ECNC Project “KEN - Knowledge for Ecological Networks: Catalysing

Stakeholder Involvement in the Practical Implementation of Ecological

Networks”

Work package 4:

Identification and analysis of stakeholders for

ecological network implementation in Bavaria,

Germany

- German report -

June 2008

by

Dr. Rosemarie Siebert,

Dipl.-Ing. agr. Silja Tiemann and

Andrej Lange

Leibniz-Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research

Institute of Socio-Economics

2

CONTENT

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................................ 4

2 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 8

2.1 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CASE STUDY REGION......................................................................... 8 2.2 METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................................... 10

3 STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................... 12

3.1 KEY STAKEHOLDERS – THE POWER, INFLUENCE AND RELEVANCE OF EACH STAKEHOLDER.......... 12 3.2 STAKEHOLDER PERCEPTIONS - RELATIONSHIP TO THE SITUATION .............................................. 15 3.3 STAKEHOLDER RELATIONSHIPS TO EACH OTHER....................................................................... 19

4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MANAGING STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT IN THE AREA - BARRIERS AND SUCCESS FACTORS ....................................... 23

5 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 28

6 ANNEX ......................................................................................................................................... 30

6.1 INFORMATION ON CASE STUDY REGION/ PROJECTS ANALYSED................................................... 30 6.2 LIST OF STAKEHOLDERS FROM CASE STUDY REGION ALLOCATED TO STAKEHOLDER GROUPS ...... 32

Figures

FIGURE 1: MAP OF BAVARIAN CASE STUDY REGION ................................................................................................ 9 FIGURE 2: ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK FOR STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS IN THE “KEN” PROJECT.............................. 11 FIGURE 3: SUMMARY OF INTERVIEWEE OPINIONS: NAMED STAKEHOLDERS AND THEIR FELT RELEVANCE FOR THE

ECOLOGICAL NETWORK IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS ..................................................................................... 19 FIGURE 4: SUMMARY OF INTERVIEWEE OPINION: TYPE OF RELATIONSHIP TO NAMED STAKEHOLDERS................... 20 FIGURE 5: SUMMARY OF INTERVIEWEE OPINION: EFFECTIVITY OF FORMS OF INVOLVEMENT................................. 22 FIGURE 6: SUMMARY OF INTERVIEWEE OPINION: RATING OF THE MOST IMPORTANT AND VERY IMPORTANT

FACTORS FOR SUCCESSFUL PARTICIPATORY IMPLEMENTATION OF ECOLOGICAL NETWORKS ........................ 25

Abbreviations

ABSP Bavarian Programme for the Protection of Species and Habitats, “Bayrisches Arten- und Biotopschutzprogramm”

ALE District offices for rural development, “Ämter für ländliche Entwicklung”

BBV Bavarian Farmers Union, “Bayerischer Bauernverband”

BfN Federal Agency for Nature Conservation, “Bundesamt für Naturschutz”

BMU German Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety, “Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit”

BUND Friends of the Earth Germany (here, the Bavarian section), “Bund Naturschutz in Bayern e.V.” (BUND Bayern)

LCA Land Care Association, “Landschaftspflegeverband (LPV)”

LBV Bavarian Society for the Protection of Birds, “Landesbund für Vogelschutz in Bayern e. V.”

LfU Office for the Environment, “Landesamt für Umwelt”

NABU Bavarian Society for Nature Conservation, “Naturschutzbund”

PAN A private landscape consultancy firm, “Planungsbüro für angewandten Naturschutz”

StMLF Bavarian Ministry for Agriculture and Forestry, “Bayrische Staatsministerium für Landwirtschaft und Forsten”

StMUGV Bavarian Ministry for the Environment, “Bayrisches Staatsministerium für Umwelt, Gesundheit und Verbraucherschutz”

ZALF e.V. Leibniz-Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research, “Zentrum für Agrarlandschaftsforschung e.V.”

1 Executive summary

I Introduction

The Objective: The ecological network concept is a response to biodiversity loss. Core areas for conservation are preserved by buffer zones and connected via elements such as corridors (rivers, hedges etc.) or stepping stones (e.g. ponds). Connecting elements that are less fixed in spatial or geographical terms, such as vectors (e.g. sheep) or flexible areas, might be of value too. Thus, the concept integrates “normal use” areas that extend beyond nature conservation areas (covered by law). This is in line with the current paradigm change from a segregative, static, preservation-oriented nature conservation to a more integrative, dynamic and innovative one. In Germany legal efforts are underway to establish a nation-wide ecological network on 10% of German territory by the year 2010. The implementation of such ecological networks requires the involvement of a wide range of stakeholders in order to achieve long-term cooperation between them.

The objective of this report is to analyse in more detail the stakeholder perspective in ecological network implementation, in order to acquire a deeper insight into the barriers and central factors of success in stakeholder involvement and to be able to give recommendations on how to manage the same.

The methodology: The analytical framework is based on the methodological background of a stakeholder analysis. A stakeholder analysis is a qualitative survey aimed at analysing the relationships and conflicts between stakeholder groups (actors) in a given situation (ecological network implementation) within a certain geographical context (Bavaria). The goal is to understand better the way the system works by revealing:

− key stakeholders,

− their perceptions of the situation,

− cooperation, conflicts and forms of involvement,

− barriers and factors of success in relation to a participatory implementation process.

This provides a basis for putting forward conclusions and recommendations for managing stakeholder involvement in the area. Based on this framework, the methodological instruments used for research are those of qualitative social research. For this purpose face-to-face interviews were conducted in a case study area. These were based on key questions and underlined by some quantitative questions (not for statistical purposes, but to make a comparison among the 6 partner country case studies easier). A total of 31 persons from different sectors (such as agriculture, nature conservation, forestry, hunting, transport, water management, landscape planning, construction, civic groups, education and tourism) were interviewed.

The region: Due to Germany’s federal structure, which is composed of sixteen Länder, and the fact that for the field of nature conservation the decision-making authorities are located at Länder level, a variety of methods exists for establishing ecological networks and involving stakeholders. Implementation efforts exist mainly at a local to regional scale and are initiated through bottom-up approaches. Given this background there is no such thing as a “German way”, but there are several best practice examples that show how implementation might succeed. As one of the German Länder that boasts a long tradition of conservation-related legislation as well as a large number of attempts at implementing ecological network projects (347 projects on about 9% of Bavarian territory), Bavaria was an obvious choice for the case study region. The case study analyses the key stakeholders at regional level (Bavaria) and focuses on two ecological network projects that can be viewed as best practice examples: the “Sallingbachtal” project in the region of “Kelheim” in Lower Bavaria, and the “Sandachse Franken” project in the Nuremberg area.

5

II Results

The key stakeholders: A coalition of a wide range of different stakeholders from all administrative levels is needed in order to implement ecological networks at a Bavarian-wide level. The Bavarian state authorities have a crucial influence on implementation by financing the (agri)-environmental programmes and institutions (e.g. BayernNetz Natur, LCAs) that catalyse implementation. However, implementation on the ground depends on securing support from local stakeholder groups. Civic groups, which are very powerfully organised in Bavaria, are the “creative mind” in this process and initiate projects involving the different stakeholder groups. With regard to planning and financing, they accept assistance from state programmes and institutions. It is above all the LCAs, which work according to the principle of voluntary participation, that are able to involve even stakeholders who are initially sceptical, by building confidence and trust on the basis of their legitimacy (environmentalists, farmers and local politicians are represented equally on the board of each LCA) and continuity in terms of staffing. A further important institution that makes it possible to implement a large number of ecological network projects is the Bavarian Nature Conservation Fund, a foundation under public law.

Stakeholders’ perceptions of the situation: Definitions of an ecological network vary among different stakeholders. The term itself is often seen as abstract theory and has no great influence on the decision to participate or not - what counts are the concrete project ideas and the expected effects on the ground. Ecological networks are seen as an important instrument for biodiversity conservation, but it was said that the manner of agricultural cultivation in particular and the Common Agricultural Policy also play an important role. One point of conflict is how far ecological networks need to be spatially fixed over a long period (e.g. by land purchase) in order to be functional, or whether there could also be flexible areas. According to the interviewees, more monitoring activities – rather than just politicking – are needed in order to clarify the real effects of such different forms of ecological network implementation. Public relations and environmental education are also seen as very important for creating awareness and a common understanding as a basis for further action. The most convincing arguments in favour of participating in ecological network projects were the principle of voluntariness (land being purchased or integrated flexibly, leaving land owners and users the possibility to use it for other purposes when economically necessary) and economic benefits deriving from nature conservation projects allocated to different stakeholder groups (integrative approaches combine aspects of agriculture, nature conservation, tourism, education etc.).

Cooperation, conflicts and forms of involvement: Nature conservation authorities (at all levels), civic groups and agriculture were the key stakeholders mentioned most often, followed by local politics and administration (mayors and local authorities) and forestry. These groups at least need to be represented in management and coordinating structures in order to achieve sustainability in the projects and avoid major conflicts. Relationships among stakeholder groups can be conflictive within all groups, especially if the actors are land owners or users; there is no single group that consistently triggers conflict. Due to conditions in the past, forestry is currently not as well integrated in communication structures as the other groups. Cooperation with the local authorities, mayors and with the foundation (Bavarian Nature Conservation Fund) is crucial for financing and effective implementation on the ground. Conflicts occur at both regional and project management level due to divergent understandings of how ecological networks are best implemented. Direct communication (face to face) is seen the most effective way to involve stakeholders and to avoid or clear up conflicts. Round tables are also very common and effective, but may lead to frustration when used for informational purposes only, resulting in a lower participation of stakeholders in the long run. The general standard of stakeholder involvement is seen as good to very good. Various well accepted instruments for involvement are in use, but one problem that remains is continuity. Established management structures need to be long lasting in order to be reliable, resulting in sustainable stakeholder participation. Involvement is a slow, time

6

consuming process, as trust has to be built up; this requires permanently financed staffing resources.

III Discussion on barriers and factors of success for a participatory implementation process, and conclusions and recommendations for stakeholder involvement in the area:

The establishment of certain institutions at regional level helped to catalyse the implementation of ecological network projects and stakeholder involvement at local level:

− The “Bavarian Programme for the Protection of Species and Habitats” (ABSP), which had been set up by Bavaria’s administration in 1984, serves as a regional conceptual framework for nature conservation activities.

− “BayernNetz Natur”, currently managed by a private landscape consultancy firm, works according to the principles of ABSP to bring the interests of local initiatives (ecological network projects) in line with regional planning, which is vital for a coherent ecological network.

A cooperative approach and an emphasis on voluntariness and participation are essential pillars of all project activities in this context. The projects analysed in the case study area also displayed certain institutional structures at the local level that promoted implementation:

− The establishment of a powerful land care association (LCA) in the Sallingbach area helped create long lasting management structures involving the key stakeholder groups (agriculture, nature conservation and local politics and administration). This generated trust among the different stakeholder groups, which has been the basis for a sustained willingness to implement further projects in a voluntary and cooperative way for the last 20 years now.

− The establishment of a management structure comprising a project office and the Sandachse Agency; the latter concentrated on involving a large variety of stakeholders (private enterprises and public authorities) in a flexible manner. This was done because land purchase for nature conservation proved impossible due to high land prices. The convincing argument for these stakeholders to participate was voluntariness and flexibility. Furthermore, a considerable amount of publicity and educational events were conducted, resulting in the whole concept gaining a high profile and being accepted by the general public in the Nuremberg area.

A ranking on given factors of success for participatory project implementation showed that interviewees counted “resources for compensation and rewards for ecological services” along with “the involvement of key stakeholders right from the beginning” as the most important factors. “Personal benefit (financial or image/non-material) due to win-win-situations”, “good project management” and “good experiences and communicative skills of project manager” were also seen as very important. It was stated that all these factors are always strongly related to each other and that if most of the listed factors (list in project report) are given, the project will work. One aspect viewed critically was the “possibility to impose sanctions”, which is seen as destroying the good relations created among the stakeholder groups, especially agriculture; however, private firms too would withdraw from the projects if sanctions were imposed.

The main barriers identified were as follows:

The lack of both a federal landscape plan, equivalent to the federal road plan, and an action plan on biodiversity at national level that would be put into practice by the Länder in the form of regional action plans.

At the regional to local level, growing competition over land and higher land prices due to higher prices for agricultural products are seen as a powerful barrier to further projects. Thus, the plan to establish ecological networks by land purchase, which was sometimes advanced

7

rather dogmatically, was not practical in some cases. The ever growing efforts needed to get through existing red tape (bureaucracy) and the vague nature of the obligations required from cooperating land owners and users proved to have a negative impact on acceptance. As trust is a key factor for cooperation, changes in staffing structure (especially if the person has an advisory role) and short financing periods for the projects are a problem in the sense of long-term stability and sustainability. Due to the small number of monitoring activities, uncertainty exists regarding the effectiveness of measures and projects in relation to species, but also regarding their socio-economic effects, such as changes in people’s opinions concerning nature conservation. Management duties are seen as being accorded too little value, given that the projects are given plenty of funding for purchasing land but too little for staffing. One constant problem is the sustainability of projects and the maintenance of permanent biotope conservation measures.

With regard to the management of stakeholder involvement in ecological network implementation, one can conclude that it is crucial to establish sustainable and long lasting management and cooperation structures at regional level as well as at project level, in order to develop trust among the different stakeholder groups and acceptance for the ecological network concept. In this way a common understanding of the concept can be built up as a basis for the participatory development of further steps towards a Bavarian-wide functional ecological network embedded in worldwide efforts. These processes require, on the one hand, time get to know each other and to develop effective institutional structures for all administrative levels. They also require, on the other hand, institution-based funding in order to facilitate the development of professional and long lasting management structures based on continuity of staffing and to make available financial resources to compensate stakeholders for their activities.

2 Introduction

The ecological network concept is a response to biodiversity loss. The idea is to preserve core areas for conservation by means of buffer zones and to connect them via connecting elements such as corridors (rivers, hedges etc.) and stepping stones (e.g. ponds). Connecting elements that are less fixed in spatial or geographical terms, such as vectors (e.g. sheep), might also be of value. The concept integrates “normal use” areas beyond nature conservation areas (accounted for by law) in order to implement functional ecological networks. Thus the concept is in line with the current paradigm change from a segregative, static, preservation-oriented nature conservation to a more integrative, dynamic and innovative one. The implementation of such ecological networks requires cooperation among a wide range of stakeholders. The degree of participation of these stakeholders varies in intensity. This report describes the key stakeholders in a best practice example of ecological network implementation in a German case study region and outlines their perceptions of the ecological network concept. It analyses the forms of involvement in operation that lead to good cooperation among the actors. It reveals barriers to implementation as well as key factors of success in order to generate recommendations about how to manage stakeholder involvement.

2.1 Characteristics of the case study region

In Germany legal efforts are ongoing to establish a nation-wide ecological network on 10% of German territory by 2010 (Article 3 of the Federal Nature Conservation Act (BGB1, 2002); National Strategy on Biodiversity (Bundesregierung, 2007). However, due to Germany’s federal structure, which comprises sixteen Länder, and because decision making authority for the field of nature conservation is located at Länder level, several different approaches exist to establishing ecological networks. While several Länder have undertaken efforts aimed at implementation, these exist mainly on a local to regional scale, and are initiated by means of bottom-up approaches. Given this background, there is not a “German way” as such; however, several best practice examples exist, showing how implementation might be successful. In order to select a really good example, we took the results of our desk study on the implementation of ecological networks in Germany as a basis and discussed good project examples with experts (Siebert and Tiemann, 2007). Eventually, we decided to take Bavaria as a case study region. This is because:

− the state of Bavaria has a long tradition of conservation-related legislation within a coherent framework, as well as a large number of implementation efforts and ecological network projects running throughout the region;

− the organisation Bayern-Netz-Natur provides a very good institutional structure that brings in line the interests of local initiatives with regional planning, which is vital for a coherent ecological network (for more details, see section 3.1).

Under the Bavarian Nature Conservation Act, biodiversity and the establishment of an ecological network are important objectives of conservation efforts. The Bavarian Nature Conservation Act was one of the earliest conservation acts to be ratified at Länder level in Germany. In 1984 Bavaria’s administration developed the “Bavarian Programme for the Protection of Species and Habitats” (ABSP), which serves as a regional conceptual framework for conservation activities. The implementation of the state-wide ABSP habitat network through larger projects started in 1986, being one of the first endeavours of this kind in Germany. BayernNetz Natur was established as an institutional structure for implementation. It is currently managed by a private landscape consultancy firm. A cooperative approach and an emphasis on voluntariness and participation are essential pillars of all project activities. Most of the larger projects follow an integrative approach (including aspects such as nature conservation, marketing, tourism, education etc.). Currently, there are about 347 projects in progress under the ABSP initiative on about 9% of

9

Bavarian territory (Helfrich et al. in press). About 13% of Bavaria’s territory consists of Natura 2000 areas, national parks, nature conservation areas, or natural forest reserves. The Bavarian Strategy on Biodiversity stipulates that there should be a strong link between the BayernNetz Natur projects (Bavarian ecological network) and the Natura 2000 area network, and that fragmentation by transportation and construction activities on land and water should be reduced (StMUGV, 2008).

The case study analyses the key stakeholders at regional level (Bavaria) and focuses on two best practice ecological network projects: the “Sallingbachtal” project in the region of Kelheim in Lower Bavaria, and the “Sandachse Franken” project in the Nuremberg area.

Figure 1: Map of Bavarian case study region

Source: Illustration by ZALF e.V.

The interviewees at regional level (belonging to different stakeholder groups) and the project areas were selected with the help of the BayernNetz Natur manager (PAN). The main

Bavaria

Germany

10

criterion for project selection was a highly successful integration of different stakeholders in a cooperative way, under varying circumstances. Interviewees belonging to different stakeholder groups were selected from within the projects. The projects selected present some interesting contrasts:

− The first is a rather small project and one of the first BayernNetz Natur projects. It was set up 20 years ago in a rural area as a pilot project. It provided a basis for further projects, so that over the last 20 years it has been possible to foster good cooperation between the different stakeholder groups. In addition, the institutions for regional development in this area, where land has been abandoned due to low productivity, are quite sophisticated. Farmers now take part in agri-environmental schemes and tourism has been developed (for further information and project area map, see ANNEX 6.1 p.30).

− The second is one of Bavaria’s largest projects, begun in 2000 and completed in 2006 (stakeholders are currently trying to obtain funding to keep the project running). It is located in a metropolitan region and represents an attempt to develop an ecological network in an area where population density and land prices are high. Due to these circumstances, public-private partnerships formed with a large number of different stakeholders and based on contracts over a limited time were the method used to convince landowners and users to cooperate in the ecological network idea (for further information and project area map, see ANNEX 6.1 p.30).

In order to position the Bavarian case in relation to the current situation in Germany as a whole, we also talked to stakeholders at national level (BfN).

2.2 Methodology

The overall objective of this project phase was to analyse in greater detail the stakeholder perspective in ecological network implementation, in order to get a deeper insight into the barriers and critical success factors for ecological network implementation. In order to achieve this, an analytical framework based on the methodological background of a stakeholder analysis was developed.

A stakeholder analysis is a qualitative survey whose purpose is to analyse relationships and conflicts between stakeholder groups (actors). The goal is to gain a better understanding of the system, to involve the target players and to identify their different interests in the system. Stakeholder analysis is the most widespread practical approach to analysing actors and is based on certain fundamental concepts (e.g. advocacy coalition framework, “argumentative turn”, policy network approach, game theory), bearing in mind the multi-actor context of policy making (Hermans, 2005:10-14). According to (Elias et al. 2004), who carried out a synthesis on the views of authors who consider stakeholder analysis to be a useful tool, this form of analysis helps in understanding problems to do with complexity and compatibility, discovering patterns of interaction, improving interventions through analysis, managing decision making, and predicting conflicts. According to (Stringer et al. 2006) stakeholder analysis is a useful tool for selecting relevant groups to engage in social learning activities. They see social learning activities as an important participatory approach in environmental management, as it leads to an understanding and appreciation of opposing views. This forms the basis for engaging in joint project implementation, as with ecological networks. Figure 2 below gives an overview of the linkages between the different aspects involved in the issue of stakeholder involvement in ecological network implementation.

11

Figure 2: Analytical framework for stakeholder analysis in the “KEN” Project

Source: Illustration by author based on literature review

Conclusions for managing stakeholder involvement in order to achieve implementation without major conflicts

“Relation to the issue“

Problem

Solution

Environment/ area where ecological network implementation takes place

Network of actors

Stakeholder

Stakeholder

“Relation to each other“

Stakeholder

“Ecological networks“

“Biodiversity loss“

Individual stakeholder

Attitude/perception

Interest/objective

Behaviour/ action

+ Resources/power Impact of action

Institutions to catalyse stakeholder involvement

“Barriers/

success factors“

Level of stakeholder involvement

Hypothesis: Implementation difficulties due to wide range of stakeholders

How to catalyse stakeholder involvement?

12

Taking this framework as a basis, the methodological instruments used for research are those of qualitative social research. In order to facilitate a comparison of results from the six partner countries involved in the project, the interviews were underpinned by quantitative questions too. These questions do not have any statistical value/quality, being used for illustrative purposes only.

A total of 31 individuals from different sectors, such as agriculture, nature conservation, forestry, hunting, transport, water management, landscape planning, construction, civic groups, education and tourism, were interviewed. About 58% came from the private sector and 42% from the public sector. About 42% work at the local level, about 26% at the local-regional level, about 26% at the regional (Bavaria) level, and two individuals at the national level.

A qualitative questionnaire backed up by a smaller quantitative questionnaire was used for the data collection. The main qualitative section contained key questions concerning the wide range of stakeholder involvement in ecological network implementation; the short quantitative section was developed in support of the qualitative interviews in order to underline certain key aspects.

The general interview structure for all partners was worked out by the Leibniz-Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF e.V.) and is based on the following four thematic complexes:

A) Importance of individual stakeholder ( power, influence)

B) Perception of ecological networks (relationship to situation)

C) Cooperation and conflicts (relationship to each other)

D) Conclusions and recommendations for managing stakeholder involvement in the area/ Barriers to implementation and critical success factors

The following chapters of this report refer to these complexes and reflect the results of the interviews.

3 Stakeholder analysis

3.1 Key stakeholders – The power, influence and relevance of each stakeholder

Stakeholders from the different sectors involved in ecological network implementation (e.g. agriculture, transport) - henceforth called stakeholder groups – can be found at all levels, from the national to the local. Because there is a wide range of different stakeholders, especially in the “Sandachse” area, we aggregated all stakeholders into stakeholder groups. The stakeholder groups chosen are related, wherever possible, to the sectors from which the individual stakeholders came. The groups are quite universal so as to be applicable for all project partners1. A list indicating which type of stakeholder was sorted into which stakeholder group can be viewed in ANNEX 6.2, p. 32. These stakeholder groups contain both private, or civil society actors, such as private agencies, firms or associations on the one hand, and public authorities, such as district administrators, nature conservation authorities etc. on the other. After doing the interviews with the 31 stakeholders in the case study region, we examined the results in order to assess who should be viewed as a key stakeholder. A key stakeholder can be viewed as someone who possesses at least two of the three core functional elements of legitimacy, resources and relationships/connections with a “high” rating (Zimmermann and Maennling, 2007). On the basis of these criteria we rated 21 of our interviewees (about 70 %) as key stakeholders. They come from the stakeholder groups agriculture, nature conservation, forestry, hunting, transport, water

1 The ECNC project has partners from the Netherlands, Croatia, Estonia, Switzerland, and the UK.

13

management, landscape planning, civic groups and tourism. All interviewees were asked how they rate their own influence on ecological network implementation. About 60% rated their influence as “very high” (especially nature conservation authorities and land care associations) or “quite high” (in nearly all cases the two together were those we rated as key stakeholders as well), about 25% as “moderate” and just 16 % as “low”.

Due to Germany’s federal structure the case study focuses on stakeholders at the regional (Bavarian) level (one third of all our interviewees) and on stakeholders at project level (about two thirds of all our interviewees). At the national level the Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN) was the only key stakeholder consulted for the purpose of assessing the role of Bavarian activities in the context of ecological network implementation in Germany (for further information concerning the national level see WP2 report, section 3.3.2, (Siebert and Tiemann, 2007). The BfN is the German federal government’s main scientific authority for national and international nature conservation, reporting to the German Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU). As such it is an important institution in terms of information exchange at both international level and within Germany itself.

At the regional level (Bavaria) the main implementation instrument for a Bavarian-wide ecological network according to the ABSP criteria is BayernNetz Natur, an umbrella institution for measure-based nature conservation in Bavaria. This institutional structure makes it possible to bring the nature conservation interests of local initiatives in line with regional planning, which is vital for achieving a coherent ecological network. Since 1989 there has been a “BayernNetz Natur project group for implementation of ABSP” (Projektgruppe BayernNetz Natur). This group provides a service to authorities and NGOs wishing to implement nature conservation projects. The management of this initiative is financed by the Ministry for the Environment, Health and Consumer Protection (StMUGV) and is currently outsourced to a private landscape consultancy firm called PAN (Planungsbüro für angewandten Naturschutz). This firm keeps in contact with the regional authorities (there are close contacts to StMUGV) and to the managers of the individual ecological network projects. It manages Bavarian-wide coordination for a coherent ecological network and provides extension services in relation to planning and financing concrete projects. It also does monitoring and evaluation, albeit to a lesser extent due to a lack of human and financial resources (according to (Helfrich et al. in press) in about 40% of all BayernNetz Natur projects).

On the side of the state authorities, the StMUGV is the most important key stakeholder for ecological network implementation. It does the agenda setting for nature conservation targets and develops support programmes in order to finance projects and specific measures. Its technical authority, the Office for the Environment (LfU) does updating on ABSP and also conducts evaluations for this purpose. The LfU has contact to the state authorities alone and focuses on planning aspects.

The StMUGV cooperates with the Bavarian Ministry for Agriculture and Forestry (StMLF), which does agenda setting for targets and programmes in agricultural and woodland areas. Cooperation with the Forest Administration has been especially difficult in the past due to the existence of separate administrative structures for nature conservation in woodland areas. In 2005 there was a forest reform: the state forest authorities were separated into state administrations and commercially organised forest enterprises. The reform was the subject of highly controversial debate and required additional administrative capacities, resulting in nature conservation projects being given quite low priority over the last few years. Interviewees report that this is now changing for the better.

The main financial resources for the BayernNetz Natur projects come from state support programmes and a foundation under public law founded in 1982, the Bavarian Nature Conservation Fund (Bayrischer Naturschutzfonds). The purpose of this fund is the conservation of species and biotopes and the establishment of ecological network structures as a basis for a Bavarian-wide ecological network (it has spent about € 6m per year on average over the last 5 years). The money comes from the yields of the foundation’s asset

14

base (€ 51.1m) and from private donations. The asset base had been built up by selling Bavarian real estate.

The Bavarian Academy for Nature Conservation and Landscape Management (ANL), which is a state-supported (StMUGV) education and research institution, conducts a large number of seminars on nature conservation in its large educational centre in order to link research and education in Bavaria.

Another set of important actors at regional level that sometimes support and sometimes hinder the implementation of an ecological network are non-governmental organisations (NGOs). The Land Care Associations (LCAs), for example, are a very important stakeholder for ecological network implementation. There is a “Liaison office for Bavarian Land Care Associations” at regional level. The notion of land care emerged in Germany in 1986. The first Land Care Association (LCA) was founded in Bavaria to enhance co-operation between groups of environmentalists, farmers and local politicians, all of whom are represented equally on the board of each LCA. They work according to the principle of voluntarism and have no sovereign rights. Due to this form of constitution, the LCAs enjoy a high level of legitimacy and are well accepted by all stakeholder groups. They are financed both by operating as a service provider that implements nature conservation measures financed through state programmes (e.g. agri-environmental schemes) and by membership subscriptions. According to (Anheier et al. 2002) self-organisation, public spirit and dedication to public concerns are three indicators that point to the existence of potential in the sphere of civil society. The LCAs show such a potential and were therefore allocated to the stakeholder group “civic groups” (citizens). We also allocated the nature conservation associations (NGOs at regional and local level) to this group due to their strong commitment to public concerns and their relatively few connections to any special occupational group - in contrast to, say, farmers unions, people from various occupational backgrounds are engaged in nature conservation NGOs. Compared to other German Länder, Bavaria has a powerful nature conservation lobby group with good contacts to the authorities at regional and national level and a Bavarian-wide network of local groups. This is due to the fact that nature conservation has a long tradition here (this was pointed out by various interviewees). Given this fact, the umbrella organisations of nature conservation groups such as Friends of the Earth Germany, Bavaria section2 (BUND Bayern) and the Bavarian Society for the Protection of Birds3 (LBV, which is the Bavarian partner of the German Society for the Protection of Nature (NABU) are very supportive of the ecological network concept. One organisation coming from the hunters’ side is the so-called “Wildlandstiftung4”. It is also a licensed nature conservation organisation, but has a clear occupational background and is therefore allocated to the stakeholder group “hunters”. It is also very active in its commitment to corridors for wild game and projects for wildlife conservation. The Bavarian Farmers Union (BBV) varies enormously in its perception of ecological networks, depending on the region concerned. At regional level its attitude is critical, whereas its activities at local level - and especially the attitude of individual members (farmers) on the ground - are in some cases (e.g. in the Kelheim area) very supportive.

At the local project level a different picture can be drawn for each project region. This is due to the fact that the Kelheim area is a rural area, whereas the “Sandachse” project was implemented in a metropolitan region. In the rural area the main land user groups are farmers (including shepherds) und foresters. Due to the long history of successful nature conservation projects that brought money and ideas into a region with large areas of abandoned land, farmers are very supportive. An atmosphere of trust has developed among the local actors. The forest sector in Bavaria is generally more independent: it likes to manage its own areas without much communication with the nature conservation authorities concerned with open areas. The tourism sector is another important stakeholder that enables

2 http://www.bund-naturschutz.de/

3 http://www.lbv.de/menu-oben/english.html

4 http://wildland-stiftung.de/index2.html

15

nature conservation to occur in tandem with an increase in income. One example of such a win-win situation is sheep production used for landscape conservation on the one hand and for special tourist meals on the other, as has been implemented in the region in a project coined “Altmühltaler Lamm”5. Also important are the water management sector and the authorities working in it, given that the region contains river valleys that are very valuable for nature conservation. These authorities have also been very supportive in the past.

In both projects, the Land Care Associations proved to be a key stakeholder, with a high level of legitimacy and with no obvious conflict potential. The Associations provide a contact forum for different stakeholders, offering support in planning, coordinating and implementing various project activities connected with nature conservation at local level. They also act as a mediator in case of conflicts. In addition, actors in both regions mentioned the importance of support from local politicians and administrations without sector affiliation (local authorities and districts). When mayors and heads of the rural district authorities back a certain idea, it is much easier, according to the interviewees, to bring together the other stakeholder groups. The range of land users in the “Sandachse Franken” project area is much broader, as transportation (on road, by air, on water), the construction industry and private firms also play a major role. Because of this, the project management implemented a special “Sandachse Agency”, whose role was to talk to all these stakeholders in order to integrate them into the project and to convince them of the usefulness of taking part in the network. The most convincing argument for the private land users was voluntariness and the opportunity to participate for a certain time without setting the integrated areas of the network in stone. This gives them an opportunity to earn good publicity for doing something for the common good while maintaining their flexibility for economic activities in the future.

What can be concluded for Stakeholder involvement?

In order to implement ecological networks at a Bavarian-wide level, a coalition consisting of a wide range of different stakeholders from all administrative levels is needed. The Bavarian state authorities have considerable influence on the overall development of ecological networks by financing (agri)-environmental programmes and institutions that catalyse implementation. However, implementation on the ground depends on the assistance of local stakeholders. Civic groups are the “creative mind” in this process and initiate projects. They accept help from state institutions and programmes when it comes to planning and financing. Civic groups, which are very powerfully organised in Bavaria, are the ones who bring different stakeholder groups together. In particular, the LCAs, which work according to the principle of voluntary participation, are able to involve stakeholders who are initially sceptical by building confidence on the basis of their legitimacy and their continuity in terms of staffing. One important institution that makes it possible to finance the implementation of such a large number of projects is the Bavarian Nature Conservation Fund, a foundation under public law.

3.2 Stakeholder perceptions - relationship to the situation

This section analyses stakeholders’ perceptions of the ecological network concept and its implementation in the case study area. It analyses what “ecological network” means to the stakeholders and whether they felt adequately integrated in the implementation process.

What does the term “ecological network” mean to you?

The interpretation of the term ecological network by the individual stakeholders revealed a wide variety of views on the issue. On the one hand, interviewees referred to the spatial dimension of the concept and the importance of land purchase in enabling the network to function. On the other hand, interviewees referred to the network as a concept that exists mainly in peoples’ minds, bringing various stakeholders together and channelling their local activities into nature conservation. The spatial dimension is always a point of discussion.

5 http://www.altmuehltaler-lamm.de/inhalt.html

16

Some people think that ecological networks have to be fixed spatially for a long period of time in order to function well, while others think that they can be flexible and functional at the same time. What is seen as an ecological network depends on the working situation of the person and on the project in question. The term “ecological network” in itself often doesn’t mean much to local stakeholders, but they like the idea of having a defined project in their region. They therefore support the concept, albeit in a rather indirect manner, without exactly determining what an ecological network might be and how the local ecological network might relate to other areas. The local context of the project and local relationships among the people involved are seen as very important, and whether this is called “ecological network” or something else is rather irrelevant - the term is just abstract theory. It was also said that the term itself (in German “Biotopverbund”) has a negative connotation because of negative experiences during the process of Natura 2000 site selection; this led to the fear of experiencing further constraints in relation to use. Equally, however, the connection to Natura 2000 and its international dimension may also have positive effects because it leads to a growing awareness of the value of a region, and this also promotes acceptance of nature conservation measures.

Which spatial dimension comes to mind when referring to ecological networks?

Of all responses to this question6, 24.5% referred to the local level, 39.6% to the regional (Bavarian) level, 13.2% to the national level, and 22.6% to the international level. Those who referred to the national or international level were mainly those who also worked at a higher administrative level. These interviewees pointed to the importance of the international dimension for species. People working in concrete ecological network implementation (local projects) on the ground often fail to see the larger dimension of ecological networks. However, working in projects related to the issue of ecological networks also fosters an understanding of the relevance of such local projects to the worldwide effort to preserve biodiversity. Even though the majority of people see the Bavarian level as the one that counts, a few interviewees had the BayernNetz Natur in mind. This seems to be an institutional structure that is important for project managers during the planning phase, as well as for extension services, as a platform for information exchange; however, stakeholders involved in specific projects have little awareness of it. Interviewees also reported difficulties in terms of working together with other districts, due to the existence of different working procedures and principles; this was cited as a factor in why they felt it was better to stay at the local level, where actors know each other. One very interesting point is that just 13.2% of responses refer to the national level; this shows even more clearly that nature conservation is seen by stakeholders in Bavaria as a task of the German Länder. There is no stronger preference for working together with other German Länder compared to working together at an international level. Several interviewees also reported that activities at the national level do not play such an important role in Bavaria, but concrete cooperation with adjacent Länder and countries is very important.

In your view, what significance does the ecological network concept have?

How do you weight the importance of ecological networks as opposed to other nature conservation measures?

In a questionnaire for an ECNC study in 20037 the question “Do you think that ecological networks will contribute to the conservation of habitats, ecosystems and species?” was answered with “yes” (the categories given were “yes”, “no”, “don’t know”) by 97.9% of the 107 interviewees from all over Europe. In order to obtain more specific responses, more categories were offered in our study. We too received answers in the positive categories only. 42% of the 31 interviewees answered “Yes, they are the solution” and about 23% answered “Yes, but only a little”; the rest of the interviewees created a third category in

6 Multiple responses, e.g. “local” and “regional”, were possible, because people could refer to all levels at once

7 (Rientjes and Roumelioti, 2003)

17

between these two. During discussions it became clear that there needed to be a third “Yes” category, because although ecological networks are an important concept and instrument for nature conservation (also for strategic reasons in politics), they are just one among many. In particular, people from land care associations, nature conservation associations and nature conservation authorities held this opinion. They said that the manner of cultivation as a whole has to change in order to really improve the situation. Interviewees also said that the goal of the concept is good, but the problem is still implementation on the ground. Various interviewees from different stakeholder groups said that too little knowledge exists about the real effect of ecological networks on species. According to these respondents, there should be more monitoring activities in order to measure the success of projects. The ecological network concept was also described as a concept based on politicking, with few proven effects. Other stakeholders pointed out that the spatial dimension of the network, the point discussed mostly in the political sphere (10% of German territory), has little relevance, that functionality is the decisive factor. Several stakeholders from nature conservation, civic groups and landscape planning referred to the common agricultural policy as the one factor that influences the whole land use system and, as such, has a huge influence on the functionality of a network. In addition, it was stated that wild life conservation programmes for specific species are also very important measures.

What is your position regarding the implementation of the ecological network concept?

Did your position change during the project/your work on the issue?

What are the most convincing arguments for you to participate, or not to participate, in the implementation process?

The majority of our interviewees (77.4%) responded to the first question with “very supportive” and 19.2% answered “supportive”; just one person opted for “neutral”. This is due to the fact that we chose people for the interviews who are engaged in projects concerned with the issue of ecological networks. The people who saw themselves just as “supportive” came from the stakeholder groups forestry, agriculture, transport and water management; however, these stakeholder groups (forestry excepted) also contained stakeholders who saw themselves as “very supportive”.

The question of whether positions have changed over time revealed that people’s positions had become more positive (38.7% of responses) or stayed the same because they had been very supportive or supportive in the first place (61.3% of responses). Changes in a positive direction can likewise be found in all stakeholder groups. Generally speaking, interviewees from all stakeholder groups reported that views on nature conservation issues had changed for the better during the last few years. Various interviewees identified a greater awareness of nature conservation issues and of biodiversity in particular. According to them, for the authorities and private land users it is now a question of how to use nature economically while generating the lowest negative impact on it and still acting in accordance with the wishes of all stakeholders.

Interviewees from the agriculture stakeholder group reported that in the past there had been fears around the issue of contact between the stakeholder groups agriculture and nature conservation or civic groups. Those involved in agriculture feared that limitations in land use options would be imposed on them. These fears had been overcome by a process of confidence building among the local stakeholders over a longer time period and by the principle of voluntary participation. Besides this, the fact that nature conservation projects were able to bring financial resources to the region, generating benefits for various stakeholders and the community as a whole, was very convincing. The nature conservation group was also convinced to participate because it meant doing something about fragmentation and getting involved alongside other European neighbours. A further argument is that the concept operates to counteract the potential extinction of species due to climate change. Responses from the forestry group were that the concept is an acceptable one due to the fact that it no longer tries to hinder the use of forests, as earlier nature conservation concepts did. Landowners and users from the private sector also reported that the most

18

convincing argument for them to participate was that the areas of the network were not fixed by law, allowing them the flexibility they need to use land differently in the future. Various interviewees from the civic group highlighted voluntariness (of participation in the projects) together with a consensus orientation and long-term relationships (stability) as the most convincing factors for their partners (land owners and users) to participate. They see integrative projects like the “Sandachse Franken” (large and small ones) as the way to implement ecological networks. There is a need for more than measures in the spatial dimension alone: the network also has to be in people’s minds in order for change to occur in the long term. As such, environmental education and information for the public were seen as very important by the majority of interviewees in this group. However, the group is not univocal on this issue: others (albeit fewer people) also expressed the opinion that a network is only a network if it is visible in a spatial dimension and that the major emphasis should be on acquisition of areas for nature conservation. These contradictory opinions also led to conflicts during the implementation phase of the “Sandachse” project.

In which policy or project phases of the implementation process of ecological networks are/were you involved?

Did you feel that you were involved at the right time and extensively enough?

As the implementation of ecological networks comprises different phases and the quality of the initial phases influences the output of the following ones, it is interesting to know if key stakeholders are integrated in earlier phases. Acceptance grows when stakeholders take part right from the beginning (for further information, see (Siebert and Tiemann, 2007) section 3.2.3). Of all our interviewees, 64.5% took part during the planning phase, 90.3% said that they are/were engaged in implementation on the ground (we also talked to stakeholders at the regional level who do the agenda setting but are not involved in implementation on the ground), and 48.4% said that they take part in various kinds of monitoring and/or evaluation activities. The high degree of participation in the planning phase is explained by the fact that we talked mainly to people in superior positions who were key stakeholders and often represented a larger group of stakeholders. Interviewees in both project regions all felt that they were involved early enough and nearly all (there was just one interviewee from the civic group who stated “no”) that they were sufficiently involved, or else the question could not be answered, because it is the respondent’s job to involve others. Those who had not taken part in planning stated that they didn`t want to because it is not their job. From these results one can conclude that the involvement of key stakeholders was quite good, even though it cannot be assumed that we talked to all relevant stakeholders, as the critical ones often refused to take part in interviews. The interviewees we talked to at project level were all very motivated to continue their work. Especially in the “Sandachse” project region, respondents expressed their frustration about the fact that financing further activities has become so difficult and that the project cannot continue even though it had integrated such a large number of different stakeholders and had tried out new ways of creating ecological networks.

What can be concluded for stakeholder involvement?

How an ecological network is defined depends to a large extent on the actual working situation of a stakeholder. The term itself is often seen as abstract and theoretical and as having little relevance in terms of the decision to participate or not; what counts are the concrete project ideas and the expected effects. Working in a specific project brings about a higher degree of understanding of the ecological network concept and the relevance of single projects for the international dimension. The national level in general seems not to play such an important role, but cooperation with adjacent German Länder and with other countries is seen as very important. Ecological networks are seen as an important instrument for biodiversity conservation, but it was said that especially the manner of cultivation in agriculture - and thus also the common agricultural policy - plays an important role as well. One point of conflict is the extent to which ecological networks need to be spatially fixed for a long time (e.g. by land purchase) in order to be functional, or whether they could be flexible

19

areas. In order to clarify the real effects of different ways of implementing ecological networks, more monitoring activities are needed instead of just politicking. Public relations and environmental education are also seen as very important for creating awareness and a common understanding as a basis for further action. Generally, it was said that there has been a growing understanding of the need for nature conservation as well as of the need to involve key stakeholders in all phases. The most convincing arguments for participating in ecological network projects were the principle of voluntariness and economic benefits. Where land purchase was not possible, land owners were encouraged to participate and tie their land to the project for some time (without being fixed by law), allowing them the economic flexibility for future activities they need. Financial benefits resulting from the nature conservation projects were offered for a wide range of different stakeholders in the region, showing that nature conservation may also mean economical development.

3.3 Stakeholder relationships to each other

This section analyses the relationships among the stakeholders. It clarifies which groups are seen as key stakeholders and which methods were used to involve them.

In your opinion who are the key stakeholders for ecological network implementation?

The interviewees were asked to name all stakeholders relevant to their work and then to specify whether these were key stakeholders for implementing ecological networks or just important partners; they were also asked about the nature of the relationship, from “very good” to “conflictive”. We assigned the individual stakeholders to stakeholder groups8 in accordance with our scheme (see annex 6.2).

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Agricu

lture

Natur

e Con

serv

atio

n

Fisher

ies

Fores

try

Huntin

g

Trans

port

Energ

y

Wate

r Man

agem

ent

Spatia

l/Reg

ional

Planni

ng

Land

scap

e Pla

nnin

g

Const

ructi

on in

dustry

Civic

grou

ps

Touris

m

Loca

l poli

tics a

nd a

dmin

istra

tion

Named stakeholders

Ho

w o

ften

nam

ed

Important

Key stakeholder

Figure 3: Summary of interviewee opinions: named stakeholders and their felt relevance for the ecological network implementation process

8 This means that any interviewee could mention a group several times (e.g. farmers, agricultural

administration); the results were aggregated later on.

20

Figure 3 shows the sum of opinions of the interviewees regarding which are the important stakeholder groups. The issue of importance can be seen in the frequency with which the stakeholder group is named by our 31 interviewees and also in the different colours within the pillars showing whether it is a key stakeholder or not. Figure 3 shows clearly that nature conservation authorities, civic groups (including nature conservation associations and land care associations, and thus project providers and project management) and agriculture (including farmers, their associations and agricultural authorities) are the groups most often mentioned. In addition to this, “local politics and administration” proved to be a very important one. This group had not been considered by us before. According to the interviewees, cooperating with the local authorities (the German Kommunen) is crucial for project implementation on the ground. Cooperation with this group depends largely on the goodwill of individuals, but it is the stance taken by senior members of the local administrations that decides how effective implementation will be. Another very important actor (not considered in the figure) is the Bavarian Nature Conservation Fund, because it finances the BayernNetz Natur projects.

How would you assess the cooperation with the above-mentioned actors?

Are there examples of exceptionally good cooperation? Have there been conflicts?

Figure 4 shows the relationship of the interviewees to the different stakeholder groups. The statements on the type of relation to stakeholder have been summed up for each stakeholder group. In the Figure it is given as a percentage of all statements relating to that stakeholder group. Stakeholder groups where fewer than 4 stakeholders were mentioned by the interviewees have been left out. The Figure is not useful for statistical purposes, as the amount of data is too small. However, it shows the opinions of the interviewees that there might be conflicts in relation to all types of stakeholder groups. There is no consistent conflict party. Nevertheless it gives an indication of where conflicts might occur more often.

0

20

40

60

80

100

Agricu

lture

Natur

e Con

serv

atio

n

Fisher

ies

Fores

try

Huntin

g

Trans

port

Wate

r Man

agem

ent

Land

scap

e Pla

nnin

g

Civic

grou

ps

Touris

m

Loca

l poli

tics a

nd a

dmin

istra

tion

Named stakeholders

Typ

of

rela

tio

nsh

ip in

perc

en

tag

e

Conflictive

partly good / partlyconflictiveGood

Very good

Figure 4: Summary of interviewee opinion: type of relationship to named stakeholders

Conflicts occur readily with all land users and owners. In the case of agriculture, the farmers’ union is sometimes seen as conflictive, as are individual farmers, whereas cooperation in the project in general was seen as good. At the same time, it was also mentioned that

21

sometimes stakeholders from the nature conservation authority side or individuals in nature conservation associations generate conflict due to their strong principles and a poor ability to cooperate by finding consensus between nature conservation and economic concerns. The forestry stakeholder group is the only one that showed a greater conflict potential. In the past this group seems to have had little interest in communicating with nature conservation or civic groups. Interviewees described its administration as “a state within a state”. By way of example, this was manifested in the past in two lines of administration, one for “open lands” managed by the nature conservation authorities and agricultural authorities, and one for “wooded areas” managed by forest administrations. This sometimes proved difficult for ecological network planning and implementation on the ground, particularly when both types of land were needed. Since work on the hotly debated forest reform (see section 3.1) no longer ties up as many resources, this is now changing for the better as the institutional structure has changed. Nevertheless, various interviewees pointed to the problem that the state forest companies now have to operate in an economically prudent way so that nature conservation measures are not given such a high priority, even though ecological network implementation is one of the companies’ objectives. Changes in staffing due to the reform are seen as an opportunity in cases where communication had previously been conflictive, but also as a problem where long-term partnerships had been developed and forest stakeholders from former projects who had become important partners have had to leave their posts. In this sense, the extension service for foresters at local level in particular is seen as a problem because local advisors have left to work in other areas.

Within the “Sandachse” project there had been conflicts due to different understandings of how to implement ecological networks. The Bavarian Nature Conservation Fund (financer) has the criterion that ecological networks should be established mainly by land purchase. Since this was not possible in the area due to high land prices, the project managers chose a flexible structure that focused on stakeholder involvement (cooperation with land owners and users to tie their land to the project for some time) and was coordinated by the Sandachse Agency, backed up by many activities in environmental education. According to the funding criteria, then, the projects were not successful. This conflict led to the funding being cut, even though the project had been very successful in involving a wide range of stakeholders in a large area and had introduced the concept of ecological networks to ordinary citizens.

What kind of measures are applied in order to involve stakeholders in the implementation process of ecological networks?

Which ones do you consider to be very effective?

During the interviews we asked people which forms of involvement are in use in their working area and how they would rate their effectiveness. The results can be seen in Figure 5. The forms of involvement are presented from left to right according to the extent of stakeholder participation they allow (information -> information with feedback -> assisting decision making -> being part of decision making -> making the decision). Face-to-face communication is relevant in all levels of participation (information – decision making). Public relations/public events and field trips were forms we hadn’t thought of before but which were mentioned fairly often in the category “other” by the interviewees, hence their inclusion in the list. The results show that face-to-face information by means of direct conversation among the stakeholders is the form used most often as well as being the one which is seen as being most effective. Also used very often, not least for legal reasons, is the information letter. However, its effectiveness was rated as being quite small, similarly to written statements (see Figure). Round tables are also viewed as very effective, at least those with decision making power. However, round tables were also criticised for having been degraded to an information instrument only. This type of round table merely provokes frustration among the participants and leads to a decrease in the number of participants in the long run. The open discussion forum was viewed as having low effectivity due to its lack of specificity, often turning into a tittle-tattle club. The standing forum, by contrast, makes longer-term relationships possible and discusses concrete concerns; this is seen as being very effective to effective. Also viewed as being very effective, were forms of public relations and public

22

events (such as articles in local newspapers, events with children and their parents, festivities relating to ecological networks and biodiversity) and field trips as events for stakeholders in the project area concerned.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Information letter

Meeting of association

Written statement/Consultation

Face-to-face information

Moderated w orking session

Thematic w orkshop

Open discussion forum

Round table (only input for decision)

Standing forum

Round table (w ith decision-making pow er)

Public Relation / Public Events

Field Trips

Named forms of

involvementHow often named

Very effective

Effective

Low effectivity

Figure 5: Summary of interviewee opinion: effectivity of forms of involvement

How do you assess stakeholder participation in the projects in general?

Are there shortcomings? What should be done better?

The interviewees themselves felt well integrated by the above-mentioned forms during the implementation processes in both project areas, and their expectations regarding the degree of participation were generally met (see also last question category in section 3.2). This is shown by their answers to the question “Were the expectations you had in the beginning regarding your influence during the process of participation met?”. This question was answered with “Yes, absolutely” by 13 of our interviewees, while 8 answered “Yes, mostly”. Two people chose the category “only partly” and “no, not at all” respectively (the discontent reflected in their answers is of merely personal relevance, being based on personal disappointment, and has nothing to do with the general position of stakeholder groups; this question was not relevant for stakeholders at the regional level with no direct relation to the project areas).

The question “Would you say that the involvement/participation of stakeholders in general was: very good, good, acceptable, insufficient, don’t know?” was answered by 10 interviewees with “very good”, by 14 with “good” and by 1 with “acceptable” (6 said “don’t know” because no direct relation existed to implementation projects). This shows that the interviewees see the standards of involving different stakeholders by the above-mentioned forms as good to very good, although there might also be potential for improvement. Interviewees also said that due to the heterogeneity of stakeholders, perfect participation is not possible: there will always be at least minor conflicts and disappointment for some

23

groups and, as such, always an opportunity to improve something in the specific project on the ground. For the “Sandachse” project, various interviewees pointed to the positive involvement of the project office and especially of the Sandachse Agency, due to personal conversations, the advisory service and joint activities; however, they also pointed to the problem that such structures need to be long lasting (now the project is over, it is a question of how to the continue the cooperation and activities). Continuity and reliability are seen as core elements for improving participation and cooperation. This is a decisive advantage of the LCAs. Its staff stay in the area for a long time and are not tied to projects only or to any special stakeholder group. LCAs were named by many interviewees as the organisation perfectly placed to implement ecological networks on the ground. A general problem often mentioned is that participation needs time and human resources. Projects do not provide enough financing for human resources in terms of establishing coordination/management structures in a sustainable way. For private stakeholders participation also presents difficulties in terms of the time they have available. Processes of planning and coordination should therefore be as little time consuming for them as possible.

What can be concluded for the management of stakeholder involvement?

Nature conservation authorities (at every level), civic groups and agriculture were the key stakeholders mentioned very often, followed by local politics and administration (local authorities) and forestry. These groups at least need to be represented in management/coordination structures. Relationships among stakeholder groups can be conflictive within all groups, especially if actors are land owners or users; there is no single conflict party. Due to conditions in the past, forestry is currently not as well integrated in communication structures as the other groups. Cooperation with the local authorities and with the foundation (Bavarian Nature Conservation Fund) is decisive for financing and effective implementation on the ground. Conflicts occur at the regional level or at the management level due to divergent understandings of how ecological networks are best implemented. Direct communication (face-to-face) is seen as the most effective way to involve stakeholders and to avoid or resolve conflicts. Round tables are also very common and effective, but may lead to frustration when they are used solely for passing on information. This results in a lower participation of stakeholders in the long run. The general standard of stakeholder involvement is seen as good to very good. Various well accepted instruments for involvement are in use, but continuity remains a problem. Established management structures need to be long lasting in order to be reliable and to generate sustainable stakeholder participation. Involvement is a slow process, as reliability and trust have to be built up; this is time consuming and requires permanently funded human resources.

4 Conclusions and recommendations for managing stakeholder involvement in the area - barriers and success factors

This chapter summarises the key steps taken during ecological network implementation. It highlights the barriers to implementation and the factors of success. On the basis of a discussion of these and of the results presented in the previous chapters (stakeholder analysis), a number of conclusions are drawn on how the management of stakeholders might work best.

Key steps during the process of implementation were:

at regional level,

− the creation of ABSP criteria as a baseline for nature conservation project planning and

− the development of BayernNetz Natur as an institutional structure for implementation. This enabled planning ideas at regional level to be combined with the motivation existing in local initiatives;

24

and at local level,

− the development of long lasting management structures in the “Sallingbach” project area by establishing a powerful land care association. This led to trust among the different stakeholder groups, resulting in a lasting willingness on the part of stakeholders to implement further projects in a voluntary and cooperative way.

− the establishment of a management structure – the Sandachse Agency – that concentrated on involving a wide variety of stakeholders in the project in a flexible manner. This was done in order to establish an ecological network in an area where land purchase for nature conservation is not possible due to high land prices. About 47 partners from private enterprises and administrations agreed to get involved (by providing land) in the implementation of the project. The convincing argument for them was voluntariness and flexibility, which enables land to be withdrawn if it is needed for other economic activities. A considerable amount of publicity and education events were carried out throughout the area. Thanks to this new way of developing ecological networks, the whole concept became very widely publicised and was accepted by the general public in the Nuremberg area.

Barriers to implementation:

Interviewees pointed to the problem that, in contrast to the federal road plan at the national level, it has still not been possible to work out a federal landscape plan with spatially concrete targets as an instrument for the implementation of ecological networks. Such a plan would harness financial resources for implementation and give a specific instruction to act. Furthermore, a national action plan on biodiversity (including ecological networks) is needed that would lead to the development of action plans in the Länder with specified targets and adequate financial resources.

The commitment of the Länder is seen as being too small, given that financing comes mainly from foundations and the local authorities, which always have to provide top-up funding for projects. This top-up is also seen as being somewhat problematic, as some local authorities that have not worked out their structure for project application and have had no positive experience with projects in the past tend to avoid such investment in the present.

At the regional to the project level, the higher prices for some agricultural products (e.g. crops and energy) are currently leading to competition over land and to higher land prices. This means that land owners are rarely willing to cooperate or that they may even sell land. Compensation has to be very high in order to convince farmers to cooperate in nature conservation projects9. The same is true for other land owners where competitive land use options exist and prices are high (e.g. as in the metropolitan Sandachse region). This conflicts with what is sometimes a very dogmatically presented concept for establishing ecological networks by land purchase (see sections 3.2 and 3.3). Another problem mentioned by nature conservation and civic groups are the ever growing effects of red tape (bureaucracy), leading to the fact that the time available for concrete action using scarce human resources is progressively reduced. For land owners and users, the fuzziness of obligations associated with their cooperation or changing plans are a problem. The negative experience of the Natura 2000 site selection process is often mentioned as having resulted in prejudice towards the ecological network implementation projects. As trust is a key factor in cooperation, changes in staffing structures (especially if the person has an advisory function) and short financing periods for the projects are a problem in the sense of sustainability over the long term. Several interviewees mentioned the problem that there are still too few monitoring activities. Uncertainty exists about the effectiveness of measures and projects for species, but also about the effect of measures relating to socio-economic impacts, such as changes in people’s views concerning nature conservation. Interviewees

9 In 2007 there was such a low acceptance for the Bavarian programme on agri-environmental schemes

(KULAP), which had worked very well in the past, that the premiums for measures will now be doubled.

25

also said that management duties are accorded too little value, given that the projects are well-funded in terms of material costs (in order to purchase land) but poorly funded in terms of staffing costs. One problem continues to be the sustainability of projects and the maintenance of permanent biotope conservation measures after short project periods. Biotope conservation is even more difficult if biotopes are not open to the public (like railway or airport areas), because it is often done through the voluntary involvment of civic groups.

Factors of success:

A list of key factors for participatory implementation of ecological networks had been drawn up previously on the basis of a literature review of factors of success for nature conservation projects and participatory processes (see Lichtenberg, 2003; DVL, 2007; Wiener and Rihm, 2002; Heiland, 2002; Böcher, 2002; Böcher and Krott, 2002a;Böcher and Krott, 2002b; Brendle, 1999).The results show how this given list of factors was ranked by the interviewees (see Figure 6).

0 5 10 15 20 25

Involvement of key stakeholders in planning process

Obvious personal benefit, Win-w in-situations

Advocates that are accepted

Resources for compensation and rew ards

experience and communicative skills of project managers

good project management

Time for trust building

Clear targets/ monitoring

Permanent public relations

Possibility to impose sanctions

“principle of voluntariness”

Face-to-face communication /extension service

Factors of success How often factor w as named

Most important factor

very important

How often named aspotentially negligible

Figure 6: Summary of interviewee opinion: Rating of the most important and very important factors for successful participatory implementation of ecological networks

The factors most often chosen as the “most important” or “very important” ones are:

− Resources for compensation and rewards for ecological services. This factor is the one chosen most often as the most important factor (12 times).

− The involvement of key stakeholders from the very beginning. This factor is the one chosen second most frequently as the most important factor (ten times).

− Obvious personal benefit (financial or image/non-material) due to win-win-situations. This factor was mentioned just five times as the most important one.

26

Also chosen very often were the factors:

− good project management, which was mentioned six times as the most important factor and

− good experiences and communicative skills of project manager.

The interviewees pointed out that both factors are strongly correlated. Both factors viewed together show that management by appropriate managers is regarded as very important.

One factor that was viewed critically was:

− The ablity to impose sanctions. 13 interviewees described it as having negative effects.

The interviewees said that the ability to impose sanctions would destroy the good relations that existed among the stakeholder groups and that agriculture in particular - but also private companies - would withdraw from the projects if sanctions were imposed. Nearly all stakeholders (there was just one who disagreed) pointed to the importance of the principle of voluntariness in order to avoid the kind of conflict situations that were provoked by the Natura 2000 site selection process.

Returning to the factor of good management, this proved to be a key to success in the individual projects and it became obvious that there need to be well-funded management structures at the regional level too. As the interviews showed, are there certain instruments that support such management and cooperation and should therefore be named in the following. Good cooperation among regional stakeholders (such as higher-level nature conservation authorities, water management authorities, forest administrations, district offices for rural development (ALE), liaison office for the Bavarian land care associations and central nature conservation NGOs (civic groups)) is achieved by holding an annual meeting of the regional stakeholders in the StMUGV. This enables ideas to be developed jointly on how to pursue ecological network implementation further, which can be applied by the participants to their specific working area (sector). Such meetings are also needed in the local project region. In the “Sandachse” project a project steering group was developed comprising the relevant stakeholder groups.

As coordinator of the BayernNetz Natur institution, PAN operates an extension service both for the planning phase (support for preparing project proposals for the Bavarian Nature Conservation Fund (“Bayrischer Naturschutzfonds” or the European Union) and for the project managers during the implementation phase. PAN organises annual meetings in order to promote an exchange of information among project coordinators (managers) of the BayernNetz Natur projects throughout Bavaria regarding their experiences and strategies for solving problems. In addition, the project management instruments in the “Sandachse” project (a project office and an additional Sandachse Agency to foster cooperation with land owners) proved suitable for coordinating a wide variety of stakeholders and measures: the interviewees felt that they were involved very well and at the right time (see section 3.2) and saw general stakeholder involvement as “good” to “very good” (see section 3.3). The coordinator of the Sandachse Agency was an external expert; this was in order to overcome hierarchies and existing conflicts. There is currently a gap in this respect, due to the funding cut, because the structure is not long lasting. The interviewees point to the problem that projects conducted in such a large spatial dimension can not work without management, even if the stakeholders are highly committed to the project idea. This means that the sustainability of management structures needs to be considered. There is a need for long-term financing of such structures in order to guarantee the kind of staffing continuity that generates trust, as the “Sallingbachtal” project area showed. An instrument already being used to promote the establishment of such structures is the two-year financial support for creating new land care associations, granted by the StMUGV. Generally, well managed public relations (newspaper articles, films, events, environmental education) led in both projects to high acceptance among the general public. Cross marketing of the output - as a

27

nature conservation product on the one hand and a product of cultural heritage on the other - was able to convince local politicians to function as advocates.

A consideration of the different factors of success shows that factors to do directly with participation, such as stakeholder involvement from the very beginning, good management and face-to-face communication to create awareness and understanding (which had been viewed as the most important form of stakeholder involvement by the interviewees, see section 3.3), are viewed as being just as important as funding. But if financial resources are small, participatory methods need to be very effective to convince land users and owners; or, vice versa, if there is ample funding, people may take part even though the use of participatory approaches might be low. As the projects in the case study regions illustrated, both types of factors together generate optimum results in terms of long lasting ecological networks implemented by committed stakeholders. As the “Sandachse” project shows, the very well managed involvement of stakeholders leads to ongoing activities, even though the cash flow for compensation has ceased.

The key to management of stakeholder involvement in ecological network implementation is to establish sustainable and long lasting management and cooperation structures at the regional level and at the project level. Such structures are crucial for developing trust among the different stakeholder groups and acceptance for the ecological network concept. A common understanding of the concept needs to be developed through discussion processes in order to devise steps that need to be taken on the way to establishing a functional Bavarian-wide ecological network embedded in an international context; these processes need to be accepted by a wide range of stakeholders. They require time in which to develop effective structures, to discuss different points of view and to establish personal relationships; they also require appropriate funding in order to compensate stakeholders for their activities and to be able to establish professional and long lasting management based on continuity of staffing.

5 References

Anheier, H., Priller, E., and Zimmer, A. (2002). Zur zivilgesellschaftlichen Dimension des Dritten Sektors. In H.-D. Klingemann and F. Neidhard (eds.), Zur Zukunft der Demokratie. Berlin: 71-98.

BGB1 (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch) (2002). Gesetz über Naturschutz und Landschaftspflege (Bundesnaturschutzgesetz - BNatSchG). Passed at the 25-3-2002. BGB1: 1193.

Böcher, M. (2002). Kriterien für eine erfolgreiche nachhaltige Regionalentwicklung. Article arose from the BMVEL financed research project „Politikwissenschaftliche Begleitanalyse von Prozessen nachhaltiger Regionalentwicklung". Göttingen: Institut für Forstpolitik und Naturschutz der Georg-August-Universität. <http://www.leaderplus.de/downloads/free/hinterzarten.pdf>.

Böcher, M. and Krott, M. (2002a). Strategieempfehlung für Konsensverfahren in der Naturschutzpolitik - Ergebnisse eines FuE-Vorhabens. In K.-H. Erdmann and C. Schell (eds.), Naturschutz und gesellschaftliches Handeln - Aktuelle Beiträge aus Wissenschaft und Praxis. Bonn-Bad Godesberg: BfN, 169-182.

Böcher, M. and Krott, M. (2002b). Vom Konsens zur politischen Umsetzung - Wann verlaufen naturschutzpolitische Konsensprozesse erfolgreich? Natur und Landschaft 77(3):105-109.

Brendle, U. (1999). Musterlösungen im Naturschutz - Politische Bausteine für erfolgreiches Handeln. Ergebnisse aus dem F + E-Vorhaben des Bundesamtes für Naturschutz "Akzeptanzsteigerung im Naturschutz: Ermittlung von erfolgreichen und zukunftsweisenden naturschutzpolitischen Musterlösungen sowie Konfliktlösungs- und Vermittlungsstrategien". Bonn – Bad Godesberg: BfN.

Bundesregierung (2007). Nationale Strategie zur biologischen Vielfalt. Passed at the 07.11.2007.

DVL (Deutscher Verband für Landschaftspflege e.V.) (2007). Natura 2000 - Lebensraum für Mensch und Nature - Leitfaden zur Umsetzung. DVL-Schriftenreihe "Landschaft als Lebensraum", no. 11. Ansbach: DVL.

Elias, A. A., Jackson, L. S., and Cavana, R. Y. (2004). Changing positions and interests of stakeholders in environmental conflict: A New Zealand transport infrastructure case. Asia Pacific Viewpoint 45(1):87-104.

Heiland, S. (2002). Erfolgsfaktoren in kooperativen Naturschutzprojekten. In K.-H. Erdmann and C. Schell (eds.), Naturschutz und gesellschaftliches Handeln - Aktuelle Beiträge aus Wissenschaft und Praxis. Bonn-Bad Godesberg: BfN, 133-151.

Helfrich, R., Riess, W., Sachteleben, J., Schlapp, G., Simlacher, C., and Wagner, M. (in press). 20 Jahre Umsetzung des bayrischen Arten- und Biotopschutzprogramms (ABSP) - eine Erfolgsgeschichte? Natur und Landschaft.

Hermans, L. M. (2005). Actor analysis for water resources management - Putting the promise into practice. Netherlands: Faculty Technology, Policy and Management (dissertation), TU Delft.

Lichtenberg, T. (2003). Erfolgsfaktoren für Kooperation zur Umsetzung der CBD am Beispiel des regionalen Entwicklungskonzepts der Insel Rügen. In H. Korn and U. Feit (eds.),

29

Treffpunkt Biologische Vielfalt III. Interdisziplinärer Forschungsaustausch im Rahmen des Übereinkommens über die biologische Vielfalt. Bonn - Bad Godesberg: BfN, 181-188.

Rientjes, S. and Roumelioti, K. (2003). Support for ecological networks in European nature conservation - an indicative social map. Tilburg: European Centre for Nature Conservation (ECNC).

Siebert, R. and Tiemann, S. (2007). Desk Study on Determining the Current Status Regarding Practical Implementation of Ecological Networks in Germany. Müncheberg: ZALF e.V. (Report to ECNC).

StMUGV (Bayerisches Staatsministerium für Umwelt, Gesundheit und Verbraucherschutz) (2008). Strategie zum Erhalt der biologischen Vielfalt in Bayern - Bayerische Biodiversitäts-strategie. Passed at the 1-4-2008.

Stringer, L. C., Dougill, A. J., A.J., Fraser, E., Hubacek, K., Prell, C., and Reed, M. S. (2006). Unpacking "Participation" in the Adaptive Management of Social- ecological Systems: a Critical Review. Ecology and Society 11(2):39. [online] http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/art39/.

VöF (Verein zur Sicherung ökologischer Flächen Kelheim) (date not specified). Das Sallingabchtal: Ein projekt zur modellhaften Umsetzung des bayerischen Arten- und Biotopschutzprogrammes (ABSP). Regensburg. (Info Leaflet).

Wiener, D. and Rihm, I. (2002). Erfolgsfaktoren und Qualitätsstandards partizipativer Prozesse in Gemeinden, Quartieren, Städten und Regionen. Basel: Ecos.ch.

Zimmermann, A. and Maennling, C. (2007). Multi-stakeholder management. Tools for Stakeholder Analysis: 10 building blocks for designing participatory systems of cooperation. Eschborn: GTZ.

30

6 ANNEX

6.1 Information on case study region/ projects analysed

“Sallingbachtal” project:

The area of the “Sallingbachtal” project is situated in the rural district of Kelheim in Lower Bavaria. The district covers an area of about 1070 sq km and has a population of 113,000. Larger cities in Lower Bavaria include Regensburg, Landshut and Bayreuth. The largest city in the district itself is Kelheim, with about 15,000 inhabitants. The Salllingbachtal area covers an area of 16 sq km between the municipalities of Abendsberg and Rohr (VöF, date not specified). The area is dominated by the Danube and Isar rivers; wetland biotopes and water habitats are prominent features. In order to conserve and re-establish these habitats in accordance with traditional forms of land use, the Sallingbach project was initiated in 1985, being one of the first ecological network projects in Bavaria. The main project partner and most important actor is the regional land care association (“VöF”), which includes representatives from local and regional authorities, farmers’ associations and nature conservation groups. The project is funded as a pilot project for implementing ABSP by the Bavarian Ministry for the Environment. Central measures were land purchase along the Sallingbach river. Here, about 60 ha were purchased by the district of Kelheim as a contractor for about 750,000 euros. About 20,000 euros are spent there anually for biotope maintenance measures.

31

“Sandachse Franken” project10:

The project area includes seven “Landkreise” (rural districts) as well as five urban districts. It covers an area of 2000 sq km with an extension of 100 km north-south and 40 km east-west respectively. About 1.5 m people live in the area, the largest cities being Nuremberg, Bamberg, Erlangen, and Fürth. The objectives of the “Sandachse” project include sand habitat conservation network establishment. The project was established against the background of declining sand habitats in the region within the past fifty years, down to 1% of the original area size, as well as a very high proportion of endangered species that exist only on sand surfaces. There is a large focus on information and educational work; project efforts are aimed at raising awareness and increasing the attractiveness of the area for residents and local companies. Cooperation and participation is emphasised. The project steering committee, as the most important decision-making body involved, includes members of all participating municipalities and rural districts, regional administrations as well as land care associations and conservation groups as the main project partners. The project had a budget of about 2.2 m euros over a period of six years.

10 Official title: “Conservation and Development of Sand Habitats in the Regnitz Axis – Ecological Networks

along Rednitz, Pegnitz, and Regnitz”. [Online] URL http://www.sandachse.de/index.html.

6.2 List of stakeholders from case study region allocated to stakeholder groups

Stakeholder groups Stakeholder (in German) Stakeholder (translation)

Agriculture Ämter für Landwirtschaft Agricultural Office at district level Ämter für Flurbereinigung Farmland Consolidation Authorities Landwirte Farmers Schäfer Shepherds Bayerischer Bauernverband (BBV) Bavarian Farmers Union Landesverband der Zuchtschäfer Bavarian Shepherds Union Nature Conservation Agentur Sandachse Project management HNB Upper Nature Conservation Authority Naturparkverwaltung Nature Park Administration UNB Lower Nature Conservation Authorities StMUGV/ Oberste NB Ministry for Environment as chief Nature

Conservation Authority Projektbüro Sandachse Project management Fishery Fischer/Angler Angler Teichwirte (Nutzer) Fishermen (with pond keeping) Forestry Forst (inkl. Forstbetriebe und -

verwaltung Foresters and Forest Administration at local to regional level

Bundesforsten für Truppenübungsplätze

Forest Administration at national level

Hunting Jäger Hunters Jagdverbände Hunters Union Wildlandstiftung " Transport Ämter für Straßenbau Administration for Road Construction Straßenbauverwaltung " Flughafen Nürnberg Airport Verkehrsplanungsamt Traffic Planning Authority Verkehrsverbund Nürnberg Transport Network/ Transportation

Association Energy E.on Private Energy Supplier Water Management Ämter für Wasserwirtschaft Water Management Authorities Wasserwirtschaftsamt Landshut " Stadtwerke Drinking Water Supply Company Wasserwirtschaft General Water Management Wasserverband Water Management Association Spatial/Regional Planning Behördliche Träger der

Landschaftsplanung Rural Planning Authorities

Stadtplanungsämter City Planning Authority Landscape Planning privatwirtschaftliche Planer/

Architekten/ Landschaftsarchitekten in Nürnberg

Landscape Architect/ Landscape Planner (private firms)

construction industry Tiefbauamt Civil Engineering Department Gartenlandschaftsbau Landscaping Civic Groups Naturschutzverbände z.B. Bund

Naturschutz Bayern Unions, Societies and Associations (NGOs) for Nature Conservation, e.g. Bavarian Union for Environmental Protection and Conservation

LBV (Landesbund f. Vogelschutz) Bavarian Society for the Protection of Birds LPV Landschaftspflegeverbände Land Care Associations (LCAs)

33

Education and Ecological/ Social Research

Schulen und Universitäten Schools and Universities Tourism Gastronomen Restaurateur/ Caterer Hotel- und Gaststättenverband Hotelier and Restaurateurs Asssociation Tourismusverband Tourist Office/ Tourism Association Military Militär (Als Landnutzer von

Truppenübungsplätzen) Military as a land user

Local Politics and Adminstration w/o sector affiliation

Bürgermeister Mayor Gemeinden/Kommunen, Stadträte Communities/ Local Authorities, Town

Council Landkreise/Landräte /

Landratsämter Rural District Administration/ Head of the District Authority