. II, IUCN Biosphere Reserve conservation of cultivated landscape by sustainable cultivation at least 3 % Core area tesselated zonation Nature conservation including men and economy National Park conservation of natural areas by nature conservation at least 75 % core area coherent zonation Nature conservation excluding men

Biosphere Reserve Wienerwald  Area: 1.005 km2  Provinces: Vienna & Lower Austria  51 Communities in Lower Austria  7 Districts of the City of Vienna  Population about 750.000 in the BR Region

Legal and organisational basics Acts on the Biosphere Reserve Wienerwald for Lower Austria and Vienna A treaty between the two Federal States on the joint implementation and maintenance of the Biosphere Reserve Organisation of the Management as a non profit limited company © Kovacs © MA49

Organisation Chart - Biosphärenpark Wienerwald General Assembly Supervisory Board Managing Director Representation, Strategy, Coordination, Staff, Budget WBR Coordination Unit Vienna Regional Advisory Board Participatory Advisory Board Scientific Advisory Board Administration,Secretariat Accountancy, Archives, EDP Internal Professional Training Communication, Education Basic Principles, Research Natural Habitat Management Regional Development, Cooperations Public Relations, Media, Press Research Coordination Forest / Forestry Enterprises International Cooperation Research Programmes Open Space/Agriculture Regional Corporations, Organisations The regional advisory board is required by the BR treaty between the provinces. It is an assembly of the Mayors of the communities in lower austria and the heads of the districts of the city of vienna, their deputies and at the most 56 more They meet once or twice a year for information and dicussion of the most pressing issues. To get reasonable working groups a smaller board, of 17 communities of LA and 4 districts of Vienna has been set up. This meets at least twice a year, depending on the needs.The particpatory board consists of the most important stakeholders like land owners or NGO´s. The coordinator in the city of Vienna coordinates the departments of the city for the tasks related to the BR. Education Nature Protection Tourism / Recreation Visitor Management Info-Centers Wildlife Management Climate / Energy GIS Social Sustainability

Biosphere Reserve Wienerwald - Zoning Outer transition area Space for living, economy, recreation, sustainable projects Buffer zones „best practice“examples of cultural landscape, focusing on conservation of biodiversity Core areas Nature conservation and research Outer transition area Buffer zone Core area

Core Areas Entwicklungszone Outer transition area Buffer zones Nature conservation Research Entwicklungszone Outer transition area Living Benefits Research Nature conservation Leben Nützen Forschen Schützen Buffer zones Nature conservation Benefits Research Here you can see the zoning and the the functions of the zones required by the MAB programme and the Seville strategy. In the core areas conservation and research should be the main topics, followed by the buffer zones where management in form of usage is required to conserve biodiversity, but the most divers and interesting functions can only be met by the outer transition area, as there are: to find models for sustainable living and land usage. Core and buffer zone help in monitoring and developing models to some extent, but the largest and most interesting zone is the transition area. So – which of the zones would be the most important one to meet he objectives of a modern BR?

Kernzone Core Areas 37 core areas - 5.445 ha natural forest Strict nature conservation Single areas from 1,5 ha to 1.300 ha 9 owners Research of natural processes only in forests mosaic pattern of 36 core zones, representing 22 different forest types development of natural forests with as less human influence as possible no forest usage recreational use still possible in principle, but efforts on visitor management will have to be taken selection of the particular areas in a planning process on scientific basis, with participation of the owners contracts about compensational payments declaration as Nature Conservation Areas, thus strongest legal protection status

Participation as applied with the stakeholder group about core zones Collective development of goals, mission statements and actions in the domain of forestry and woodland Information exchange between stakeholders Large forest enterprises Small forest enterprises Community forest owners Representatives of the forest authorities of Lower Austria and Vienna Representatives of nature protection NGO´s Advisory board of experts Representatives of the planning (civil servants of the two countries, BR managment, planning groups)

Planning of the core zones - schedule Collecting of basic data and area proposals of the owners of the forests ARGE E.C.O. works out professional draft proposals for the zonation and arranges it with the real owners detailed planning The real owners decide to take part The forest directorates develop a pricing model to compensate forestry operations (long term) The owner gets a draft contract The owner negotiates with thr federal states Implementation The owner does not accept The owner accepts Signing the contract Enact as protected area

Buffer zones Mostly agricultural landscape Sustainment of usage Conservation of the typical cultured landscape Conservation measures on voluntary basis Outstanding, most valuable parts of the cultivated landscape, formed by agricultural use (e.g. meadows, pastures, water courses, richness of structures) - habitats for national and international important animal and plant species no buffer zones in settlement areas agricultural land use necessary to maintain the conservation aims no new legal restrictions in addition to existing measures will be taken voluntarily (e.g. on contracts) – subsidies for conservational measures (activities) © Mrkvicka

Participation as applied with the stakeholder group about open land and agriculture Collective development of goals, mission statements and actions to sustain and preserve of the agriculture and the valuable cultural landscape. Information exchange between stakeholders. Farmers Representatives of the Chambers of Agriculture of Lower Austria and Vienna Representatives of nature protection NGO´s Advisory board of experts Representatives of the planning (civil servants of the two provinces, BR managment, planning groups)

short transport Animal welfare High Quality Product Better price Meadows, pastures biodiversity – nature protection Enforcing of local economy Cooperation: Farmers Butchers Gastronomy Consumer

Outer transition area ca. 80% of the area Development of new methods for sustainable living Sustainable activities for more quality of life New partnerships and cooperations attractivity as a residential area, pressure by an increase of building, source for an increase of road traffic danger for the open-land cultivated landscape because of intensifying, but rather more serious, because of abandoning of traditional farming and land use in some areas rather intensive forestry increasing recreational use various conflicts between different stakeholder groups

Intensity and methods of Participation Information Speeches Flyer, poster Newspaper, website, …. Consultation Interviews Workshops Diskussions Participation on Desicions Votes Right for veto cooperative planning Increqasing Participation Intensity of participation Recently i helped with an interdisciplinary project of the austrian mab committee about partizipation in BR´s in Austria. Planners of protected areas cooperate with researchers from change management, intervention management, political sciences and intervention research. There i learned this view of participation and governance. Increasing intensity of participation Inform; Speeches, folders, newspaper. Consulting: Interviews, workshops, diskussions- Participation on desicions: Votes, right for a veto, cooperative planning = local governance Working on a case in austria where a national park shuold be turned into a br by participative means we saw, that when the process is started and people get involved you would need an exit strategy if participation doesn´t work out, otherwise the situation could be worse than before. And lots of money are lost. In this casethe government wanted them to define even the core zones with participative means and only 5 crucial landowners just do not want to be involved and block the process for the whole region. A positive outcome of this project may be the knowledge, that methods for participation used by change management specialists could be used on lots of people at once, working best with more than 400 persons. For me this is another strong that scientists from other than „green“ sciences are very much needed in brs to to have a broader scientific basis in social and economic sciences. Governance S. Lange, B. Reutz Hornsteiner, Partizipationsprozesse in Biosphärenparks, 2009, 4.3, Partizipation, pp. 42

Information bmarx@otis.at 29

Education - Consultation Global Survey on BR´s: Information centres provide learning opportunities in three different ways and target six different groups Falk Participation and the issue of learning sites: BRs do act as a platform for learning processes. In the frame of a BR there evolve new activities. By participating in these BR activities the inhabitants are able to gain trust on a regional context (is basis of social capital) and to develop civil engagement. In a comprehensive dialogue, they will learn about BR targets as well as from each other Local Stewarts, or “biosphere champions” as they are recommended here in the GSABR, are called Biosphere Ambassadors in the Biosphere Reserve Vanerkülle, Sweden, and there the concept works really good. Coming from different groups of inhabitants with different preferences and strengths a variety of tasks and specialised information work is done by those volunteers. Learning for resilience? Exploring learning opportunities in Biosphere Reserves, Schultz, and Lundholm, Stockholm Resilience Centre, 2009 

Intervention strategies in Austrian BR´s Intervention strategies – fingerprinting the process In comparison of the three processes the research team tried to fingerprint the strategies of intervention. The strategy was expressed in antagonistic elements of process strategies that were identified in the individual processes: Top-down versus bottom up Normative versus process-oriented Sovereign versus co-operative Push versus pull Internal promoters versus external promoters Quick versus slow Conservative versus innovative Only the precise and focused strategic mix of process components can lead to a successful process. The successful mix differs from region to region and has to be defined individually (“fingerprint to success”). This tool integrates components of the applied perspectives within the study (participation, governance, change management, diversity management, intervention ethics) and allows therefore an strategic rapid analysis of the basic approaches within the development processes. The fingerprints of the three processes are documented in the three following figures Jungmeier, M., Paul-Horn, I., et al., Partizipationsprozesse in Biosphärenparks, 2009,2.2., Selected Results, pp. 14

Wienerwald Declaration Climate Alliance Save on Traffic Wienerwald Declaration To show you complexiy of the situation in the Wienerwald, i have brought some maps with the different regional managments that exist in the area, two in LA, an urban hinterland management and the management of the city of vienna. With an outer transition zone that large we have 250.000 inhabitants within the borders of the BR, with all the inhabitants of he municipalities partizipating on the BR it s about 750.00 people. This slide shows the overlapping zones of regional managements and smaller associations of communities and some chartas and conventions some of the municipalities have signed. Like the climate alliance or the „wienerwald declaration, a charta to promote sustainable development with objectives like a BR. Those masses of people and stakeholders suggest an urgent need of participative methods to involve people in the management of the area. I think that to involve people is a good way to show them, that they are living in a br and their ideas are apprecieted and wanted, to make themselves identify with their br. In this respect the br s not lines on a map but it is the people living there and supporting it. –in the mind and the heart of the people- Within the frame of the evaluation process of the Wienerwald case study, following general/ transferable conclusions can be drawn: Governance and the issue of the network: The according form of governance in the management of BRs is a network, having the role of a “medium” between all actors. Through the bundling of knowledge and personal resources, regional management authorities are becoming powerful creators of the regional development. The influence and success of a BR is predominantly determined by its regional network-capital (basic setting of actors). Furthermore the ability of the BR to communicate (communication) and the ability to bring different actors together (cooperation) are an important component. Governance, identity and the occupation of the social space: Big, vast BRs do often have more than one identity. The management is therefore much more claimed than in smaller BRs to provide “steering-inputs” to create a common consciousness. The creation of a brand and the occupation of the social space by the inhabitants of the BR are crucial for the success of big areas.

Climate Alliance in the BR Wienerwald Autumn 2007 – Autumn 2010 3 Focal points  Energy, Mobility, Soil 32 Communities single projects and regional projects allocation council twice a year management of the subsidies cooperation with other initiatives (LEADER;…) cooperation with departments of the province and partnerorganisations Ziel ist es, durch die Projekte in der Klimabündnisregion eine CO2-Reduktion von 50 Prozent bis zum Jahr 2030 zu erreichen. Kompetente Unterstützung erhalten die Projektgemeinden dabei sowohl von den Partnerorganisationen AEE – Arge Erneuerbare Energie NÖ-Wien, „die umweltberatung “ NÖ, Klimabündnis NÖ, der Dorf- & Stadterneuerung, dem Regionalmanagement NÖ als auch vom Projektmanagement und dem Fördermanagement Klimabündnis Wienerwald sowie dem Land NÖ selbst im Rahmen der Maßnahmen des NÖ Klimaprogramms. Ziel ist es, durch die Projekte in der Klimabündnisregion eine CO2-Reduktion von 50 Prozent bis zum Jahr 2030 zu erreichen. Kompetente Unterstützung erhalten die Projektgemeinden dabei sowohl von den Partnerorganisationen AEE – Arge Erneuerbare Energie NÖ-Wien, „die umweltberatung “ NÖ, Klimabündnis NÖ, der Dorf- & Stadterneuerung, dem Regionalmanagement NÖ als auch vom Projektmanagement und dem Fördermanagement Klimabündnis Wienerwald sowie dem Land NÖ selbst im Rahmen der Maßnahmen des NÖ Klimaprogramms. Das Land NÖ stellt der Region dafür zusätzlich 840.000 Euro an Fördermittel zur Verfügung.

Some Partners of the BR Wienerwald

Thank You for Your attention Christian Diry Biosphärenpark Wienerwald Management Deutschwaldstraße 15/b 3002 Purkersdorf Tel: +43-2231-66804   bmarx@otis.at 35