Planning Practice on three Island Biosphere Reserves

Planning Practice on three Island Biosphere Reserves in Estonia, Finland and Germany a comparative study

by Martin Welp

UNESCO

Published in 2000 by: INSULA (International Scientific Council for Island Development) c/o UNESCO, 1, rue Miollis - 75015 Paris, France.

E-Mail: insula@insula.org Author: Martin Welp Edited by: Cipriano Marín Technical coordination: Giuseppe Orlando Cover design, layout, and page make-up: Luis Mir Payá Printed by: Tenydea (Canary Islands) ISBN: 84-923966-6-0

4

Foreword from the Secretary of the Man and Biosphere Programme Islands are among the world’s most precious – and vulnerable – ecological systems. They have an intricate human web, are often quite diverse in landscape and landform, and, of course, are the most intimate linkage of land and sea.

The man and Biosphere Programme has had a long involvement with island ecosystems, not least through the establishment of biosphere reserves. It differs from other UNESCO intergovernmental programmes in that the main operational tool of the MAB programme is the site based World Network of Biosphere Reserves.

Biosphere Reserves are recognised areas of representative environments which have been internationally designed within the framework of UNESCO’s MAB program for their value to conservation through providing the scientific knowledge skills and values to support sustainable development. In this sense it is very different from other site-based instruments which focus on unique sites, such as the World Heritage convention.

Biosphere Reserves are nominated by national governments, but must meet agreed criteria and adhere to a minimum set of agreements before being admitted to the worldwide network. In particular, each Biosphere Reserve should perform three complementary functions: • a biodiversity conservation function (with a focus on conserving a representative sample of major ecosystems); • a development function (with a focus on humans in the biosphere, emphasizing an integrative role for local communities); and • a logistical function (combining conservation, research, education, training and monitoring).

The Biosphere Reserve approach links ecology with economics, sociology and politics, and ensures that good policy intentions do not yield inappropriate results. Performance and achievements is evaluated on a regular basis, although achieving a globally uniform framework is an imperative.

While establishing protected areas has been a standard response to problems relating to the conservation and use of the biodiversity, we need to look at “whole of earthscape“ approaches.

5

Any Biosphere Reserve can be seen as encompassing such an approach, and is thus “beyond a protected area�. This feature of the biosphere reserve concept provides a new and powerful tool to define, complement and help to conserve and manage any land- or seascape. In this sense, Biosphere Reserves on Islands, or encompassing islands, represent the best way for the future of biodiversity conservation.

This volume has much information on this aspect, for the Baltic in particular. As an almost enclosed sea, the Baltic and its islands have special features, which make the use of the biosphere reserve approach even more compelling. I hope this work leads to further study on the island concerned, and gives rise to new opportunities for the addition of Biosphere Reserves on, or including islands!

Peter Bridgewater Secretary, Man and Biosphere Programme

6

Preface

7

8

1. Introduction 1.1 Coastal resources under pressure and the need for new planning approaches Coastal environments worldwide are subject to increasing pressures caused by a wide range of human activities. Housing, tourism, industry, marine transport, fishing and aquaculture are some examples of competing coastal resource uses. Environmental problems related to these uses include water pollution, loss of biodiversity and a decline in the aesthetic qualities of coastal landscapes. On a global scale, climatic changes involve changes in sea level and an increase in the frequency and intensity of coastal storms. The deterioration of the quality of the environment and natural resources in many coastal regions has been noted in several publications (e.g. Protection of the...1992, 3; Communication from the...1995, 19). On the other hand many peripheral coastal regions, including small islands, are faced with such socioeconomic problems as unemployment and migration. Striking the balance between environmental and development concerns in coastal areas has become an urgent challenge to planning and decision-making system.

Conflicts over the allocation of resources in coastal areas are increasing. Although estimates about the global human population living on the coasts vary considerably, it is clear that population densities and thus pressures on the use of resources are significantly higher along the coasts than inland (e.g. Gommes et al. 1998). According to one frequently cited estimate, more than half of the world’s human population lives within 60 km of a shoreline (Protection of the...1992, 3). It has also been estimated that the number of people living on coasts will double within the next 20-30 years. Therefore, globally, there is an urgent need for systematic analysis of coastal planning systems and practices that appear to have successfully tackled the complexities of coastal resource use.

In this study the focus is on planning practices related to environmental and development issues on islands. Small islands are a special type of coastal area which are often characterized by relative isolation, high ratio of coastline to land area, and a limited resource base (e.g. Griffith and Ashe 1993). They are especially interesting to social science research on environment and development because they often form coherent social, cultural, economic, geographic, and administrative units.

Agenda 21 in Chapter 17 ('Sustainable development on small islands’) states that: “Because small island development options are limited there are special challenges to planning for and implementing sustainable development” (Protection of the...1992).

9

Three newly established biosphere reserves in the Baltic Sea Region have been selected as case study areas. These are the ‘West Estonian Archipelago Biosphere Reserve’, the ‘Archipelago Sea Biosphere Reserve’ in Finland, and the ‘Rügen Biosphere Reserve’ in Germany. Due to their geographic location they can be characterized as coastal, island, and archipelago biosphere reserves.

The zonation and the administrative structures of these three areas are rather complicated and differ from each other. For this reason, only one constituent island (Hiiumaa) of the West Estonian Archipelago Biosphere Reserve is selected for closer analysis. The selection and delineation of the case study areas of this study is discussed in more detail in Chapter 4.1. The location of the case study areas in the Baltic Sea is presented in Map 1.

The case study islands represent areas with national and international importance, because they belong to the international network of biosphere reserves. The main advantage of biosphere reserves as case study areas in comparison to normal coastal areas is that they bring environmental considerations more explicitly into discussions about resource use and development options. Biosphere reserves are designated by UNESCO within the Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Programme, and they provide an international framework for research on relationships between society and the environment. In October 1997, there were 352 biosphere reserves in 87 countries (UNESCO Man and the Biosphere Programme WWW-homepage: http://www.unesco.org/mab/activity/bios.htm).

The three case study areas chosen for this study are intended to become model regions for sustainable development (e.g. Post 1994; Kokovkin 1995; Timmel 1995; Weigelt 1995; Öhman 1996). For example, plans and concepts with emphasis on sustainable development have been produced by various actors (Kestävän kehityksen...1995; Programme of Sustainable...1993; Development Concept...1993; Vorschläge zur...1993). Their designation as intended models also represents a challenge for planning and decision-making system. One difference between these islands and the ‘normal’ coastal areas of these countries is that all three biosphere reserves have an administration which has different roles in the planning system. Irrespective of its formal and juridical status, the basic objective of the biosphere reserve administration is to promote a cross-sectoral, integrated perspective in environment and development issues (Biosphere reserves... 1996).

Two of the biosphere reserves were designated during turbulent times of political and social change in the end of the 1980s and in the beginning of the 1990s. The designation of the Rügen Biosphere Reserve in the former German Democratic Republic and of the West Estonian Archipelago Biosphere Reserve in the former Soviet Union, as well as the planning activities during the first years, must be viewed in the broader context of a complete change in the political, administrative and 10

Introduction planning systems. In Finland such dramatic changes did not occur, despite the fact that it became a member country of the European Union in 1995. On the one hand, such profound and fast societal changes can be seen as hindering any prospect for rational planning. Adequate legislation had yet to be developed, administrative responsibilities clarified, and some degree of socio-economic security established. On the other hand, such a situation can be considered as a possibility to introduce new and innovative planning arrangements: young people with fresh ideas entered the public administration and the political and social life; old structures in the public administration, albeit not completely to be ignored, could not hinder new ideas to the same extent, as in a situation where agencies have their deeply entrenched interests to protect. Finally, there was a strong social movement demanding profound change. This movement soon diminished, however, as many people had to devote themselves to securing their own economic situation.

A major deficiency in planning in general, identified in numerous studies and publications, is sectoralization, which in coastal areas is especially characteristic and problematic (Protection of the...1992, 2; see also Kapp 1993). With more intensive and conflicting demands on coastal resources, a more holistic approach to environmental and development issues has become essential.

Administrative arrangements are usually inadequate to cope with the complexity of economic, environmental and social interactions in coastal areas. For example, management of water resources is usually carried out by an administrative body apart from the management and planning of land resources. Also, different levels of government (local, regional, national, international) with different interests and policies are involved in the management of coastal areas. According to Gachelin (1992, ref. Communication from the...1995, 16), “the impression is that of lack of coherence of the actions in areas which more than any other require it. Consequently, the coast appears like one of the places where contradictions in the management of the national territory are revealed in the most acute fashion�. The establishing of these three biosphere reserves can be regarded as an international and national attempt to introduce a more integrated approach to coastal planning.

In addition to the lack of coordination among various sectors and government levels, public participation is considered to be inadequate in coastal management and planning (e.g. Brookfield 1990; Macelli 1990). In most cases the objective of participation involves informing or collecting information on issues which the planning agency considers important. Citizens seldom have the opportunity to take part in the early stages of a planning process, when the issues and problem-solving strategies are chosen. Public participation is also emphasized in the management of biosphere reserves (e.g. Biosphere reserves...1996).

11

How can complex coastal resource use issues be discussed in a more systematic way and simultaneously accord with the desire for transparency and openness of planning? What experiences have been made within the fields of environmental and development planning in the three case study areas, and what can we learn from these? These are questions that can be answered with an analysis of selected planning processes, which takes into account differences in historical background, social and economic structures, administrative practices and ways of communication.

1.2 Objectives of the study Little comparative research has been carried out on coastal planning practices. In particular the aspects of participation and cooperation, which are regarded as prerequisites for the integration of environmental and development planning, have received little attention. Some EU-funded demonstration projects, for example, provide the possibility to exchange experiences and transfer knowledge, but ‘normal planning practice’ and the perceptions of different actors are seldom analyzed rigorously. The analysis of planning practices requires a broad perspective of societal and political processes. Planning is, according to Bourne (1984, 151) as much an integral part of a particular political system and institutional fabric in a given country as is the specific process which it seeks to guide. Bourne (1984, 151) concludes that “researchers must expand their study horizons beyond the narrow confines of planning practice to encompass the operation of the political system and policy making environment in which that practice has evolved”.

The study is simultaneously a cross-national and a cross-regional comparative case study. Although the differences among the three case study regions (in this case islands and archipelagos) are in the focus of inquiry, national legislation, administrative structures and national policies all have a major impact on planning practices. With the help of a comparative study (cf. Yin 1994), it is possible to analyze the extent to which planning in different historical, cultural and socio-economic environments contains elements of cooperative and participatory planning.

Earlier cross-national comparative studies have shown that a search for policies or procedures which can be transferred directly to other countries is unlikely to be very fruitful, because of differences in the cultural and institutional environment (Masser 1984, 143). Crucial for the transfer of experiences is to understand how and why certain processes have evolved. Without such information, the question of potential transferability of policies and planning practices remains unsolved (Bourne 1984, 150). Proposals for the development of the planning system have to be made with the existing system in view.

12

Introduction The present study can be described as an evaluative administrative study (Ahonen 1985). The focus is on communication and relationship between different public agencies and citizens within the existing planning system. Planning practice in the case study areas is to a greater or lesser extent influenced by the biosphere reserve administration, which may have formal administrative duties or informal ways of influencing planning. According to the resolution 2.4 of the UNESCO General Conference in Seville in November 1995, biosphere reserves “...are also demonstration sites and hubs of action in the context of regional development and land-use planning� (Biosphere reserves...1996, 2).

The objectives of this study are to analyze: 1) How do the newly established biosphere reserves relate to the existing planning system? What are the different roles of the biosphere reserve administration?

2) To what extent and in which ways is intersectoral cooperation and public participation part of planning practice in the case study areas? Is a comprehensive approach adopted in coastal planning? Is feedback enabling a learning process within the planning system?

3) How can planning practice be improved to better respond to increasing and conflicting multiple uses in coastal areas, and especially on small islands? What role can the biosphere reserve administration play within such efforts?

The emphasis is on planning practice, and especially on the communicative aspects of planning.

Legal matters also play a critical role in the progression towards integrated coastal management (Ballinger et al. 1994, 46). The focus of this study is, however on strategic level planning and the day-to-day management of coastal areas primarily by local bodies. The main emphasis is on the perception of planners and other people involved in planning about planning practice. The study is structured so that the Chapters 5, 6, and 7 each intend to find an answer to the respective set of questions presented above in objectives 1, 2, and 3.

1.3 Applying the results An improved understanding of the necessary institutional prerequisites for achieving sustainable development in coastal regions and on islands can be regarded as the main outcome of the study. The results of the research project may be used to improve planning practice in the three biosphere reserves. Although the international network of biosphere reserves has already existed for over 20 13

years, to date little comparative social science research has been done. The results may be used, for instance to set up management plans or programmes for biosphere reserves.

The results can also be used in coastal areas which are not designated as biosphere reserves. On the European level there are currently several efforts to introduce an integrated approach to coastal planning. One of the most recent efforts is a proposal made by the Committee for Spatial Development offering common recommendations for spatial planning of the coastal zone in the Baltic Sea Region.

These refer to earlier HELCOM (Helsinki Commission) recommendations on coastal planning. In addition, the European Union has initiated a demonstration programme on Integrated Management of the Coastal Zones. This study will contribute to these international efforts, which are presented in more detail in Chapter 2.2.6. The results of this research can be used to further develop and initiate ‘integrated coastal management’ programs and to improve existing guidelines for coastal planning.

Many of the existing 352 biosphere reserves, particularly in former east-bloc countries, are in fact strictly nature reserves and do not fulfill the development function (see Chapter 3.1). Efforts have been made to enlargen the reserves to include areas where people live and work. Many biosphere reserves also lack an adequate organizational or administrative structure. This research provides insights into alternative zonations, administrative structures, and possible administrative roles. Many of the former east-bloc countries are still undergoing radical changes in their social, political and administrative structures, as did the former GDR (the new ‘Länder’) and Estonia, which in many respects set precedents concerning these changes.

There have not been many reports of and analysis on experiences in strategic level planning. One reason may be that analyzing more complicated strategically oriented processes soon would hamper analytical tools. Olsen et al. (1997) have noticed the lack of analysis on ICM efforts. According to Olsen et al. (1997, 2), “the absence of a common language or explicit conceptual framework makes it difficult to compare across projects and draw conclusions with any analytical rigor”. This study outlines a theoretical framework for analyzing and comparing experiences in coastal planning practice, and On the isle of Vilm is one of the few remaining old growth forests in Germany. The last forest cuts here were made in 1527. Today the beech forest is one of the core areas of the Southeast Rügen Biosphere RePhoto: Martin Welp serve.

14

it thus provides possibilities for improved exchange of experiences within the field of coastal planning and management.

2. Framework of the study In the following different planning styles are identified. These characterize the degree and emphasis given on public participation and interagency cooperation. In Chapter 2.2 the main characteristics of ‘integrated coastal management’ (ICM) are discussed. Current efforts to promote its application especially in the Baltic Sea Region are presented. ICM is approached from the angle of different planning theories and the implications for especially public participation are discussed. Based on these considerations a set of key characteristics for good coastal planning practice is elaborated in Chapter 2.3. Research approach, outline and methods are discussed in two last chapters.

2.1 Four styles of environmental and development planning Planning can be defined as preparation of decision-making within a public organization (e.g.

Leskinen 1994, 5). For the purposes of this study, a planning system will be defined as the totality of planning and administrative procedures in a given country carried out by different sectoral public agencies and levels of government. The planning system is a part of the overall political and administrative system. There is no sharp distinction between planning and decision-making, as many crucial decisions are made in the early phases of the planning process, for example when choosing the options which are to be considered (Leskinen 1994, 5).

Different authors within the field INTEGRATED APPROACH

of policy analysis have defined various styles of policy making (e.g. Ricken 1995) and cultures of decision-making and politics.

These may vary from country to country, depending on each country’s history, institutions, power structures and the actors’ patterns

EXPERT APPROACH

Social and Planning as environmental mutual engineering learning Routine Sector-based planning participatory planning SECTORAL APPROACH

PARTICIPATORY APPROACH

mw

Figure 1. Four planning styles reflecting the degree and emphasis given to participation and intersectoral cooperation.

of interaction. Similarly, different planning styles can be found within planning systems. In the following four planning styles are identified: ‘routine planning’, ‘sector-based participatory planning’, ‘social and environmental engineering’, and ‘planning as mutual learning’. They character15

ize two important aspects of planning: the emphasis given on public participation and intersectoral coordination (Figure 1)1 .

‘Routine planning’ characterizes the planning style where experts of different sectors work out plans and programmes without much communication with other sectors. In decision-making situations, social consensus is held to be the norm (Leskinen 1994, 48; see also Hahtola 1990a). Participatory elements may be included in sectoral plans (‘Sector-based participatory planning’), but the outcome still remains fragmented and uncomprehensive. Broader issues ranging across sectors and disciplines are not systematically discussed, and different bodies of knowledge (ecological, social and economic) do not meet. ‘Social and environmental engineering’ represents cases in which administrative bodies cooperate intensively, but where the values and knowledge of local populations are not considered. No attempt is made to transmit expert knowledge in ordinary language to citizens. Citizens are uninformed about decisions affecting their lives, and their role in policy-making remains passive. The ‘technocratic approaches’, as Forester (1993, 29) terms them, “...may neglect or even preempt citizens” autonomous actions: their learning, their abilities to act responsibly, and their knowledge of their own political world”. If decisions are controversial and have the potential for conflict, this planning style may lead to lack of common responsibility (or accountability) and legitimacy of planning. In such cases, the implementation of plans and programmes is likely to be ineffective or the outcomes temporary. ‘Planning as mutual learning’ characterizes the ideal condition for communication, where activities of different sectors are coordinated and participation is regarded as central element already in the beginning of planning processes (problem formulation).

Expert knowledge presented in an understandable way provides well-informed citizens an active role in the democratic process (Stauch 1992, 349). Thus the entire planning system is more transparent, accountable and legitimate (Leskinen 1994).

The environmental and development problems that planning seeks to solve typically include ambiguous or conflicting goals. Also highly uncertain are the means-ends relationships. Combining environmental and development goals can thus be characterized as an ‘unstructured policy problem’ (Friedman and Abonyi 1976, 928). There are considerable differences in the problem-solving capacity of different planning styles in face of complex and unstructured policy problems. In this context, planning as learning seems to be a promising approach, similar to that of human science. This approach stresses pluralism, interdisciplinary work, and participative democracy, treating a complex 1

The four planning styles are elaborated with reference to the distinction made by Leskinen (1994, 48-52), according to which routine planning and planning as learning are two main alternatives for environmental planning and decision-making.

16

Framework of the study web of problems concerning ecological, economic, social and cultural environment. These problems cannot be solved one at a time by individual organizations or disciplines (Leskinen 1994, 48). The conflict-solving forum is a learning, participatory democracy (Stauch 1992, 353-354, ref. Leskinen 1994, 48). Instead of ‘finding out the facts’ about nature and society, human science-based planning helps to define problems and to find different options and ways to implement decisions. Planning, decision-making, and implementation are thus integrated in the management process. Besides informing and information exchange, this approach calls for systematic and public negotiation in which basically everyone can take part, usually through representation (Leskinen 1994, 48).

Public participation can be divided into participation via representative political organs, which include parliament or local councils (indirect institutional participation), participation organized by public authorities or private companies (direct institutional participation), and self-organized citizen activity (non-institutional participation), which may mean demonstrating, campaigning, or setting up alternative plans (Paldanius 1994a, 1). In the following, objectives, methods, and levels of direct-institutional participation are discussed.

The objectives of institutional participation may include some of the following: to inform the public, to educate the public, to initiate public interest, to improve the quality of planning and, decision-making, to gain legitimacy and support, or to resolve conflicts (Figure 2). While these objectives are closely related to democratic principles, participation can also have other objectives, like cost-saving and expediting the planning process.

In Figure 2, the degree of public participation is illustrated by the opposing ‘expert’ and ‘participatory’ approaches. Between these extremes lie intermediate levels of manipulation, therapy, informing, consultation, negotiation and delegated power. The two first ones are efforts that can mislead or calm affected groups, and as such they may not be regarded as public participation. (Paldanius 1994b, 10-11.) These levels imply whether the flow of information comprises mainly one-way or two-way information exchange, or if negotiation strategies are used.

manipulation therapy informing EXPERT APPROACH

consultation

negotiation

delegated power PARTICIPATORY APPROACH

Figure 2. Levels of participation (cf. Arnstein 1969; Osallistuminen ja yhteiskunnallisten...1986, 23; Crosby et al. 1986, 173).

17

Similarly, different levels and intensities of interagency cooperation exist: fragmented, informing, consultation, coordination and integration (Figure 3).

fragmented

informing

consultation

coordination

integration

SECTORAL APPROACH

INTEGRATED APPROACH

Figure 3. Levels of interagency and intersectoral cooperation (cf. Cicin-Sain 1993b, 26)

In more concrete terms, what is the so-called ‘integrated approach’ illustrated on the vertical axis of Figure 1? What does it mean in coastal environments? These questions are discussed in the next chapter along with the concept of ‘integrated coastal management’ (ICM), which has emerged in the last two or three decades as a distinct management approach. Although the importance of public participation is often stressed in coastal management literature, it is explicitly discussed along with different planning theories.

2.2 The concept of ‘integrated coastal management’ (ICM) 2.2.1 ICM - a response to sectoralized management The sectoralized, competing, and sometimes overlapping jurisdictions of different public agencies make it difficult to deal with complex and competing human activities in coastal areas. Increasing pressures in coastal areas demand that they be treated more systematically. The driving force behind the call for more integrated planning is the emergence of a number of environmental problems in coastal areas. ‘Integrated coastal management’ (ICM) is a response to these shortcomings within the public administration. Although the need for a more integrated approach in coastal planning has been widely recognized, including in the Agenda 21 Action Plan, there is no agreement on what this means for coastal zones, nor on its implementation (Kenchington and Crawford 1993, 110; Clark 1992).

The objective of this chapter is to give an overview of the evolution of ICM and describe its main characteristics. ICM has in recent years been adopted and implemented both in developed as well as developing countries, where the various pressures on coasts and direct implications on the wellbeing of people are most severe. As indicated, however, the emphasis of this study is the context of developed nations, with special interest given to the need for ICM principles and the possibility of their implementation in the Baltic Sea Region.

18

Framework of the study ICM has much in common with a number of related approaches, which (1) share an ecosystem or watershed basis for management of natural resources, (2) rely on cooperation, partnership and negotiated conflict-solving between different agencies, stakeholders and the public at large and (3) intend to generate a common understanding of problems and a consensus for action in order to find ecologically, economically and socially sustainable development options (cf. Cortner and Moote 1994; Armitage 1995). Closely related approaches include ‘ecosystem-management’ and ‘integrated area development’ (cf. Born and Sonzogni 1995, 168). Although the extent to which they are comprehensive varies, other approaches also seek a consensus among affected parties; these include ‘collaborative management’ (Selin and Chavez 1995), ‘adaptive management’ (Imperial et al. 1993), and ‘locally responsive management’ (Reed 1994).

2.2.2 Evolution of the concept Integrated coastal management (ICM) is a relatively new field or ‘discipline’. The terminology appears to have its beginning in the 1980s when several nations began to develop coastal management efforts (Knecht and Archer 1993, 184). So-called comprehensive coastal zone management was already initiated in the 1970s, particularly on the west coast of the United States (Godschalk and Cousins 1985). The obvious need for an intersectoral approach promoted the adoption of the word ‘integrated’. In recent years integration has increasingly referred to the integration of environmental and social considerations into economic decision-making. The concept is also often referred to as ‘integrated coastal zone management’ (ICZM) (e.g. Sorensen and McCeary 1990) or ‘integrated coastal area management’ (ICAM) (e.g. Schröder 1993). Other alternative terms that have been used over the years include ‘coastal area management’ (CAM), ‘coastal area management and planning’ (CAMP), ‘coastal zone management’ (CZM), ‘integrated coastal resources management’ and ‘coastal management’ (Sorensen 1993, 49; Clark 1992, 105, Knecht and Archer 1993, 183-184).

One of the early definitions of ICM was developed at a 1989 workshop in Charleston, South Carolina, by a group of scientists from 13 different countries (Sorensen 1993, 48-49), as follows: “[ICM is] a dynamic process in which a coordinated strategy is developed and implemented for the allocation of environmental, socio-cultural, and institutional resources to achieve conservation and sustainable multiple use of the coastal zone”.

The concept of ICM gained greater prominence as one of the principal recommendations in the Agenda 21 Action Plan, agreed by all nations in the 1992 Earth Summit of the United Nations Con19

ference on Environment and Development, UNCED (Cicin-Sain 1993b, 17-18; Knecht and Archer 1993, 184). According to section 17.5 (Protection of the...1992) of the declaration, “Coastal states commit themselves to integrated management and sustainable development of coastal areas and the marine environment under their national jurisdiction. To this end, it is necessary to, inter alia: provide for an integrated policy and decision-making process, including all involved sectors, to promote compatibility and a balance of uses...”.

The declaration implies that integrated management and sustainable development are closely interrelated. ICM is alternately perceived as a way to achieve sustainable development or as a necessary element of sustainable development (Cicin-Sain 1993b, 17). Because the argumentation of the natural sciences gives only limited guidance to what sustainable development is (Brösse 1994), sustainable development may more preferably be regarded as a moral and ethical construct which changes over time as peoples’ values change. People are thus left to decide what kinds of losses in environmental quality are acceptable in order to achieve other benefits. ICM is essential in order to be aware of these changes and to provide a forum for discussion and learning in a more holistic way.

I prefer to use the term ‘sustainable use of resources’, which is less abstract than ‘sustainable development’ and implies that resources can be used to many different development paths. Given the limited base of resources, there is not only one ‘sustainable development path’, but many from which to choose.

2.2.3 Main dimensions of integration As stated above, there is no agreement on what ICM means in the coastal zone, nor how it should be implemented (Kenchington and Crawford 1993, 110). Furthermore, the terminology and approaches vary with education and professional background (Cicin-Sain 1993a, 2).

The concept of ICM can still be considered to be in a phase where differThe typical landscape characteristics of Southeast Rügen are beech forests, grasslands, salt marshes, and bays. The interaction of land and water areas gives special character to the landSource: Leaflet of the Southeast Rügen Biosphere Reserve scape.

20

ent actors try to determine its content (Knecht

Framework of the study and Archer 1993, 185). The lack of an appropriate typology has been identified as a problem in the application of ICM (Thia-Eng 1993, 82). An accepted body of theory and methods is still emerging.

A certain agreement on common elements characterizing ICM can however be found (Sorensen 1997). Also handbooks and guidelines on the subject have been published in recent years (Noordwijk Guidelines for...1993; Clark 1995; Graham and Pitts 1996; Post and Lundin 1996; Guidelines for integrated...1995; Methodological Guide to...1997).

There are many definitions on ICM. For example, Clark (1992, 5) has defined ICM as a planning and coordinating process which deals with development management and coastal resources and which is focused on the land/water interface. The locus of ICM within planning systems is thus the interface of marine and terrestrial environments which are affected by human activities and lie within the control of planning systems (Figure 4).

Terrestrial Environment

Human Activities Coastal zone

Locus of ICM Marine Environment

Planning Systems

Figure 4. Locus of ICM within the planning systems (Adapted from Thia-Eng 1993, 83; Dutton and Saenger 1994, 22).

Another definition of ICM is provided by B. Bower (1992. ref. Knecht and Archer 1993, 186), who describes it as follows: “At minimum, any definition should include the integration of programmes and plans for economic development and environmental quality management, and more specifically the integration of cross-sectoral plans for fisheries, energy, transportation, waste disposal, tourism, etc. ICM should also include the vertical integration of responsibilities for management actions among various levels of government - international, national, state, and local - or between public and private sectors. It should include all the components of management - from planning tasks of analysis and 21

design, to the implementation tasks of installation operation and maintenance, monitoring and evaluation of strategies over time. ICM should be cross-disciplinary among sciences, engineering (technology), economics, political science (institutions), and law. In practice, it is all of the above.”

Inherent to this definition are four dimensions of integration2 . The first is the integration of environmental and development planning. This means that environmental considerations are taken more strongly into account in economic activities and that, reciprocally, socio-economic issues are taken into consideration in environmental planning (e.g. in the designation and management of protected areas).

A second dimension is the integration of different sectoral activities and plans related to them.

Sectors where integration is needed may include spot and non-spot pollution control, tourism, agriculture, forestry, industry, fisheries, energy, traffic and marine transportation. Horizontal integration is especially relevant to different sectors in the public administration. In many cases competencies are not oriented to the complexity of environmental, economic, and social problems, and the narrow view of sectoralized administration is insufficient. ICM efforts may also aim to reduce duplication of (or overlapping) responsibilities (Coastal Zone Management. Integrated policies. 1993, 103). It is essential that ICM simultaneously address the coastal waters and coastal lands as a single unified whole (Clark 1992, 10; Hägerhäll 1994, 3; Siirala 1990, 174-176). Some authors, e.g. Knecht and Archer (1993, 187-188), consider this as possibly the distinguishing character of ICM. The third dimension of Bower’s definition refers to vertical integration between policies on different levels of government. This aspect is also stressed by the European Commission which states in regard to the intermeshing of policies and actions carried out at various levels of authority that “over-zealous application of the subsidiarity principle too often leads to a parceling out of responsibilities, which are simply distributed between the levels of competence, with no scope for taking account of the numerous interactions between them” (Communication from the...1995, 15). An interesting question is to what extent and under what procedural arrangements can local governments secure sustainable use of coastal resources, and in which issues is the involvement of a higher governmental level needed? Obviously conflicts can arise between the wish to decentralize decisionmaking power and responsibility and the need for stronger coordination.

2

According to Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (tenth edition), to integrate is to «form, coordinate, or blend into a functioning or unified whole».

22

Framework of the study The fourth dimension is the integration of different disciplines, which poses a challenge to the educational system as well as to science. According to Leskinen (1994) two philosophical concepts known as atomism and holism involve different attitudes to the boundaries and cooperation between disciplines.

Atomistic thinking typically breaks down problems into economical, social, technological and biological components and seeks their solutions within each corresponding discipline. According to a holistic viewpoint “...society forms a whole that is other than the sum of its parts... Individually optimizing parts of society within specialized disciplines and then trying to combine these results is impossible, as changing a single component changes the whole” (Leskinen 1994, 16). Three separate concepts can be distinguished related to research and groups of researchers: multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary. In multidisciplinary research different disciplines work on a topic each from its theoretical foundation. Interdisciplinary research is based on a theoretical framework which combines different disciplines. Transdisciplinary research represents the highest level of integration: a common theoretical framework truly integrates natural and social sciences into a new type of science, for example on society-environment relationships. It has been discussed whether it is actually possible or even needed (Rannikko and Schuurman 1997). So far there is no well developed theoretical framework for inter- or transdisciplinary research within ICM, nor in other fields.

In addition to the four dimensions identified in Bower’s definition of ICM, a few other aspects should be given special emphasis. The plurality of values in society should be a primary point of departure in coastal management efforts. The word ‘integrated’ should not lead to the misunderstanding that unified values, goals and objectives pre-exist in society and must merely be found.

Rather ICM efforts should be seen as a forum for mutual learning, conflict solving, cooperation and coordination. Kenchington and Crawford (1993, 111) emphasize the value-ladenness of coastal management efforts. Thus, the concept of integrated coastal management “...involves combining, co-ordinating or integrating, at a number of scales, values, interests and goals, many of which are in competition”.

Values and interests change over time, which also makes it necessary to redefine the stated goals and objectives. ICM does not only aim to produce a blue-print plan of the desired state of affairs in coastal areas. ICM should be a continuous process, in which monitoring is carried out on the implementation of plans and the fairness of the processes themselves. Knecht and Archer (1993, 186; see also Fuavao 1995, 84) have characterized integrated coastal management in the following terms, putting emphasis on the dynamic process-oriented nature of ICM: 23

“Integrated coastal management is a dynamic process by which decisions are taken for the use, development, and protection of coastal areas and resources to achieve goals established in cooperation with user groups and national, regional and local authorities. ...[It] is multiple purpose oriented, it analyzes implications of development, conflicting uses, and interrelationships between physical processes and human activities, and it promotes linkages and harmonisation between sectoral coastal and ocean activities�.

According to Clark (1992, 6), ICM initiatives are usually a response to a perceived use conflict, a severe decline in a resource, or a devastating experience with natural hazards. This reactive, ad-hoc management approach, particularly when dealing with multiple use conflicts and decline in resource base (e.g. water quality, loss of biodiversity) should be replaced by proactive and anticipatory responses that monitor and anticipate change, avoid conflict and prevent environmental damage, thus maximizing economic and environmental benefits derived from multiple use activities (Vallejo 1993, 176). Thus an anticipatory approach is an important characteristic of ICM. Depending on the specific situation, the role of ICM can be regulatory or promotional in nature (Cicin-Sain 1993b, 36). The regulatory role can include regulating new developments, zoning and designating protected areas. The promotional role can include economic aspects like encouraging the development of local economy or building of coastal infrastructure, as well as educational aspects. In the developed nations context ICM efforts have had an emphasis on resource conservation and restoration. However, there seems to be a need for increased attention to the long-term sustainability of existing coastal zone uses (Knecht and Archer 1993, 194). Social and economic problems, especially in developing countries, emphasize the point that coastal management efforts must address the broader development needs of coastal populations (Olsen 1993, 206).

The importance of public participation is usually mentioned in ICM literature. In ICM public participation has been implemented to various degrees. In many cases the emphasis is on informing the general public, while forms of two-way exchange of information and opinions are rare. One problem related to intensive participation procedures is that when issues become complicated the number of affected interest groups increases considerably. Because of pressures associated with increasing use, considerable effort is being expanded on conflict resolution approaches, most notably in the United States (Knecht and Archer 1993, 195; Turtiainen 1996).

In summary, integrated coastal management efforts are means of integrating environmental and development policies, in order to collaboratively find sustainable ways and intensities to use coastal 24

Framework of the study resources. In essence this means maintaining options for future uses of resources. ICM is ideally characterized by an anticipatory and more comprehensive approach than might otherwise be employed in sectoral planning or in solving a specific problem. Ideally land and water areas are jointly managed.

ICM intends to combine knowledge, values and interests in a process, which includes various sectoral agencies, levels of government, various user groups, enterprises and the general public.

2.2.4 Definition of the management area There is no general consensus on how far inland and how far out to sea coastal management efforts should be extended. Five zones can be identified in the coastal/marine spectrum: inland areas, coastal lands, coastal waters, offshore waters and high seas. They often vary with regard to the nature of property, nature of governmental interest, and nature of existing government institutions (CicinSain 1993b, 30).

The ‘European Code of Conduct for Coastal Zones’ suggests the following typology, which seems to be applicable in most coastal environments (Rigg 1997, 4). More clear definitions are, however, necessary when going into management practice.

• Coastline - the boundary between land and sea • Coastal Zone - an area including both land and sea, of indeterminate width, depending upon a wide variety of definitions currently in use • Coastal strip - a narrow strip of land bordering the coastline, extending perhaps a few hundred meters up to one kilometer inland • Coastal area or region - a general term describing places that are influenced by the proximity to the sea Regarding the inland boundaries, a watershed approach is usually suggested. In many coastal management programmes arbitrary distances from coastlines or baselines, administrative boundaries or jurisdictional limits are the most frequent elements on which delimitation is based (Vallega 1993, 157). A somewhat arbitrary boundary has also been recommended by the Helsinki Commission: According to the Recommendation 15/1 a coastal planning zone of at least 3 kilometers landwards from the mean water line should be established in countries around the Baltic Sea.3 3

The recommendation suggests also the establishing of a generally protected coastal strip outside urban areas, extending at least from 100 to 300 m from the mean water line landwards and seawards. Most countries around the Baltic Sea have included this in their national legislation (Nordberg 1994). The 3 km planning zone has so far not been introduced in any of these countries.

25

The boundaries of coastal waters seawards are even more difficult to define. The report of the OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) on coastal zone management suggests the following boundaries (Coastal Zone Management. Integrated Policies. 1993, 22): in the case of estuaries, the management area should cover the whole area of estuarine waters and outside the estuary to the extent that activities have mutual impacts. A similar consideration would apply to lagoons and inland seas. Similarly, in the case of coastal stretches, the mutual impacts of in-land and off-shore activities could be treated as the outside limit of the coastal zone.

Obviously a meaningful definition of the management area depends on the issues at hand. With regard to fisheries, it is common to limit the coastal zone to territorial waters as defined in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, although this limit does not correspond to any distinct biological or management unit (Communication from the...1995, 5). If issues extend far seawards, then the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), which can extend up to 200 miles seawards, might be included (Clark 1992, 11).

Islands comprise a special type of coastal region (e.g. Hess 1990; Brookfield 1990). Characteristic of small islands is the relative isolation and the high ratio of coastline to land area (Bass 1993, 157).

Small islands have no interior hinterland that is essentially distant from the sea, so that coastal resource planning and management are essentially synonymous with island resource planning and management (Griffith and Ashe 1993, 279; Fuavao 1995, 107). Thus on small islands, integrated coastal management should encompass the whole island (cf. Cicin-Sain 1993b, 30).

2.2.5 Alternative methods and strategies for introducing ICM ICM efforts can be differentiated according to the size of the planning and management area. At least five groups exist: international, national, state-provincial, regional and local level (Sorensen 1993, 61). Consequently, the methods of ICM vary. Action is often needed on several or all levels, encompassing international agreements, changes in national legislation, or plans and programmes created at the regional or local level. In the following chapter I shall present some of the various methods of ICM, discuss strategies to introduce ICM, and illustrate the advantages and disadvantages of two alternative approaches to interagency cooperation.

ICM efforts often take the form of a programme launched on an international, national, or subnational level. National level programmes may aim to encompass all coastal areas under national jurisdiction. Subnational units such as states and provinces may also have the authority to initiate 4

Institutions referred to here include legal structures, organizations in a society or culture, entrenched patterns of behavior, or significant practices.

26

Framework of the study ICM programmes. ICM programmes may involve different institutional changes4 , for example, in legislation, responsibilities of agencies, forms of cooperation between different agencies, and budgeting within organizations. So called ‘special area plans’ are usually created; for example, an estuarine or some smaller coastal area on the regional or local level (Sorensen 1993, 48).5 Promoting cooperation between sectoral agencies and other interest groups is an essential part of ICM. The process of defining the goals and objectives of an integrated coastal management strategy and the subsequent selection of appropriate methods requires intensive interagency cooperation. Cooperation might take the form of a council, committee, multi-agency steering group, working group or roundtable (Coastal Zone Management. Selected case studies. 1993; Hartig and Law 1994). Besides cooperative administrative arrangements, an ICM effort essentially should include active mobilization, education and involvement of local interest groups and the general public.6 In disputes on coastal resource use, principles of negotiation and mediation should be used (Susskind and McCeary 1985).

Methods used in ICM may not essentially differ from methods used in other sectoral environmental and development planning and management. The essence in ICM is to coordinate the various methods in order to create a coherent coastal resource use policy or strategy. This requires regular communication between various sectors and levels of government. Healy and Zinn (1985, 303) have categorized tools used to strike a balance between environmental and development concerns. The following methods have been used in the United States in coastal management: regulatory permit systems, comprehensive planning, land-use designations by zoning and subdivision ordinances, selective land acquisition and restoration, promotion of desirable coastal development, negotiation, and federal/state consistency. Other methods may include environmental impact assessment (EIA) and social impact assessment (SIA).

One possible step in building ICM capabilities on the national level is identifying the most pressing needs for improved management of coastal areas. Multidisciplinary studies and assessments on coastal resources have been prepared in many coastal countries (e.g. Our Sea, Our Future 1995).

5

6

In Sweden, the Planning and Building Act (PBA) contains regulations on the planning of land and water areas. According to this act, it is the municipality’s responsibility to plan the use of both land and water areas. Each municipality shall draw up an up-to-date comprehensive plan covering the whole municipality’s area extending to the territorial boundary. The comprehensive plan shall indicate the main ways in which land and water areas are to be utilized and how physical development should take place. The municipal comprehensive plan is not binding to either authorities or individuals, but it gives guidelines for decision-making in accordance with the Natural Resources Act (NRA) legislation, which is a umbrella-like act covering regulations how land and water areas should be used (Johansson 1995, 3-4). One well-documented Swedish example is the comprehensive coastal plan for the municipality of Lysekil, which also included a municipal action programme aimed at reducing the strain on the marine environment (Johansson 1995).

In Finland, interesting pilot projects have been carried out in the field of participatory planning for water pollution control. In three joint planning processes, representatives of various interest groups and of inhabitants formed an advisory group discussing different alternatives for water pollution control. The effects of water pollution control measures on regional economy and well-being of the inhabitants were assessed. The project proposed the establishment of regional development organizations in order to promote cooperation between different authorities. (Kosola 1990; Kosola et al. 1990.)

27

A possible strategy for introducing ICM at the national level is to start with localized demonstration programmes, such as special area management plans, then, if successful, to expand them nationwide (e.g. Olsen 1993, 221). High-level support for local initiatives is important, both in terms of financing as well as intellectual and political support. Future national legislation may require that all subnational units prepare and implement local coastal management plans (Sorensen 1993, 46). One example of this ‘scaling up’ process is the initiation of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission seven years before the enactment of California’s Coastal Conservation Act in 1972, which is regarded as one of the first efforts to introduce comprehensive coastal management. Special area management plans are becoming increasingly popular because of their proliferation as pilot or demonstration projects before committing energy and political capital to a nationwide effort (Sorensen 1993, 61-63; also Thia-Eng 1993). The European Union has initiated this type of demonstration programme (see Chapter 2.2.6).

There are different approaches to improving interagency cooperation. An ICM effort may seek to replace existing sectoral and fragmented structures by creating a new agency or by naming a leading agency. Alternatively an ICM effort may seek to assist and support existing administrative structures by improving institutional linkages and cooperation.

The report of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development on coastal zone management (Coastal Zone Management. Integrated Policies 1993, 83) identifies two institutional linking mechanisms: the ‘complementary administration model’, which is based on closer cooperation between agencies, and the ‘joint regulation model’, in which a new agency may be created or a leading agency named.

An example of the complementary administration model is the management plans developed in the Netherlands for different parts of the Rhine-Meuse estuary. The joint regulation model is represented by the State of California in the US. California created the California Coastal Commission in 1972 to regulate developments in the coastal zone, and work with local jurisdictions to prepare Local Coastal Plans, which it had to approve.

In the complementary administration model implemented in the Netherlands, authorities agreed to coordinate their actions (and subordinate these to a jointly accepted plan), while retaining their decision-making power. Cooperation was therefore voluntary, and took the form of multi-agency steering groups. In the joint regulation model in the case of the California Coastal Commission, all authority over a specific area (or policy arena) was transferred from those government agencies which had partial authority to a new agency (Coastal Zone Management. Integrated Policies. 1993, 28

Framework of the study 83). The commission and regional commissions were set up by local representatives and included intensive participation of local inhabitants.

The OECD report cites the advantages of the complementary administration model in its relatively easy implementation and in the fact that by involving all parties at interest and extensive public participation, the process generates wide support for the resulting plan (Coastal Zone Management. Integrated Policies. 1993, 83). The report views the slow pace of the process, which is cumbersome and leads to ‘passive management’, as a disadvantage. However, voluntary agreements and consensus, while lacking any legally binding character, do have informal power (Leskinen 1994, 109).

The OECD report suggests that in comparison to complementary administration models, the joint regulation model better solves the problems of intervention and administration deficiencies. The joint regulation model can, however, be confronted with other problems in the long term which are illustrated by the same example. Rinken (1990, 537-550) has analyzed the institutionalization of environmental interests in the context of California Coastal Commission and observed that after a prosperous phase in the seventies, the commission became more weak from the environmental point of view. This happened even though it was under the control of the legislative body and several environmental NGOs were actively involved. One reason seems to have been that public funding for intensive participation was reduced. Secondly, Rinken suggests that the regulation of coastal activities got more weak partly because its work was controlled by central political powers who are close to economically viable actors.

The California example illustrates two problematic aspects of methods where considerable power is concentrated to one agency. The danger of ‘agency capturing’ means that powerful interest groups may dominate the work of such an organization. Secondly, the case emphasizes the role of publicity in planning efforts. Participation and its precondition, access to relevant information, has a control function which should not be underestimated. Public participation may bring together local knowledge with scientific and sectoral knowledge. The involvement of local interest groups, initiatives, and NGOs plays a viable role in controlling the use of political and economic power.

Integrated coastal management efforts may in practice face a number of barriers, related to accustomed ways of planning and decision-making. This holds true even if existing institutional arrangements are not intended to be substituted, and the ICM-process rather seeks to assist and supplement existing structures. Sectoral boundaries are within public administration generally well respected, which tends to make cooperation difficult (Temmes 1988). Fear of loosing power, increased amount of work, trouble of adopting new approaches may be reasons for resistance within bureaucracies.

29

Integrated planning arrangements may be considered to weaken the power of administrative units, which for example have to accept jointly made decisions. Such planning arrangements might appear to be in contrast with the reflexive (self-sustaining) goals of an organization (see Mohr 1973).

Politics plays a role in the sense that powerful constituencies associated with important coastal uses will strongly resist the incorporation of ‘their’ coastal activity into a broader management context (Knecht and Archer 1993, 197). The existing single use constituencies have to be convinced that a broader, better integrated approach is essential to their long-term interests or, in the alternative, new constituencies for integrated management have to be created.

Many important decisions concerning the use of coastal resources are made on the local level.

Local authorities might have strong antipathy towards coordinated decision-making, for example concerning land use. Although decentralized decision-making inherents several advantages, a parochial view to coastal management is not sufficient in issues requiring coordination between local authorities (cf. Leschine 1990, 300-301; also Cortner and Moote 1994, 171). Lack of political commitment among local leaders may be a serious threat to more integrated planning arrangement. On the other hand also missing awareness and support among stakeholders may be a hindrance.

2.2.6 Efforts to introduce ICM within the European Union and the Baltic Sea Region Agenda 21 has probably been the most important international agreement enhancing the adoption of ICM on international and national levels. Although it has brought ICM greater prominence, it does not provide a clear definition of integrated management and does not specify what integration means (Vallega 1993, 150-151). Also a number of other international agreements have been struck in order to directly or indirectly improve coastal management. Among them are the Paris Convention (1974), the Oslo Convention (1972), the Bonn Agreement (1981), the MARPOL Convention (1973), the Barcelona Convention (1976), the Helsinki Convention (1974 and 1992), the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982), the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands (1971), and the SPREP Convention (Coastal Zone Management. Integrated Policies. 1993, 13).

There are currently several attempts on the European level to introduce a more integrated approach to coastal planning. As a response to the commitments entered into by the European Union (EU) with respect to Agenda 21, the EU initiated a demonstration programme on integrated management of the coastal zones (Communication from the...1995). It includes 35 demonstration projects, four of which are located in the Baltic Sea Region (Finland, Latvia, Lithuania and Denmark). The objective of the programme is to test models of cooperation for the integrated management of the 30

Framework of the study coastal zones. The lessons to be drawn from the programme will serve as a basis for elaborating and discussing possible additional measures at EU level.

The demonstration programme on integrated management of coastal zones is the first concrete outcome of the European Commission’s many efforts in this field since the early 1980s. The European Commission published a paper in 1986 which discussed possible community actions towards integrated coastal management (Integrated planning of...1986), and in 1992 the European Council adopted a further resolution on a European policy for coastal zones. The resolution was intended to stimulate the drafting of a European strategy for integrated coastal zone management by the Commission, but there was no continued progress. The Fifth Environmental Action Programme (1993-2000) singled out the sustainable management of coastal zones as a priority field of action. On this basis, in 1994 the Council reiterated a resolution on a Community strategy for integrated coastal management.

The paper on the integrated management of coastal zones (Communication from the...1995, 19) notes that progress in the protection and integrated coastal management has been inadequate mainly due to two factors: first, a new approach takes time to implement; secondly, politically and in terms of available instruments, conditions then were less favorable than they are today. Three reasons are given for the Union’s interest in ICM. For one, many problems are of European dimension and cannot be solved by single member countries separately. This holds especially true for the transfer of pollutants, tourist flows, maritime safety, and common natural and cultural heritage. Further, the European Union’s sectoral policies and actions (transport, fisheries, environment, agriculture, energy and industrial policy) have an impact on the coastal zone. Finally, there is a need for exchange of experience and know-how. A historical overview of the efforts to introduce more integrated coastal planning and management on the European Union level is presented in Figure 5.

The church of Reigi in the northern Part of Hiiumaa.

Photo: Mart Mõniste

The coastal waters of Hiiumaa are rocky and shallow. Tahkuna, the Photo: Mart Mõniste northern tip of the island.

31

Year Instrument 1982 Council Resolution on the European Coastal Charter

Objectives Integrated policy reconciling development and protection of coastal zones

1986 Commission Communication on the Integrated Management of Coastal Areas

Application of existing or planned measures taking coastal aspects into account

Specific measures

1992 Council Resolution on the Future Invitation to the Commission to Community Policy Concerning draft a strategy for integrated the European Coastal Zone coastal zone management 1993 Fifth Environmental Action Programme

Sustainable development of coastal zones and their resources

1994 Council Resolution on the Integrated Management of Coastal Zones

Restatement of the 1993 resolution

1995 Commission Communication on the Integrated Management of Coastal Zones

To test cooperation models for the integrated management of coastal zones; to provide technical results to foster dialogue between European institutions and coastal stakeholders

Demonstration programme on the integrated management of coastal zones, making concerted use of existing instruments and programmes

Figure 5. Historical overview of coastal zone management policy at the EU level (Belfiore 1996, 223).

The first Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area was signed in 1974 by the coastal states of the Baltic Sea. In 1992, a new convention was signed by all the countries bordering the Baltic Sea and those within the European Economic Community. The governing body of the Convention is the Helsinki Commission - Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission (HELCOM). The conventions and the Helsinki Commission are examples of international efforts designed to protect the Baltic Sea from pollution (Rijsberman 1993), but whose scope has been widened in recent years to include spatial planning issues. The Helsinki Commission (HELCOM) has financed pilot projects especially directed toward the Baltic States (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania). These include special area management plans prepared for coastal lagoons (e.g.

Kokovkin 1996 ). Also the EU-Phare-programme has funded demonstration projects in the eastern countries of the Baltic Sea Region (‘Integrated Coastal Management in the Baltic States and Poland’).

32

Framework of the study An important step was taken in March 1994 when general rules were adopted for the protection of the coastal strip (HELCOM Recommendation 15/1). These rules still await translation into national legislation and corresponding implementation. In the same year, recommendations concerning the system of ‘coastal and marine baltic sea protected areas’ (bspa) were adopted (HELCOM Recommendation 15/5). The Helsinki Commission together with all the states in the Baltic Sea Region is also implementing an action programme, the Baltic Sea Joint Comprehensive Action Programme (JPC), which was launched in 1992. JPC introduced concepts and elements which were new to HELCOM, but in line with the ICM approach. HELCOM has also supported special area management plans for a number of bays, estuaries and lagoons, especially in former east bloc countries (e.g.

Kokovkin 1996).

A further example of international cooperation between countries fronting the Baltic Sea has been in the field of spatial planning. ‘Vision and Strategies around the Baltic Sea, VASAB 2010’ (1994), a publication prepared for the Third Conference of Ministers for spatial planning and development in the Baltic Sea Region, revealed considerable differences among the spatial planning systems of the Baltic Sea states regarding definition, legal basis, procedures, responsibilities and instruments (Vision and Strategies...1994. Annex III). The need for cooperation, exchange of experience and adjusting planning systems where necessary was addressed in the paper. One of the first planned common actions included the “elaboration of guidelines for spatial planning in the coastal zone”.

The 4th conference of Ministers responsible for spatial planning agreed on ‘Common recommendations for spatial planning in the coastal zone of the Baltic Sea Region’ (22 October 1996, Stockholm). These recommendations refer to earlier HELCOM (Helsinki Commission) recommendations on coastal planning (Presidency Declaration of the Visby Summit).

Closely related to the VASAB 2010 report and cooperation of ministers responsible for spatial planning, the Interreg II C programme for the Baltic Sea Region intends to promote the establishment of a joint integrated strategy in the field of spatial planning (Community Initiative concerning...1997). Also the Interreg II C programme, which relates specifically to the demonstration programme aims to promote integrated management of the coastal zones and islands (Better Management of...1997, 20). The Interreg II C Baltic project covers the coastal zones of the Baltic Sea as well as a number of larger cities and the hinterland. The strategy is intended to focus on developing spatial planning as a tool to encourage multi-sectoral integration and cooperation taking physical, economic and environmental aspects into consideration. Among the five priorities is “tourism, islands and coastal zones (environment)”. (The other four are: city and urban networks, 33

trans-baltic networks, communication, transport and human resources development and explorative projects.)

The European Code of Conduct for Coastal Zones prepared by the European Union for Coastal Conservation (EUCC) is an effort to develop guidelines that are applicable in various types of coastal systems. It is also envisaged that a Baltic Coastal Code of Conduct and a Mediterranean Coastal Code of Conducts be elaborated (Rigg 1997).

Several non-governmental organizations (NGOs) also put forward the idea of ICM. Within the Baltic Sea Region the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) has been actively involved in promoting the concept of integrated coastal management through articles in the WWF Baltic Bulletin and by organizing seminars on the topic (e.g. Hägerhäll 1994; Hägerhäll 1995; Lützenkirchen 1995).

2.2.7 ICM from the perspective of planning theory Integrated coastal management has in coastal areas emerged as a response to conventional planning, where agencies jealously guard their own administrative sector. Such planning practice has increasingly proved to be ineffective in tackling the complex problems in coastal areas. The need for ICM has been widely recognized, but it lacks a coherent body of theory as well as a common vocabulary. There is, however, a certain amount of agreement in the literature which suggests that ICM may be characterized as a distinct management approach. To a great extent, the development of ICM as a distinct approach to coastal planning has been pragmatic and practice-oriented to date. The need for ICM and the agreed characteristics have arisen from management tasks in the field. Little research has been done on the theoretical basis of ICM. The apparent lack of a coherent theoretical basis for integrated coastal management is partly due to its status as a relatively new discipline with only 25 years of practical and scientific experience. It is also due to the interdisciplinary character of ICM. Competing paradigms exist within each single discipline relevant to ICM (natural sciences, social sciences, planning, economics, etc.). Thus, the lack of a unifying theoretical basis is not surprising. Perhaps the next step in the theory-building of ICM would be a set of theories that are mutually consistent to a reasonable extent. The need to improve theoretical concepts and research methodologies for effective interdisciplinary coastal management was one of the principal recommendations of the ‘call to action’ of an international workshop on building education and university capacity for ICM held in the spring of 1995 (Crawford et al. 1995).

Systems theory has often been suggested as conceptual basis to stimulate ICM (van der Weide 1993; Vallega 1993). Systems thinking was introduced in the 1950s to facilitate cooperation be34

Framework of the study tween various scientists and disciplines. A major deficiency concerning systems theory, however, is that it does not explicitly address the question of how goals are being defined in a management process (cf. Weiland 1996, 126). Other questions, such as, what impacts a possible concentration of decision-making power in coastal issues has for the transparency of planning have so far remained unaddressed.

Often, the terms ‘management’, ‘planning’, and ‘programme formulation’ are not explicitly defined in ICM literature. For the purpose of this study, management includes legislation, organizational arrangements, planning, decision-making, and implementation. Planning is understood in a broad sense. The outcome of the planning process may be an agreed strategy for management including different sectors, or a plan for the use and protection of a certain land and water areas.

Planning is an essential component of any coastal management system. There seems to be a need to approach ICM from the aspect of planning theories, neglected thus far (cf. Crawford et al. 1993, 322323; Dorcey 1993, 36). Planning theories alone can not constitute a theoretical basis for ICM, but they may contribute to its theory-building. Here planning refers especially to strategic and policy level planning. Social theories, organizational theories, theories on communication, and theories of knowledge are in varying degrees explicitly or implicitly included in different planning theories.

There is a variety of planning approaches and traditions which rely on different theories of society, rationality, and political action. Accordingly, the planner can alternately assume the role of technical expert, mediator, advisor, facilitator, bureaucrat-administrator, or even ‘midwife’. Planning has been influenced by two main intellectual traditions: the belief in natural sciences and rationality, and by various reform movements which have emphasized the active, value concerned role of planning (Albrecht 1985, 7). The dominant tradition since World War II has been the rational-synoptic approach, which stresses the ‘scientific method’ and represents atomistic natural science thinking. This approach has received severe criticism in recent decades. Most other planning approaches are either modifications of synoptic rationality or reactions against it. Rational-synoptic planning has been criticized both by advocates of incremental planning and by various reform movements that regard planning to be primarily a political and social process. In addition to a pluralistic view of society, these planning approaches tend to seek a more substantial theory. To this tradition belong advocacy planning, transactive planning, critical planning, and alternative planning (cf. Albrecht 1985, 89; Leskinen 1994, 30). Some representatives of reform movements have argued that the results of the expanded planning systems in different countries have been insignificant, primarily due to the lack of a relevant theoretical and political basis for planning (Hahtola 1986, 1990a, 1990b, see also Sairinen 1994, 264).

35

The rational-synoptic planning approach is based on scientifically inferable knowledge of the public interest. Experts are considered to be basically value-free, and the choices made are thus thought to be objective. Rationality refers to the choice of means to achieve common ends (functional rationality), whereas the rationality of ends is not called into question (normative/substantial rationality). Social consensus about the goals is held to be the norm. The planning organization gathers information from citizens concerning matters that it considers important, and in turn informs them of the administrative decision made. Planning, decision-making and implementation are considered to be separate tasks (Albrecht 1985, 16-17). In practice, the planning organization determines the content of the plan, the participants, and the different values to be included.

Priscoli (1993, 43) characterizes this approach, which emphasizes the role of experts, as the ‘decide-announce-defend’ approach. Typical methods used for the evaluation of alternatives are costbenefit-analysis, operations research, systems analysis, trend extrapolation, and econometric modeling (Hudson 1979, 389).

Incrementalists have criticized the synoptic approach as unrealistic, because complete information postulated by synoptic planning never exists in practice (Lindblom 1959). Power and authority is fragmented among interest groups and agencies, which makes comprehensive approaches unrealistic. According to the incremental approach, policy decisions are made in a decentralized bargaining process, which is best suited to a free market and liberal political economy (Hudson 1979, 389).

Both the synoptic and incremental approaches are in fact based on an economic theory of consumer’s choice, enlarged to include political decision-makers. Thus they are unable to take account of the unequal distribution of power or historical conditions and changes (Leskinen 1994, 30).

The reform movements have addressed their efforts to the emancipation of decision-making in society. According to the transactive planning approach, planning is not carried out with respect to an anonymous target community, but through face-to-face contact with the groups affected by decisions. Transactive planning thus refers also to the evolution of decentralized planning institutions that help people take greater control over social processes that govern their welfare. (Hudson 1979, 389.) Ideally, this dialogue should be free of domination, and reflection should replace coercive guides (Albrecht 1985, 89).

Advocacy planning has usually been applied to defend the interests of weak against strong -community groups, environmental causes, the poor, and the disenfranchised against established powers of business and government. While it acknowledges the impossibility of planning to serve several masters (i.e. both pro-development and pro-environmental interests), advocacy planning has been 36

Framework of the study criticized for posing stumbling blocks without being able to mobilize equally effective support for constructive alternatives.

The communication theories of Habermas had significant impact on the evolution of critical planning (Forester 1982; 1985). Planning is understood as a communicative, attention-shaping action, in which communication is intentionally (systematically) and unintentionally distorted. Access to information and the ability to act on it are unequally distributed. Habermas‘ communication theory of society draws attention to these distortions and poses an active role for the planner, e.g. in distributing information.

Alternative planning, also referred to as bottom-up planning or radical planning (Hudson 1979, 390), is planning by civil non-governmental organizations, citizen initiatives, and other interest groups. Like transactive planning and critical planning, it stresses the importance of freedom from manipulation and the independent role of civic organizations. It can be viewed as a response to the inability of routine planning to take different world-views and values into account.

In practice, planning is seldom based solely on one of the five approaches. Elements of different approaches are often mixed in real world planning, and most planning organizations have adopted elements of the pluralistic approach (Leskinen 1994, 101-104). However it can be argued that the most popular mixture is a blend between synoptic and incremental planning styles with various degrees of participation, usually advocacy planning.

2.3 A set of criteria for ‘good coastal planning practice’ In order to analyze planning practices in the case study area, a typology or a set of criteria for assessing management and planning is needed. The four planning styles (‘routine planning’, ‘sectorbased participatory planning’, ‘social and environmental engineering’ and ‘planning as mutual learning’) presented in Figure 1 are one way to conceptualize planning practice. Olsen et al. (1997) have presented the following typology for coastal management (Figure 6).

Enhanced Sectoral Management

Coastal Zone Management

Integrated Coastal Management

Focuses on a single sector or topic but explicitly addresses impacts and interdependencies with other sectors, ecosystem processes, and institutional capacity

Multi-sectoral planning and regulation focuses upon the characteristics and management issues within narrow, geographically delineated stretches of coastline

Expands the cross-sectoral feature of coastal zone management to the consideration of the closely coupled ecosystem processes within coastal watersheds and oceans

Figure 6. A typology of Coastal Management (Olsen et al. 1997).

37

For the purposes of this study, a set of criteria for ‘good coastal planning practice’ is developed.

Ideally, the set should be general enough to be usable in different political and administrative settings. It is later used as an analytical tool in analyzing and comparing planning practices in each case study area. The set of criteria is created in reference to the concept of integrated coastal management (ICM) and critical planning theory, both of which have implications for the adopted planning approach. The inherent planning style equals ‘planning as mutual learning’, as presented in Figure 1. Guidelines on coastal management have been consulted and referred to when choosing the criteria (Noordwijk Guidelines for...1993; Clark 1995; Graham and Pitts 1996; Post and Lundin 1996; Brunckhorst 1994, 94-96). Critical planning theory (Forester 1993), with its emphasis on the democratic and communicative aspects of planning, has also played a part. While ICM literature usually also stresses the importance of public participation in management, critical planning theory particularly emphasizes the democratic notion of planning. Public participation is not carried out only to improve the quality of planning or speed up planning processes, but in order to make the entire decision-making system more transparent and accountable7 . The planner can have an active role in supporting weakly or not organized interest groups. In this sense, planning becomes a communicative, attention-shaping action. The criteria cover both procedural aspects such as the ways to organize the planning and decision-making process, and substantial aspects such as areas subject to planning.

The World Bank guidelines on coastal zone management note that “Coastal nations should be in the position to develop an ICZM8 structure that is uniquely suited to the nation - to the nature of its coastal areas, its institutional and governmental arrangements, and its traditions and cultures and economic conditions. Nonetheless some currently accepted principles and characteristics associated with ICZM concept are useful to describe”. The principles described below should accommodate most coastal planning situations.

‘Good coastal planning practice’ should include all of the following four criteria: comprehensiveness, participation, cooperation, and feedback (Figure 7). These can be regarded as necessary prerequisites for substantial and sustained integration of environmental and development policies in coastal areas. They are mainly developed from the perspective of planning on local and regional levels. Each of the criteria is discussed in more detail below.

7

8

Priscoli (1997) makes a distinction between the differing contexts of public participation and conflict management. Both employ similar techniques but they are often driven by different values. Participation is often driven by the values of empowerment, creativity, open access to government and building civic culture. Conflict management, while also influenced by such values, is driven by values of efficiency, timeliness, cost/effectiveness of decisions.

The World Bank guidelines use the term ICZM (integrated coastal zone management).

38

Framework of the study 1 COMPREHENSIVENESS

• The planning area should be based on natural rather than administrative boundaries (watershed area or eco-region as the spatial unit of planning). Plans and programmes should include both land- and water-use issues.

• Plans and programmes should be characterized by a more comprehensive approach than has been customary in sectoral planning.

• In strategic and project planning both environmental and socio-economic issues should be systematically assessed (such methods as Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) and Social Impact Assessments (SIA) may provide helpful tools).

2 PARTICIPATION

• All stakeholders should have the possibility to take part in problem formulation and the choosing of problem solving strategies. The rules of the planning process should be agreed in a common process.

• A prerequisite for successful participation is that the planning system and the language used in communication is understandable.

• Citizens and interest groups should have clear access points in the public administration. Appropriate methods should be used in public participation.

3 COOPERATION

• Different sectoral agencies should cooperate closely. Improved cooperation may be performed through several institutional approaches.

• Expert-knowledge should be made understandable for non-experts and experts in other fields.

4 FEEDBACK

• Systematic ways of monitoring are important for the implementation and control, so that decisions are carried out in practice, and in order to learn from past experience.

• The plans and programmes should also be subject to evaluation as a way of continually improving the processes. There should be fairness and continuity in the collaborative planning arrangements.

Figure 7. A set of criteria for ‘good coastal planning practice’.

Comprehensiveness initially refers to the area subject to planning. The planning area should be based on natural rather than administrative boundaries. A watershed area or eco-region should be the spatial unit of planning. It is important that plans and programmes for coastal areas include both land- and water-use issues (Siirala 1990).

39

Secondly, plans and programmes should be characterized by a more comprehensive approach than has been customary in sectoral planning (Post and Lundin 1996, 5). This is in essence achieved through improved cooperation between sectoral agencies. However, if national legislation and policies do not provide support for such efforts - for example by unifying sectoral approvals and planning systems - cooperation may turn out to be ineffective and less rewarding.

In strategic and project planning, both environmental and socio-economic issues should be systematically assessed. Methods like Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Social Impact Assessment (SIA) may provide helpful tools for this. Similarly in designating protected areas and in making management plans for protected areas, socio-economic aspects should be taken into consideration.

Participation should be an essential element in coastal management and planning. All stakeholders should have the possibility to take part in problem formulation and the selection of problem-solving strategies. The rules of the planning process should be agreed upon in a common process. A prerequisite for successful participation is that the planning system and the language used in communication is understandable. Citizens and interest groups should have clear access points in public administration. Participation should be an essential part both in strategic and project level planning. The methods of participation should be tailored to the specific planning situation and to the objectives of public participation (Paldanius 1997, 33).

Public participation should take place in the early phases of programme and goal formulation. The World Bank guidelines on ICZM particularly emphasize that, “While all phases of the process of formulating an ICZM programme should be ‘transparent’, it is of the utmost importance that the policy and goal setting aspects be fully open and easily accessible to the affected coastal stakeholders and the interested public. Open public meetings that allow for detailed discussion and questions, supported by clear and understandable documentation, should be part of the deliberations that lead to the selection of policies and goals” (Post and Lundin 1996, 6).

Separate sectoral agencies should cooperate closely. The same holds true for different levels of government. Improved cooperation may be performed through several institutional approaches (Post and Lundin 1996). Meaningful cooperation challenges people working in sectoral agencies to put stronger emphasis on the language that is used in communication. Expert knowledge should be made understandable for non-experts and experts in other fields. In some cases simultaneous cooperative arrangement and participation may become important.

A systematic method of monitoring the implementation of plans and decisions should be included in the planning system. Monitoring is essential for the demonstrating how effective various inter40

Framework of the study ventions and efforts have been (Margoluis et al. 1997). In addition, the plans and programmes itself should be subject to regular evaluation as a way of continually improving the processes (Post and Lundin 1996). This should include evaluation on continuity of the collaborative planning arrangements and fairness of the process. The inclusion of monitoring and evaluation stresses the iterative character of planning. Feedback is important for the control that decisions are held in practice and to learn from past experience.

2.4 Research approach and outline of the study Nations with coastal areas have substantially different systems of government. This makes crossnational comparative studies an interesting but difficult field of inquiry. This study makes use of empirical case-studies. It offers a comparison of three Baltic Sea countries, but even more so of three regions - in this case islands9 and archipelagos.

The underlying assumption of the study is that the present system of governance does not provide sufficient potential for mutual learning and for envisaging sustainable development options. The concept of integrated coastal management has much to offer for the existing planning and management system. However, the ways in which its principles are applied may vary from country to country and case to case. The research seeks to identify issues, actors, and the need for a more integrated approach.

There have been various efforts in the case study areas to introduce a more integrated approach to environmental and development issues. These include the designation of a system of protected areas, the establishing of joint planning committees, and introducing agencies with inter-sectoral responsibilities. There are many parallels between planning and management of biosphere reserves and ICM. Therefore coastal biosphere reserves provide excellent demonstration sites for pilot projects in countries which so far have not used the ICM approach. Establishing the biosphere reserve can be seen as an international (UNESCO) and national (Ministry of the Environment) effort to introduce a 9

«Island studies» focus on «island issues», which link together a broad range of research approaches and disciplines, encompassing both natural and social sciences. Some of the main fields of inquiry within social science research include demographic and economic structures caused by remoteness, isolation, and the limited resources base (e.g. Hein 1993; Jansson and Zucchetto 1978). Closely related are studies on vulnerability of small island societies caused by such factors as the specialization of economies. In recent years the effects of a rise in sea level and environmental degradation on islands have been given greater weight in studies on vulnerability. Studies on cultural characteristics of small and remote island societies comprise a further field of inquiry. Several studies on energy issues have also been made (e.g. Coastal Area Resource...1988; Takahashi and Woodruff 1993). Although islands have always had to deal with limited resources and their sustainable use, a new research agenda has been emerging in recent years, due to population growth and increasing pressures on island. Research on «sustainable island development» partly deals with the same issues as previous island studies, but it recognizes the special role of islands as potential model areas for sustainable development, and includes more overtly environmental considerations (e.g.

McElroy and de Albuquerque 1990). Two examples of efforts to strengthen the emerging island agenda are the conference on «Sustainable Development of Small Island Developing States» which took place in Barbados in 1994, and the «First European Conference on Sustainable Islands Development» which took place in Minorca (Spain) in 1997 (Small Islands, Big Issues.

1995; First European Conference...1997).

41

more integrated approach to natural resources management on local and regional level. Thus the process of establishing the respective biosphere reserve in the three case study areas, and the perception of local governments, sectoral government agencies, and local inhabitants are interesting areas of inquiry. The biosphere reserve administration is a new actor which may be perceived as threatening routinized practices, power relations and the like. In each of the three case study areas, the biosphere reserve has a different role, and there is a different planning approach. This makes comparisons even more interesting. Specific research needs related to biosphere reserves are discussed in Chapter 3.3.

Planning theories as well as literature on planning and management practice have in recent years emphasized the need for effective communication and cooperation between various government agencies, levels of government, different interest groups, and the public at large. This often goes hand in hand with the call for a learning organization, increased flexibility, and responsiveness in face of changing needs within the society. Environmental problems have become one of the forces driving such changes.

Environmental and development planning can be perceived as communicative action, which is organizing and shaping the attention of citizens and bureaucrats (Forester 1993). The establishing of the biosphere reserve as well as planning processes related to land use, water use and regional development are seen as communicative action that shapes attention (Forester 1993). Examples of each type of planning are selected for closer analysis. The intention is to find out in which ways the environmental and development debate manifest itself. What issues were thematized? Who did participate in the process? What was the response to efforts of introducing a more integrated approach?

The analysis is geared toward determining whether a more integrated approach could provide better possibilities for mutual learning, and which requirements such planning arrangements would have to meet in order to be successful.

The intention is not to evaluate a particular programme, because there is no ICM, nor any comprehensive programme for coastal management in the case study areas. Nor will the planning system and administrative procedures be described in great detail. This would be a huge task even if there was only one single case study country. Focusing on a few illustrative examples of planning practice seemed to be a more rewarding task. Planning and management is interdisciplinary by nature. In this research the main emphasis is on the communicative elements of coastal planning, which are impacted by such aspects as legislation and administrative competencies, but the latter are not the main focus of inquiry.

42

Framework of the study The focus in this study is on a few processes which key persons considered important; in other words, illustrative examples of planning practice rather than the planning system (see Figure 8).

No comprehensive presentation of the planning system including all aspects of coastal resource use is made.

One point of possible criticism of the selection of examples is that the planning processes selected for closer inquiry are so numerous and different in nature. One possibility would have been to focus on a special area management plan and interview the different stakeholders about the process. But, this would not give a very comprehensive picture of the planning system. The approach selected here is a sort of a middle way, which has of course its own advantages and disadvantages. It gives a comprehensive picture about ongoing planning processes and their relations and an insight into planning practice. Yet it does not allow the processes to be analyzed in great detail. Other alternatives - focusing on for example one planning process in each area - would give a more profound picture about communication, interests represented, and power used. Balanced consideration of both aspects should result in an interesting picture for comparisons between case study areas.

FOCUS OF THIS STUDY Unit of THE PLANNING analysis SYSTEM Possible Presentation of the research entire planning sysobjectives tem, administrative competencies of all agencies, laws that regulate planning

A SINGLE PLANNING PROCESS Analysis of a few illustrative planning processes, perceptions of actors involved in environmental and development plannin

Identification of actors and interest groups in a certain planning process, communication and the use of power within the planning process

Figure 8. Research strategy.

The spatial units of analysis are the biosphere reserves. However they must be seen in their regional context, as larger economic, administrative, and political entities. In the case of the island of R端gen, the spatial unit of analysis is primarily the biosphere reserve, yet planning closely related to regional development policy encompasses the entire island. Similarly, the Archipelago Sea Biosphere Reserve cannot be reasonably analyzed without the main islands of Korpo and Nagu, which are excluded from the biosphere reserve. For practical considerations, of the four main islands of the West Estonian Archipelago Biosphere Reserve (Saaremaa, Hiiumaa, Vormsi and Muhu), only the 43

island of Hiiumaa has been chosen as case study area. The delineation of the case study areas is discussed in more detail in Chapter 4.1. 10 The time period analyzed in this study begins with the preparation of the designation of the biosphere reserves in the late 1980s and continues to the end of 1996. During this time the biosphere reserves were able to confirm their status as an accepted local and regional actor. Literature throgh 1998 is reviewed and included in the references.

2.5 Research methods The analysis in comparative case study research is, following Yin (1994), divided into design, within-case analysis and between-case analysis (see Figure 10). The design of the study comprised the following steps: developing theory, selecting cases, and designing the interview protocol. The within-case analysis included conducting first case study and writing the first case report. The second and third case studies were then carried out. The between-case analysis included the following steps: drawing cross-case conclusion, modifying theory, developing policy implications, and writing cross-case reports. In Chapter 6 the analysis of planning practice is presented in a manner which to a great extent combines the two forms of within- and between-case analysis.

The method that was used in the ‘within-case analysis’ is called situational analysis, which is a pragmatic-hermeneutical scheme of analysis emphasizing values, processes, and power structures. The method of situational analysis used in this research was derived from the model of Kauko Hahtolas (1990a) and consisted of three phases, which refer to the criteria of ‘good coastal planning practice’ (see Figure 7).

(1) Problem analysis discusses what issues are perceived as problems by different actors and how the planning system responds to these. The problem-analysis is especially addressed to the value contents of regional environmental and development policies. The plurality of values and conflict of interests are given. An essential goal for the analysis is to reveal the value-ladenness and latent meanings of prevailing mental institutions and institutional practices.

10

Hess (1990, 3) suggests that due to the limited resource base, small island futures may be seen as a microcosm of global futures. Although islands are typically open systems (migration, import of energy, export of natural resources), the limited assets of certain resources (especially land) makes the comparison interesting. A model character of islands for other regions on mainland is emphasized in the joint paper by ministers responsible for spatial planning and development around the Baltic Sea (Vision and Strategies...1994, 11), which states that islands in the Baltic Sea Region “already are and shall even intensify their role as spearheads in the search for ways to reconcile environment protection with local development“. On the other hand, Brookfield (1990, 31) argues that islands can not be regarded as microcosms of a larger world mainly because of two reasons: isolation and smallness. The geographically disadvantageous location and the subsequent transport problems make participation in the world market difficult. Secondly, the small size and fragmentation of islands in an archipelago generate limitations of scale, and thus development options are fewer than on mainland areas (Brookfield 1990, 25).

44

Framework of the study (2) Process analysis describes the course of events in selected examples of environmental and development planning. Planning may include strategic regional development planning, land- and water-use planning or the designation of protected areas. Special interest is given to public participation and cooperation between sectors and levels of government. The objectives, methods and timing of public participation and cooperation will be part of the inquiry. The forms of institutionalized and informal cooperation between sectors are analyzed. Further questions include the resources for public participation as well as the information basis and the language used in communication.

(3) Outcome analysis discusses the outcome of planning processes. Not only are the direct outcomes analyzed, but also impacts on agenda setting, awareness building, and further planning processes.

Reasons for the possible success or failure of participatory and cooperative planning arrangements were analyzed. One of the central questions was whether monitoring on the success or failure of planning and policies is ongoing.

Legislation

International agreements

Power structures Actors’ values Politics Institutions

PLANNING PRACTICE Comprehensiveness Participation Cooperation Monitoring

Problem analysis Process analysis Outcome analysis

IDEAL MODEL for coastal planning practice Figure 9. ‘Within-case analysis’ on coastal planning practice.

Although the research employs a holistic case-study strategy (Yin 1994, 27-60) in which planning practice is the unit of analysis, selected planning processes are referred to and analyzed in detail.

Two to three processes from each case study area were chosen for closer inquiry. These include processes concerning strategic regional development planning, sectoral planning, land- and wateruse planning, and biosphere reserve related planning activities. The processes were recent processes and of special regional importance.

45

In the between-case analysis I sought variations among cases in relation to the ideal model of planning systems. The between-case analysis looks for variations in the level and in the reasons for the presence or absence of cooperative and participatory planning arrangements, comprehensiveness and monitoring (cf. Alestalo 1992).

RESEARCH DESIGN

WITHIN-CASE ANALYSIS

BETWEEN-CASE ANALYSIS

Conduct 1st Case Study

Write Individual Case Report

Select Cases

Draw Cross-Case Conclusions

Modify Theory Conduct 2nd Case Study

Develop Theory

Write Individual Case Report Develop policy Implications

Design Data Collection Protocoll Conduct 3rd Case Study

Write Individual Case Report

Write CrossCase Report

Figure 10. Case study method. Adapted from Yin (1994, 56).

Materials on the case study areas were collected by interviewing key actors and by analyzing planning documents, newspaper articles and other relevant written sources. As far as possible, public events like hearings, seminars and forums were visited and observed. The actors interviewed included representatives of ministries, state government, federal government, district or county government, local authorities, NGOs, peoples’ initiatives, parties, intellectual contributors, international actors, and other important groups and organizations.

The interviews were carried out as focused interviews, which allowed the interviewees to respond to the themes naturally and freely, by enabling deep discussions in a clear but flexible format. Fo46

Framework of the study cused interviews may reveal views that would otherwise be inaccessible to the researcher (Hirsijärvi and Hurme 1991, 8, 35-41). Also my research work and especially the conducted interviews can be seen as a form of communicative action, which, at least, to some extent shapes attention.

Computer-aided text interpretation with the help of a Atlas/ti programme, developed at the Technical University Berlin, was used in analyzing the collected material. The method is based on coding text-passages, which later can easily be retrieved and compared to other passages on the same issue.

(Muhr 1993; Moilanen and Roponen 1994.)

The final stage in the between-case analysis was to make suggestions for the development of the planning systems. Practical experiences in each case study area were the primary source of impetus.

There are various ways of drawing ‘lessons’ from cross-national comparative studies. Rose (1991) has identified five ways of lesson drawing in regard to programmes: (1) copying (more or less intact adoption of a programme already in effect elsewhere); (2) emulation (adoption with adjustment for different circumstances); (3) hybridization (combining elements of programmes from two different places); (4) synthesis (combining familiar elements from programmes in effect in three or more places) or (5) inspiration (programmes elsewhere used as an intellectual stimulus for developing a novel programme without an analogue elsewhere).

Because different public planning and decision-making procedures in the case study areas are so varied, it is impossible to describe even the most important of them. Therefore only two to three illustrative examples from each case study area were presented and analyzed in more detail. The examples cover different types of public planning (see Chapter 6.1).

The list of interview themes was made based on theoretical considerations and 23 preliminary discussions, conducted in autumn of 1995 in the case study areas. A total of 95 focused interviews were carried out between March and November 1996 among key persons in the case study areas. The interviews were recorded and subsequently transcribed. Written materials, including newspaper articles and planning documents, were collected. Preliminary case study reports were written shortly after the fieldwork was conducted, in order to preserve first impressions.

Field research on the island of Rügen was carried out in March and April 1996. Altogether 34 focused interviews were conducted. The interviews were recorded, and the essential parts of the discussions were transcribed, but not word-for-word. A preliminary case study was written short after the field work. The case study focused on three recent processes regarded as important by key informants. These were: strategic regional development planning and the designation of protected landscape areas on Rügen, land-use planning in the biosphere reserve, and a case of fish farming in the coastal waters.

47

Conducting interviews and collecting written material on the island of Hiiumaa was done in JuneJuly 1996. Part of the 35 interviews were conducted in either English or Finnish, and part of the interviews were made with the help of an interpreter in Estonian. A preliminary case study report was written. Three processes were selected for closer inquiry, namely the Hiiumaa Development Action Plan 2010, coastal land-use planning (a conflict concerning a house in Sarve peninsula), and the K채ina Bay Integrated Coastal Zone Management Plan.

The field studies in the Archipelago Sea Biosphere Reserve took place in October and November 1996. Altogether 26 interviews were carried out. Special interest was put on land-use planning and zoning within the archipelago, water-use planning with special emphasis on fish farming, and the Archipelago programme, which is currently being elaborated in the Archipelago.

Two sub-studies were carried out on forestry planning in the case study areas, namely Hiiumaa and the Archipelago Sea (Ahde 1998; Pekkola 1998). These were carried out by Ms. Terhi Ahde and Ms. Sonja Pekkola as their masters thesis. In this study, their research will be cited as an example of sectoral planning.

2.6 Validity and reliability of the case studies Two aspects of validity are critical for focused interviews: concept validity and content validity (Hirsij채rvi and Hurme 1991, 129). Concept validity implies good knowledge of previous research and the concepts related to the research problem, and is related to problem definition and the construction of the interview protocol. Before material collection, preliminary interviews were carried out and a tentative theoretical framework for the study was written (Welp 1997).

Content validity, on the other hand, is related to how well the information acquired fulfills the core of the phenomenon to be investigated. Thus, it is mostly related to the interview situations and the interview protocol. An interview protocol that is applicable to several countries has to have a rather general format and focus only on the main social structures and processes. Yet it must also allow for variation in individual cases. Adding too many details to the protocol may result in a situation where many of the details that are relevant in one case study area may not be relevant in another, so that little common basis for comparisons would exist. Alternatively, finding a common basis for comparisons may be equally difficult if the interview protocol is too general.

Language problems may occur when dealing with several case study countries. Interviews in Finnish (which is my native language) and in German (which is my second native language) were not problematic. On Hiiumaa interviews were carried out in either Estonian, English, Finnish (some 48

Framework of the study Estonians speak Finnish fluently). Interviews in Estonian (about two thirds of the interviews) were conducted with the help of an interpreter.11 Due to the need for interpretation (questions and answers were translated), the actual time that could be spent on each issue was shorter than when discussing in the same language. Also some misunderstandings could not be prevented. The interpreter, however, made the major part of the transcriptions of the interviews and thus most mistakes could be identified. When conducting interviews in English (about one third of the interviews) the spoken language was fairly simple, and thus some information requiring more profound language skills could not be communicated. About one third of the interviews in the Archipelago Sea were conducted in Swedish. The language problems that arose at the start with Swedish speaking interview partners diminished after a few interviews were conducted.

All of the interviews were carried out in 1996, beginning with R端gen in March and April, Hiiumaa in June and July, and in the Archipelago Sea during October and November. Issues that were of topical interest shortly before and during the field visits invariably received greater attention.

The number of interviews seemed to be fairly appropriate to the study. After about 25-30 interviews were conducted in each case study area, little new information was gained. On the other hand, in writing the case study report, it became obvious that further information on certain issues should be acquired. An opportunity to conduct more interviews and ask questions on certain topics was provided through additional field trips to the case study islands. Attendance in seminars organized in the case study areas also provided a possibility for further discussions. The need for an extra field trip became necessary due to the fact that many processes were ongoing (e.g. the Hiiumaa Development Action Plan 2010, designating protected landscape areas), and following these over a longer period of time was of interest to the research.

In a broad sense, the research, which works with environmental and development issues, faces the same problems as do biosphere reserves. Although the research focuses on six types of planning (strategic development planning, forestry planning, land-use planning, water-use planning, coastal ecosystem management, and biosphere reserves related planning activities) even one type of planning could have been the unit of analysis. However the research tries to find onsets and stumbling blocks on the way towards better planning practice in coastal areas. Thus a broad perspective seemed to be more fruitful in terms of the research objectives.

It became clear that the key characteristics of good coastal planning practice were rather general and abstract for planning practitioners (Pekkola 1998, 34-35). Thus it was up to the interviewer to 11

The Estonian language belongs to the same Finno-Ugrian family as Finnish, but they are not so close that they could be understood without training.

49

formulate questions that were understandable and relevant for the interview partner. The majority of interviewed persons can be characterized as key persons, hired or elected as political representatives in local governments, or working for various levels of the state administration. Too little time was perhaps left to interview people who are less directly involved in planning and decision-making. On the other hand, the list of interview themes was addressed mainly to people who are engaged in public planning, or who are involved in some way.

The harbour of Lehtma, Hiiumaa.

Photo: Tero Uusitalo

There is a ferry connection from the Orjaku-harbor in Kassari to the neighboring island of Saaremaa, which also belongs to the West Photo: Martin Welp Estonian Archipelago Biosphere Reserve.

50

A steam-locomotive train over a century old takes tourists from the town of Bergen through the southeastern part of R端gen to the Photo: Martin Welp beaches and bathing resort towns.

Biosphere reserves as model areas for sustainable resource use 3.1 Origins and transformation of the concept Biosphere reserves have four characteristics that differentiate them from national parks, nature conservation areas, or other protected areas (cf. Price 1995, 131). First, people living and working in the reserve are an integral part of the concept. Second, biosphere reserves are part of an international network of protected areas recognized by UNESCO, at the request of national governments.12 Third, their outer boundaries are flexible and not fixed by law (with the exception of the legally protected core areas). Finally, land and water areas are administered and managed by more than one agency or owner.

The worldwide network of biosphere reserves, totaling 352 reserves in 87 countries as of October 1997, provides an international framework for education, research, and demonstration and implementation of sustainable resource use (UNESCO Man and the Biosphere Programme WWWhomepage: http://www.unesco.org/mab/activity/bios.htm). In the last three decades biosphere reserves have evolved from conservation sites into model areas for sustainable development.

The biosphere reserve concept emerged from UNESCO’s Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Programme of which it constitutes an essential part. The MAB Programme, which officially explicated the idea of a worldwide network of protected areas, was launched in 1971. It focused on a number of research areas, with area no. 8 identified as ‘conservation of natural areas and the genetic material they contain’ (Batisse 1986, 3).13 From the start the concept stressed three roles for the biosphere reserves (Batisse 1986, 2). The conservation role addressed the need to better conserve genetic resources and ecosystems and maintain biological diversity. The logistic role referred to the need to set up a well-defined network of areas directly related to MAB field research and monitoring activities, including the accompanying training and exchange of information. The development role related to the need to directly associate environmental protection and land-use issues within the new programme’s activities. These ideas were followed by the objectives for biosphere reserves outlined by a task force in 1974.

12

Biosphere reserves are designated by the International Co-ordinating Council of the MAB Programme, at the request of the nation concerned. Biosphere reserves remain, however, under the sole sovereignty of the nation where they are situated and thereby submitted to national legislation only. Participation by the states in the World Network of Biosphere Reserves is voluntary. (Biosphere reserves...1996, 16.)

13 There are 14 project areas and 4 research orientations within the MAB Programme. These are classified either under types of ecosystems (e.g. tropical and subtropical forests, grazing lands, and mountain and tundra ecosystems) or research themes (e.g. pest management and fertilizer use, perception of environmental quality, and human investment and resource use). Relevant for this study is also the MAB project area 7: Ecology and rational use of island ecosystems.

51

The task force also proposed a zoning pattern with three interrelated zones whose objectives and degree of protection varied (Batisse 1986, 4). These three zones are today referred to as core area, buffer zone, and transition area (see Figure 11). The core area consists of examples of minimally disturbed ecosystems. Economic activities are not allowed in these areas. There may be more than one core area, and they are typically designated as a national park or nature protection area. The buffer zone adjoins or surrounds the core area. Economic activities within this zone shall not be in opposition to protection goals. The transition area typically surrounds the core area and the buffer zone, and is a dynamic area of cooperation. The area may contain settlements, agricultural lands, managed forests, areas for recreation or tourism, and other uses characteristic to the region. A transition to environmentally sound resource use (eco-development, sustainable development) is to be promoted within this zone. A biosphere reserve may also belong to the type of a cluster biosphere reserve, which constitutes of a number of non-contiguous areas.14 The first biosphere reserves were designated in 1976, and by 1981, 208 CORE AREAS

biosphere reserves had been designated in 58 countries. However, the conservation role dominated, while the logis-

BUFFER ZONE

tic and development role was largely neglected (Batisse 1986, 4). Many of the areas were already protected as

TRANSITION AREA Figure 11. Schematic zonation of a biosphere reserve.

national parks or nature reserves before receiving the international label of biosphere reserves. Research was con-

ducted in these areas, but in most cases it was basic ecological research, without a connection to resource management concerns. Thus activities concentrated on the core areas.

In the First International Biosphere Reserve Congress in Minsk in 1983 the differences between concept and practice became obvious, and the potentials of the concept (enhancing cooperation between local government, local population, state agencies and other interest groups, linking conservation to human activities and rural development), which were so far not made use of, were 14

The names of the zones may be different in different countries and even in different biosphere reserves in the same country.

For example the Archipelago Sea Biosphere Reserve in Finland consists in practice of a core area and a cooperation area (yhteistoiminta-alue), which is used for the transition and development zones. In Germany the terms conservation area, maintenance zone, and development area (Kernzone, Pflegezone, Entwicklungszone) refer to the three terms suggested by UNESCO (Guidelines for the...1995, 16).

52

Biosphere reserves as model areas for sustainable resource use discussed. The congress was able to review the overall situation and to lay down general guidelines for the future (Batisse 1986, 6). In order to meet the objectives of biosphere reserves all three roles: conservation, logistic and development role should be combined.

Although the need for widening the scope from nature conservation towards sustainable use of natural resources within the biosphere reserves was acknowledged in the conference in Minsk in 1983, activities continued to concentrate mainly on conservation issues and the task of integrating them into human activities and rural development. Little attention was paid to the transition zone, where activities relating to the development role could take place (Batisse 1986, 10). One major reason for this was the fact that while core areas were usually managed by one authority, the buffer zones and transition zones were owned and managed by a variety of public and private actors. Little was done to organize coordination or cooperation among them (Batisse 1986, 10).

However, in Minsk visions were also presented which called for biosphere reserves “to be expanded in size and for greater efforts to be made to support alternative lifestyles in biosphere reserve areas for the primary objective of developing sustainable human ecosystems for the post-petroleum age” (McNeely 1984, 497, ref. Price 1995, 133). And since the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro, global environmental issues and sustainable development have received greater prominence within the biosphere reserve concept. In 1993 the MAB International Co-ordinating Council demanded that biosphere reserves should promote the implementation of the conventions agreed in Brazil (International Co-ordinating...1993; see also Guidelines for the... 1995, 14).

In the International Conference on Biosphere Reserves in Seville in March 1995, biosphere reserves were envisaged as guides to the 21st century, “showing a way to a more sustainable future” (Biosphere reserves...1996, 5). These statements indicate a further shift from traditional nature protection towards integrating global environmental aspects and resource use to the concept of biosphere reserves. In Seville a “Strategy and the Statutory Framework of the World Network” was agreed on. The statutory

Conservation

to contribute to the conservation of landscapes, ecosystems, species and genetic variation

Development

to foster economic and human development which is socio-culturally and ecologically sustainable

framework confirmed the

Logistic support to support demonstration projects, environmental educa-

three primary functions of

tion and training, research and monitoring, related to local, regional, national and global issues of conservation and sustainable development

biosphere reserves (Figure 12).

Figure 12. The three primary functions of biosphere reserves (Biosphere reserves...1996, 16).

53

The advantages of biosphere reserves as model regions seem to focus on at least three aspects.

Biosphere reserves belong to an international network which potentially increases the momentum of local activities and brings new ideas to local level. The network may help in bringing ecological considerations more explicitly into discussions about resource use and development options. Second, due to their special status funding for exemplary demonstration projects and programmes may be easier to obtain. A third advantage is that the network provides possibilities for exchanging experiences and knowledge - eliminating the need to reinvent the wheel in each new reserve.

3.2 Biosphere reserve — a local partner or an ‘outside intervention’?

The designation of a biosphere reserve is usually an ‘outside intervention’. For example, nature conservation efforts, like the zonation of core areas or other restrictions in the use of natural resources, may be in conflict with local property rights, commercial interests, or more fundamental perceptions of the main problems.15 In this sense, biosphere reserves are partly protected against people, for people, and last but not least, they are protected by people (Kruse-Graumann 1995, 2) .16 Local people usually view nature protection and its consequences very differently than resource managers or urban interest groups (Carroll and Hendrix 1992, 346). For instance, the chairman of the working group for small-scale farmers (Arbeitsgemeinschaft bäuerliche Landwirtschaft) from the Rhön Biosphere Reserve in Germany noted, “Why don’t they designate Frankfurt am Main as a biosphere reserve? They are the ones who need it.” (Burghoff 1993). In fact, suggestions have been made to extend the scope of the concept from rural areas to industrial and urban areas.

Nature conservation measures often result in changes in the way local people have used resources and in the possible reduction of control of private property (Carroll and Hendrix 1992, 346). Making nature conservation socially and economically acceptable to the population concerned is one of the big challenges of these areas (e.g. Batisse 1982). The question of public participation seems thus to be essential for the management of biosphere reserves.

The need for involvement of local people in decision-making concerning the use of natural resources and environmental management has been generally accepted. The themes of public partici15

Often, protected areas, including biosphere reserves, are faced with the so-called NIMBY-syndrome (not-in-my-backyard), which has usually been used to characterize local opposition to such unwanted land uses as risky or polluting power plants, industrial plants or refuse pits. According to research on acceptancy of the “Bayrischer Wald National Park” (nominated also as a biosphere reserve in 1981) the positive attitude towards a protected area increases with the distance from the designated area (Rentsch 1988). Rentsch argues that one reason for the negative attitude of local people, directly affected by the park, is that they lack the possibility to participate in issues concerning the protected areas (also Wolfenden et al. 1994, 45-49).

16 The term “biosphere reserve” in different languages may affect the perceptions of local people in different ways. While the Finnish translation biosfäärialue and the Estonian translation biosfäärikaitseala refers to neutral term „area“, the German term Biosphärenreservat carries the connotation of a reservation (cf. Indian reservations in North America).

54

Biosphere reserves as model areas for sustainable resource use pation and interagency cooperation have received growing emphasis in the discussions concerning biosphere reserves (Price 1995, 135; see also Batisse 1982, 108-109; 1986, 10; Rajasärkkä 1987, 7981). The tasks of biosphere reserves are typically cross-sectoral and link to the responsibilities of various administrations and institutions (Guidelines for Protection...1995, 80). These include local government, agriculture and forestry authorities, national park authorities, and administrations for water management, coastal protection, and land use. To organize coordination and cooperation among various stakeholders can be considered one of the main tasks of biosphere reserves (Batisse 1986, 10; Kooperationskonzept für die...1994).

3.3 Deficits in research Human concerns, although emphasized in the biosphere reserve objectives, have received relatively little attention in research conducted in biosphere reserves and within the MAB Programme. According to Kruse-Graumann (1995, 1), “the usual approach to environmental problems and to the notion of environmental protection was more or less restricted to the analysis of the natural environment, of ecosystems and of endangered species and was thus dominated by natural scientific thinking”.

The role of the social sciences in the MAB Programme already began to receive attention in the late 1970s, although this was mainly in the context of developing countries (e.g. Social Sciences in...1979).

The deficits in MAB research in northern countries, particularly in biosphere reserves, were first addressed in the EUROMAB (Cooperation of the MAB National Committees of Europe and NorthAmerica) meeting in Strasbourg in 1991, where a small group meeting was organized on social research in biosphere reserves (Kruse-Graumann 1995, 3). In the next EUROMAB meeting in Zakopane social issues received more emphasis, but first in 1995 a working group with social science representatives from EUROMAB National Committees met in a workshop in Königswinter. The conclusions and recommendations of the workshop on “Societal dimensions of biosphere reserves - biosphere reserves for people” suggested that social science research should help to make biosphere reserves models of sustainable development but should also advance conceptual and practical knowledge on people-environment relationships (Conclusions and Recommendations...1995, 10). The aim was to standardize the methodology of ecological monitoring and natural scientific research in order to make systematic comparisons between biosphere reserves possible. There is a significant lack of methods for a systematic comparison within social science research on human-environment relationships in biosphere reserves.

The limits of research conducted strictly within the confines of one discipline have become obvious in recent decades. The commitment to learn another”s disciplinary terms has been emphasized 55

throughout the MAB Programme, and a number of interdisciplinary research programmes have been launched aiming to bring together knowledge about social, environmental, and economic processes (e.g. Björn et al. 1995; Rannikko and Schuurman 1997).

The special characteristics of coastal biosphere reserves have been the subject of at least two international workshops. In August 1989 a workshop was organized in San Francisco (USA), and the materials presented in the workshop were published in the proceedings entitled “Application of the biosphere reserve concept to coastal marine areas” (Price and Humphrey 1993). A second workshop was organized in Australia in August 1994, entitled “Coastal Marine Protected Areas and Biosphere Reserves: ‘Towards a New Paradigm’ ” (Brunckhorst 1994).

Dobbin and Salm (1993, ref. Dutton and Saenger 1994, 21) observe “many parallels between the planning for coastal zone management and planning for biosphere reserves”. The concept of ICM can be used for improving management in the existing biosphere reserves, while the designation of biosphere reserve can be seen as tool for more integrated management: “During the last few years, the biosphere reserve concept has been receiving more and more interest from scientists and managers working in the coastal zone as a tool for reconciling different interests of conservation, research, tourism development, industry, traditional fisheries, pollution monitoring etc. The value of coastal biosphere reserves, encompassing both land and sea parts and their interface, lies in integrating conservation, research, and development goals in a single publicly supported, management scheme. This multipurpose management can be achieved through the use of zoning, in which core, buffer, and transition areas carry different requirements for protection and human use” (Applying the biosphere...1994).

So far, however, little research has been carried out prerequisites or practical example on integrated coastal management in biosphere reserves.

The small isle of Vilm used to be the holiday resort of the GDR (German Democratic Republic)political leaders and was not accessible to «normal people». Today the International Academy of Nature Protection is located on the island.

A limited number of visitors per day can visit the island’s magnificient beech forest.

Photo: Martin Welp

56

Key characteristics of the case study areas 4.1 Selection and delineation of case study areas Biosphere reserves were selected as case study areas for two reasons: their character as model regions for sustainable development, and their international dimension, which is gained through UNESCO. The case study areas selected for this study comprise all island and archipelago biosphere reserves in the Baltic Sea Region. A further biosphere reserve on the Baltic Sea coast, namely the ‘Slowinski Biosphere Reserve’ in Poland, is thus excluded in this study (see Map 8). This is not only because my focus is centered on island and archipelago biosphere reserves, but also for practical reasons. Limiting the number of case studies to three enabled a deeper investigation of each individual case. Also, it was not feasible for me as a researcher to add a fifth language (Polish) to those spoken in the three other areas, German, Finnish, Swedish, and Estonian, most of which are familiar to me, although in the latter I needed the help of an interpreter.

The Rügen Biosphere Reserve is one of thirteen reserves in Germany (see Map 5), and the only one located in the Baltic Sea. There are three other coastal and marine biosphere reserves in Germany.17 These were established after the Rügen Biosphere Reserve and they are located in the Waddensea on the west coast of Germany. The West Estonian Archipelago Biosphere Reserve, which is quite large, is the only biosphere reserve in Estonia (see Map 6). In Finland there is one terrestrial biosphere reserve in North Karelia in addition to the Archipelago Sea Biosphere Reserve (see Map 7).

The zonation and the administrative structure of each biosphere reserve is diverse and rather complicated. Therefore, this study required a certain degree of flexibility in order to clearly delineate the case study areas. The biosphere reserve concept, in which the transition area is an essential element, allows such flexibility. Two aspects were especially important for the delineation of the case study areas: firstly, the geographic area in which the biosphere reserve administration effectively acts; and secondly, the attempt to have a coherent social, cultural, economic, geographic, and administrative unit as case study area. Thus, the delineation of the case study areas, for the purposes of this study, is not exactly identical with the official delineation of the three biosphere reserves.

17

They are: Waddensea of Lower Saxony (designated in 1992), Waddensea of Hamburg (1992) and Waddensea of SchleswigHolstein (1990).

57

The Rügen Biosphere Reserve covers only the southeast part of the island (about 11% of the land area).

In German it is called the Biosphärenreservat Südost-Rügen (the Southeast Rügen Biosphere Reserve).

The shorter version is officially confirmed in the UNESCO certificate and used internationally. In Germany the longer version is used and confirmed in the ordinance, but in the following I will use the more accurate German name, which translates into English as the “Southeast Rügen Biosphere Reserve”.

The administrative body responsible for the biosphere reserve is since the beginning of 1996 the Rügen National Park Agency (Nationalparkamt Rügen). It is responsible for all ‘large protected areas’ (Großschutzgebiete) on Rügen. There are three categories that are considered as large protected areas, and there is at least one of each category on Rügen. These are: the Southeast Rügen Biosphere Reserve, the Jasmund National Park, the Vorpommersche Boddenlandschaft National Park and the Rügen Nature Park. Although the nature park has not yet been confirmed, its final designation is seen as an essential part and confirmation of the concept of the Rügen model region, which is promoted by the district government and the Rügen National Park Agency. In essence the idea constitutes an attempt to integrate environment and development policies and to promote sustainable development on the regional level.

Developments in other parts of the island and the biosphere reserve affect one another reciprocally. According to a representative of the Rügen National Park Agency: “The activities of the National Park Agency are not restricted to the Southeast Rügen Biosphere Reserve, but cover the entire island of Rügen to initiate a sustainable development according to the conclusions of Rio 1992” (personal communication). The biosphere reserve is thus seen in its regional context, while the whole island of Rügen is considered as case study area in this study.18 This is especially necessary when analyzing strategic regional planning. (See Map 2.)

The West Estonian Archipelago Biosphere Reserve has three main constituent islands, Saaremaa, Hiiumaa, and Vormsi, which each have a biosphere reserve center. The three centers work quite independently. Thus it seemed appropriate to concentrate on the geographic area of only one center.

The Island of Hiiumaa was chosen, because the biosphere reserve center plays an especially active role there. (See Map 3.)

18

There are good reasons to consider Rügen as one entity, not least because of the provisional designation of Rügen as a nature park.

Nature parks in the eastern federal German states (Naturparke neuer Prägung) differ from their counterparts in the western German states (Scherer 1995; Ostermann 1994). Eastern nature parks are basically intended to become identical to those of biosphere reserves. While nature parks in eastern states have a broader approach to environment and development concerns, nature parks in western federal states mainly serve recreational purposes and are perceived as scenery for touristic and recreational use (Jahresbericht 1996, 5). The main difference between eastern nature parks and biosphere reserves is that the former is solely a national category, lacking international recognition through UNESCO (Weigelt 1995). So far there is only one such case of a designated nature park with a district-confirmed ordinance, the Schaalsee Nature Park. Rügen still lacks the final designation by the district as a nature park and the issue has been subject to controversial debates (see Chapter 6.2.1).

58

Key characteristics of the case study areas The Archipelago Sea Biosphere Reserve is located in the municipalities of Houtskär, Korpo, Nagu, and Dragsfjärd19 , excluding the main islands of the municipalities of Korpo and Nagu. In this research, however, the main islands of Korpo and Nagu, which are sizeable, will be included because they are important constituent islands in the archipelago. Also, according to the biosphere reserve’s coordinator, the zonation is not understood in a strict sense — neither by the biosphere reserve administration nor by the municipalities of Korpo and Nagu. The Archipelago Sea is not as clearly defined as a coherent geographic and administrative unit as are Rügen and Hiiumaa. To a reasonable extent, however, it does represent a social and cultural unit. (See Map 4.)

The case study areas differ considerably from each other in terms of geography, population density, and economy. In the following each case study area is briefly presented. The islands of Rügen, Hiiumaa, and the Archipelago Sea are presented using the following subtitles: background, people and the economy, main actors, local media, and problem analysis. In Chapter 4.3 the comparability of the case study areas is discussed.

4.2 The case study areas 4.2.1 The island of Rügen in Germany Background The island of Rügen is the north-easternmost district (Kreis) of the federal state of MecklenburgVorpommern. Until German Unification in 1990, Rügen was part of the German Democratic Republic (GDR). With a land area of 974 km² it is the biggest island in Germany. Agricultural land comprises 61% of the total land area, 15% is forested. A 2.5 km long bridge built in 1936 connects Rügen to the mainland. Two ferry terminals are located at Sassnitz and Mukran, and efforts are made to develop the latter as a gateway to the north (e.g. Klaipeda and St. Petersburg).

The southeastern part of the island of Rügen as well as the surrounding water areas were designated as a biosphere reserve in 1990 and officially added to the international list of biosphere reserves by UNESCO in 1991. The land area of the biosphere reserve is 109 km². The water area of the biosphere reserve is 126 km². Seven municipalities, Baabe, Gager, Göhren, Lancken-Granitz, Middelhagen, Sellin, Thiessow, and a considerable part of the town of Putbus, are located within the biosphere reserve. Small areas of the municipality of Zirkow and the town of Binz also belong to the biosphere reserve. The typical landscape characteristics in the biosphere reserve are beech forests, 19

Only a small archipelagic area of the municipality of Dragsfjärd belongs to the biosphere reserve.

59

grasslands, salt marshes, and bays. The interaction of land and water areas gives a special character to the landscape.

Besides the biosphere reserve and the provisionally designated nature park, there is also the Jasmund National Park in the north of Rügen and the Vorpommersche Boddenlandschaft National Park, which comprises parts of the coastal waters of western Rügen. Thus, the system of protected areas is on Rügen well elaborated and comprises different categories of protection. The Ministry of the Environment, Klaus Töpfer, praised the protected areas on Rügen during a visit in 1990 as the “family silver of German unification”.

The district government has committed itself to the concept of Rügen model region (Timmel 1995).

Various other actors also aim to make all of Rügen a model region for ecologically oriented development (Vorschläge zur...1993). There are good prerequisites, since Rügen is a coherent cultural, economic, landscape and administrative entity.

People and the economy In 1996 Rügen had 78,300 inhabitants. Due to migration the number of people has declined by 4100 since 1992. According to some estimates, in the year 2010 Rügen will have only 60,000 people.

The biggest town, Bergen, has 17,000 inhabitants, while 15% of the total population, (11,500) live in the Southeast Rügen Biosphere Reserve (Erdmann and Nauber 1995, 217).

After German unification the economy of the island faced considerable changes. At present 23,000 people are regularly employed. Most work in service sector jobs, including tourism, construction, trade, or manufacturing and administration. Agriculture, fishing, small scale food processing, and tourism were formerly the main sources of income on Rügen. The collapse of state-owned farms and fishing fleets, as well as the departure of the military, has caused high levels of unemployment and migration. The unemployment rate in recent years has hovered between 18-19%, slightly higher than the average in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. Without employment programmes, however, the unemployment rate would be much higher.

Tourism has played an important role on Rügen since the beginning of the century, and it remained important during the GDR era. After unification it experienced a short recession, but in recent years tourism again became a vital economic sector. In 1993, the share of tourism as a source of income was 10% (Vorschläge zur...1993, 41). The number of visitors reached 750,000 in 1995 and has been growing constantly. But while tourism is a potential aid to economic development, it is also a threat to the natural environment (Biosphärenreservat...1994).

60

Key characteristics of the case study areas The southeastern portion of the island has traditionally been one of the touristic centers on the island. Some of the oldest and most traditional bathing resorts, like Göhren, Sellin and Baabe are located here. Most intensive touristic development has occurred in this part of the island. More than 40% of overnight stays are concentrated on an area which is only 5% of the total land area of Rügen (interview).

Main actors The main actors listed for each of the case study areas below include groups who in some way participate in environment and development planning. Only organized interest groups are identified.

The list includes the following types of actors: local and regional authorities, state and federal agencies and ministries, political parties, NGOs, local initiatives, intellectual contributors, international actors, and other important organizations or groups.

Rügen’s district assembly (Kreistag) makes political decisions concerning its development. The Office of the District Councillor (Landratsamt) is its executive organ. The most important departments in this study are the Nature Conservation Department and the Building and Planning Department. The district of Rügen consists of 42 rural municipalities and three towns (Bergen, Sassnitz and Putbus). The municipalities, which are grouped into seven offices, are small and offices (Ämter) were founded to take care of administration and services. The municipalities - rural communities and towns - possess the main political decision-making power.

Political parties represented in the district assembly of Rügen include the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), the Party of Democratic Socialism (PDS), the Social Democratic Party (SPD), and the Free Democratic Party (FDP). The “Alliance for Rügen” (Bündnis für Rügen) is the third strongest group after the conservative party CDU and the left-wing PDS. It is quite an exceptional coalition of farmers and ‘environmentalists’ (activists from NGOs and the administration). Rügen is the only district in the federal state of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern where CDU does not have the majority.

The National Park Office of Rügen is responsible for the management of large protected areas on the island, including the biosphere reserve. The administrative structure of the biosphere reserve is presented more in detail in Chapter 5.

Major changes to the jurisdictions of different ministries occurred after the elections in the federal state of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern in autumn 1994. The Ministry of Environment was dismantled and the former Department of Nature Protection became a sub-section in the Ministry of Agriculture. Other departments of the Ministry of Environment became parts of the newly formed Ministry 61

of Building, Land Development, and the Environment. Physical planning, which under the old government was a part of the Ministry of Economy, was also transferred to this ministry (Röchert and Lamp 1995).

There are four regional offices for spatial planning in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. Rügen belongs to the planning unit of Vorpommern and the regional office is in Greifswald. It carries out land-use planning at the federal state level (e.g. Raumordnungsverfahren). The State Office for Nature and Environmental Protection (Staatliches Amt für Naturschutz und Umweltschutz) is responsible for environmental issues. Other important sectoral agencies are the Road Administration (Strassenbauamt), the Office for Agriculture (Landwirtschaftsamt Stralsund) and the Forestry Administration (Forstbehörde).

Several NGOs (non-governmental organizations) and initiatives have been actively involved in discussions about development alternatives on Rügen.20 The Citizens’ Initiative for Rügen (Bürgerinitiative für Rügen), a small group consisting mainly of nature conservation activists and professionals, was founded to protest against a planned shipyard in 1991. Since then, the Citizens’ Initiative has been very active, taking positions on various environmental and development issues. In 1993, it produced an alternative development concept for the island, called the “Grey Pamphlet”, which included ideas and proposals for ecologically oriented economic development (Vorschläge zur...1993). The concept brought ecological consideration more explicitly to the agenda of regional development on Rügen. The initiative’s ideas have figured more prominently in the political arena since the last elections. Together with the Farmers’ Union of Rügen (Bauernverband Rügen), it founded the Alliance for Rügen, whose platform shares the same fundamental principles as the Grey Pamphlet.

The Rügen Business Association (Wirtschaftsverein Rügen e.V., formerly the Wirtschaftsförderverein Rügen e.V.) was founded in the beginning of 1992 to represent the interests of entrepreneurs on the island. The same year it produced a paper, in which it positioned itself in the development debate (Wirtschaftliche Entwicklung...1992). The Business Association has been actively involved in the environment and development debate, organizing seminars and public discussions.

A further association which once actively participated in the debate on development is the Insula Rugia (Verband zum Schutz, zur Pflege und Entwicklung der Insel Rügen e.V.). Its intentions were 20

A small but active environmental movement had already begun during the GDR era. The state was not in the position to control all civilian activities and so people found ways to act independently, especially in environmental protection. The environmental movement as well as the church served as niches for «alternative» unregulated activity. In the eighties “round tables” emerged from these groups and grew to a social movement. When the state of the GDR collapsed, these movements already had a certain structure which enabled them to act effectively.

62

Key characteristics of the case study areas similar to those of the Initiative for Rügen, but it took a more neutral and compromising position on actual conflicts. It has had considerable importance in promoting and building awareness of regional culture. Insula Rugia was also intended to become a ‘sponsoring society’ for the biosphere reserve, and it also had the goal of forming or acting as the advisory board of the biosphere reserve (interview).

Other interest groups are Tourism Association (Fremdenverkehrsverband), Chamber of Industry and Commerce (Industrie- und Handelskammer). National environmental NGOs that are active on Rügen are Naturschutzbund Deutschland (NABU), Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF) and Bund für Naturschutz (BUND), which all have offices or active members on Rügen. In the environmental debate, NABU and to some extent WWF have a media presence.

Local media Rügen’s only regional daily paper is the Ostsee-Zeitung. It is circulated with supplements for different towns and regions along the northern coast of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern by the Springer publishing house. The Rügen supplement usually has four pages and is edited on the island. The paper is considered generally neutral.

There are three newspapers, supported by advertising and circulated free of charge to every household on Rügen: Der Rüganer, Ostsee-Anzeiger and Rügen-Blitz. Der Rüganer is owned by a west German investor who has worked and lived on Rügen since German unification. After some unpleasant experiences with the local press in a conflict about his illegally constructed house on the coastal strip (see Chapter 6.2.4), he decided to start his own newspaper (interview). According to environmental professionals and NGOs, the Rüganer systematically blames the nature protection movement for the island’s social and economic problems, mainly in order to generate an atmosphere favorable to construction and the development of tourism business. The paper tends to polarize and has had the journalistic style of the ‘yellow press’. The articles might be “flawed and untrue, but never boring” (interview).

The Ostsee-Anzeiger is a free newspaper published by the same publishing house as the OstseeZeitung. Unlike its predecessor, the weekly supplement Seekiste, the Ostsee-Anzeiger has a more journalistic character and its direct competitor is the Rüganer. A smaller advertising newspaper which is circulated throughout Mecklenburg-Vorpommern in local issues is the Rügen-Blitz. If a particular group cannot publish its position in other newspapers, it can turn to the Rügen-Blitz, which is thankful for any ready material it can publish (interview).

63

Nationally, Rügen has the image of an unspoiled island. Besides being the largest island in Germany, it is often considered to be the most beautiful. During his visit to the island in 1991 Richard von Weizsäcker, the President of the German Federal Republic, uttered his oft-quoted declaration that “Rügen has a splendor that cannot be found elsewhere in Germany”. Rügen’s national image has contributed to the widespread media attention the island has received. For example, an environmental conflict in 1991 concerning the construction of a shipyard near the town of Sassnitz mobilized national environmental NGOs and media to oppose the project.

Problem analysis There is no general agreement about the most pressing problems on Rügen. Depending on the position of a particular source, such problems might be the lack of better traffic connections to mainland, or the pressures on environment caused by tourism or construction activities. Generally, there tends to be great polarization between ‘environmentalists’ and ‘developers’. The origins of this polarization lie in the past. To understand the present situation and the positions of various actors on Rügen one should examine the origins of the development debate. The key project mentioned above of the planned shipyard near Sassnitz caused heated debate in 1991 and forced different interest groups to organize themselves and take position in the public discussions. This project basically initiated the public environment and development discussion shortly after German unification. Many considered the outcome a major decision that will affect the future development of Rügen considerably.

The main issues causing conflict today on Rügen are tourism and construction, particularly their economic importance and impact on landscape and nature. While mass tourism already existed on Rügen during the GDR era, the negative environmental impacts of tourism, like traffic problems or conflicts with nature protection were not as serious as they have become recently. The increased use of the car for individual transportation, new patterns of recreation, and the concentration of tourism to a few weeks in the summer contribute to increased problems.

There is little agreement on the desirable path of development on Rügen. The idea of the Rügen model region can be traced back to the “Gray Pamphlet” published by the Initiative for Rügen, although the Rügen Business Association also claims to have invented the term (interviews). After the district councillor (Landrat) was elected from among this group and the Alliance for Rügen became the third strongest political force, the idea of a Rügen model region was promoted and has been a fixture of the regional political agenda ever since. However, there are many different perceptions of the actual character of the model.

64

Key characteristics of the case study areas

4.2.2 The island of Hiiumaa in Estonia Background Hiiumaa, the second largest island in Estonia, is situated in the eastern part of the Baltic Sea (Map 1). The shortest distance to the Estonian mainland is 22 km. The Swedish coast lies about 250 km to the west and the Finnish coast is about 120 km to the north. The total land area of the island of Hiiumaa is 1023 km². The coastline is 325 km long. There are one town and four rural municipalities on Hiiumaa, and together they constitute the smallest county in Estonia. (See Map 3.)

The settlements and main roads were built along the coast, leaving the island’s interior sparsely inhabited. Typical landscapes for Hiiumaa are pine, mixed spruce, and deciduous forests, swampy thickets, juniper shrubs, coastal meadows, and bogs. Forests cover 70% of the total land area, making the county the most forested in Estonia. There are marshy areas in the center of the island (7%), but 20% of the total land area is agricultural. The landscape has changed considerably in the last few decades, however; in the 1940s the share of forest land was not more than 20% and more than 60% was agricultural and extensive pasture land (Hellström 1993).

Hiiumaa was a relatively closed island during the Soviet era, before Estonia regained independence in 1991. For example, visitors needed a special permit to enter the island. The coast was a military zone, which was not accessible, and building was not allowed. Because of its inaccessibility, the coast lost its importance to daily life on Hiiumaa, leaving it in a nearly natural state. Due to the rising of land (3 mm annually), many older coastal settlements are now relatively far away from the water.

The island of Hiiumaa is part of the West Estonian Archipelago Biosphere Reserve, which was designated by UNESCO in 1990. It consists of three main islands, Hiiumaa, Saaremaa, and Vormsi, as well as hundreds of smaller islands. The total land area of these islands comprises 4,040 km², and 11,150 km² of the surrounding sea is included in the biosphere reserve. A zone of seven nautical miles creates the sea border of the biosphere reserve. Hiiumaa was chosen as a case study area because of the particularly interesting efforts that were made to reach an agreement about the island’s future development (see e.g.

Development Concept...1993; Support to the Coordination...1995). Furthermore, the biosphere reserve is actively involved in the discussions about the island’s future course of development.

People and the economy Hiiumaa has 11,900 inhabitants, 4,400 of whom live in Kärdla, the capital city and only town on the island. The highest population level on the island was reached shortly after Estonian independence in 1918, a total of 17,000, and by the end the 1960s it had declined to 9,700. In the mid-seven65

ties there was a new population growth trend, as employment opportunities with good wages attracted people from the mainland. In comparison to other regions in Estonia, the ethnic composition is very homogenous, and the Russian minority is only 1-2% of the total population.

Historically, Hiiumaa’s economy has always been diverse. Agriculture was its main livelihood, but never the only occupation. In the 17th and 18th centuries, lumber and carpentry was important. The island’s shipbuilding industry began in the 16th century, lasting until the beginning of the 20th century (Development Concept...1993, 11). There has also been industrial production on Hiiumaa. A glass factory was established as early as 1628, and the capital of Kärdla grew up around a cloth factory after the mid-1880s. In addition to glass and clothing, artificial silk, hats, bicycles, bricks, butter, cheese, sausages, roof tiles, lime, and tar were produced for local markets as well as for export. By the 1930s, Kärdla had become an important export center in Estonia.

During World War II, the industrial sites and the port of Kärdla were destroyed (Tiirinen 1991, 8990). This was a hard blow for the island’s industry, and despite the variety of products, since then it has been rather unimportant to its economy, with the exception of the capital Kärdla. (Development concept...1993, 11.)

The postwar Soviet period brought more changes to Hiiumaa’s economy. The collectivization of land put an end to private farms and associations. After the fusion of collective farms in the middle of the seventies, there were five farms and a collective fishery on Hiiumaa. The processing of meat, milk, and fish was also centralized. Forestry did not play an important role in Hiiumaa’s economy during this time. (Development concept...1993, 12.)

Small-scale coastal fishing for subsistence and commercial use, which was one of the main secondary occupations on the island, suffered a great setback in the fifties because Hiiumaa was a strategically important border area. Free coastal navigation was prohibited and small private crafts were even destroyed by the government (Tiirinen 1991, 50, 56). The tradition of small boatbuilding and coastal fishing was thus put to an end. But during the seventies and eighties, the Kolkhoz period, Hiiumaa was well-known for ocean fishing (Development concept... 1993, 19). Even today the largest companies on Hiiumaa are involved in fishing as well as processing and preserving fish products (Hiiumaa - getting to know. 1995, 36-47). The Hiiumaa fleet fishes the Baltic Sea as well as the Atlantic.

After the re-establishment of Estonian independence in 1991, radical changes again occurred: land seized in the Soviet era was returned to former private owners, including most of the agricultural land. In contrast, most of the forest area used to be in state ownership, and thus only small forest parcels will be privatized. Subsequently, the economic structure also changed rapidly. Fishing, fish-processing 66

Key characteristics of the case study areas and forestry are currently the main sources of income. There are two enterprises which produce canned fish, one meat factory, and one dairy.

But tourism is looked to for new employment opportunities to the region. (Development Concept...1993, 11.) Currently there are severe social problems, mainly in the island’s rural areas. About 40% of the rural population cannot find work near home. As a result, half of them are unemployed and half work off island, mainly in the prosperous capital of Tallinn, where young people seek job opportunities (Support to the Coordination...1995).

Main actors Hiiumaa is one of Estonia’s fifteen counties. The head of the county is nominated by the central government, but must also be approved by the council of municipalities. The most important departments of the county government for this research are the Regional Development Department (Regionaalse arengu osakond), the Environmental Department (Keskkonnaosakond), the Economic Department (Majandusosakond) and the Land Department (Maa-amet), which supervises land reform in the county.

The Tuuru Research and Education Center for Hiiumaa used to be part of the Regional Development Department, with a mission defined by the county government to “prepare and complete the action plans for Hiiumaa, initiate development projects, gather, analyze and systemize information and develop education”. After recent organizational restructuring, it is now a non-profit, non-governmental organization providing vocational training. Jobs & Society Hiiumaa Enterprise Agency is closely connected to Tuuru Center and gives education and training to local entrepreneurs.

Hiiumaa is divided into five municipalities, four rural communities and one town. These are Käina, Emmaste, Kõrgessaare, Pühalepa, and the Town of Kärdla. Together they founded the Union of Hiiumaa Local Governments. This voluntary organization, which includes leaders of all the local governments, coordinates their various activities, publishing essential information decisions made in local governments in a bimonthly newspaper. Otherwise, political parties have not played an important role on Hiiumaa to date. Local elections, last held in October 1996, have been more focused on individual candidates rather than party politics.

The Hiiumaa Center for the Biosphere Reserve of the West Estonian Archipelago, located in the town of Kärdla, is one of three biosphere reserve centers. It has no regulatory role in natural resource management except for the preparation of the ordinances of the core areas of the biosphere reserve.

For example environmental permits and controlling tasks are carried out by the environmental de67

partment of the county government. The center is actively involved in environmental education, research, and regional planning, and it cooperates closely with the Environmental Department of the County Government.

The ministry of the environment supervises land-use planning as well as the biosphere reserve.

There is a minister for regional development, but he does not have his own ministry. Instead this task has been divided among several ministries. The state administration responsible for the management of forests is the Hiiumaa Bureau of the Board of Forestry.

Non-governmental organizations on the island include three educational societies and groups belonging to the ‘Village Movement’ (Kodunkant). The latter, initiated by village residents and various ministries, promotes the idea of villages as the centers of development. There are many similarities between the educational societies and the Village Movement. Other NGOs or people’s initiatives are not actively involved in environmental and development issues. A club of entrepreneurs was established in 1997, but is currently not very active.

The Institute for Island Development is a public research and development institution located on the neighboring island of Saaremaa. It is currently drawing up and implementing the government’s regional programme for development and operation of the islands’ infrastructure and system of public services.

Many international actors have been active on Hiiumaa. For example, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) is involved in financing the Hiiumaa Development Action Plan 2010.

The Center for Extension Studies of the University of Turku in Finland has set up plans for ecotourism and sustainable development within two project management courses. And the Helsinki Commission has financed a management plan for Käina Bay. Hiiumaa has taken part in various networks and other forms of cooperation with other islands. The largest islands in the Baltic Sea have formed a common interest group, “The Islands of the Baltic Sea”, also called “Baltic Seven Islands”, or just B7. Both Hiiumaa and Rügen have joined this group.

Cooperation within the seven largest Baltic Sea islands intends to strengthen the position of these islands in policy making both nationally and internationally. In the future, ways to exchange of knowledge and experience within the fields of environmental protection, tourism, businesses and democracy are being commonly sought.

Another network in which Hiiumaa participated was the ‘Eco-islands network’, which supported projects encouraging environmentally conscious tourism and the ‘Eco-islands Newsletter’ and seminars provided a forum for exchanging experience. On Hiiumaa, for example, a “Green Label” was launched for environmentally friendly tourism enterprises by the biosphere reserve center.

68

Key characteristics of the case study areas Local Media There are two local newspapers on the island, Hiiumaa and Hiiu-Leht. There is also a broadcasting station called Hiiu Radio. In radio, however, news is brief and broadcast three times a day, and it can not be heard all over the island.

The Hiiumaa newspaper had two thousand subscribers in 1996, and five hundred were sold on newsstands. Thus the paper reaches the majority of Hiiumaa’s 3600 households (interview), even though the price of the paper is currently relatively high compared to larger national newspapers.

People with low-income levels can thus not afford it (interviews). Hiiumaa is published three times a week and Hiiu-Leht appears once a week.

At the end of 1995, the union of local governments decided to establish its own newspaper, called Hiiu-Teataja. In the beginning it was delivered free of charge to every household once a month.

Currently it is printed twice a month and costs a little less than Hiiumaa. While Hiiumaa is generally favorable towards the county government (interviews, HT 16.8.1996), Hiiu-Teataja, which appears only twice a month, is more sympathetic to local governments. This is one indicator of the conflict between these levels of government, an aspect which will be further discussed in Chapter 6.2.2.

However, because they appear at different intervals, these papers compete to a limited extent.

Problem analysis Different actors have different perceptions about the most acute problems on the island. However, there seems to be quite a broad social consensus about the most desirable kind of development scenario on the island. There is no strong polarization between ‘environmentalists’ and ‘developers’ as there is on Rügen, and on a basic level the need for environmentally sound economic development is generally accepted. The main reason for the few conflicts is obviously the low level of investment in the public infrastructure as well as in private businesses. Additionally, tourism development is generally on small scale. For example, no big hotel projects have been so far planned or carried out.

None of the interview partners deemed it appropriate to have such large scale industries or mass tourism on the island.21 From the socio-economic point of view the most severe problems on the island are related to unemployment, transport, and education. The official unemployment rate is currently 2-3%, but not 21

Two larger development projects have been rejected because of insufficient environmental standards. Permission for water polluting activities are given by the Environmental Department of the County Government. The construction of a shrimpprocessing plant in Kassari was rejected due to insufficient treatment of sewages. Another rejected project was planned peat extraction for export. It was argued that the project would have a negative impact on ground water. In addition it was unclear if an Environmental Impact Assessment was needed (interview).

69

all of those seeking jobs are registered, and many of them work on the mainland. In addition, small scale farming, hunting, and fishing provide a limited means of making a living. (interview.)

The transport problems were mentioned by several interview partners. The high price of the ferry tickets and long waiting times due to the small capacity of the ferry are major obstacles for economic development. Insufficient support for transport from the central state government is a main object of criticism. The absence of possibilities for higher education was also considered problematic. Vocational training is provided by the Hiiumaa Research and Education Center Tuuru, but in the countryside the education provided is particularly insufficient.

Environmental problems are not highly prioritized in the public discussions, but on the other hand, the risks related to future economic development are generally well known. In comparison to many other islands in the Baltic Sea, the environment is well-preserved. This is mainly because during the last fifty years Hiiumaa lay behind the ‘iron curtain’, and was virtually closed to visitors from outside (Kokovkin 1993, 44). Although big changes in land use and landscape were made in the Soviet era (e.g. intensification of agriculture and drying of wetlands) the Soviet system also kept the island relatively untouched. Hiiumaa’s coastline remained in natural condition, diversity of natural landscapes (forests, certain types of wetlands, coastal landscapes and islets) increased due to little exploitation (Hellström 1993). After the breakdown of the Soviet system, the nutrient runoff caused by municipal sewage, cattle farming, and industry decreased remarkably due to the collapse of agricultural production and the reduction of industrial production.

Also several treatment plants have been constructed with the help of foreign funding. However, water pollution remains a problem in the vicinity of sewage treatment plants and the small food processing industry.

Future economic development will undoubtedly bring more conflicts with environmental protection. Several interview partners estimated that when coastal land is returned and a real estate market is created, the number of conflicts will increase. One of the first examples of coastal land-use conflicts is discussed in Chapter 6.2.4.

4.2.3 Archipelago Sea in Finland Background The Archipelago Sea is situated in the Southwest of Finland. Hundreds of thousands of small islands and islets extend over an area of about 50 x 50 km between the Finnish mainland and the autonomous Åland islands. The landscapes have been strongly shaped by human activity, since the

70

Key characteristics of the case study areas coast and the islands were among the first areas to be inhabited in Finland. Today people mainly live on the bigger islands, leaving the outer archipelago without permanent population.

The Archipelago Sea Biosphere Reserve was designated by UNESCO in February 1994. The land area is 360 km² and sea area 3,840 km². The biosphere reserve is located in the municipalities of Houtskär, Korpo, Nagu, and Dragsfjärd, although the main islands of the municipalities of Korpo and Nagu are excluded. Only a small archipelagic area of the municipality of Dragsfjärd belongs to the biosphere reserve. However, as stated earlier, in this study the main islands of Korpo and Nagu will also be included as they, due to their size, are important constituent islands in the archipelago. (See Map 4.)

The core areas of the biosphere reserve consist of the Archipelago Sea National Park, which is located in the outer archipelago, close to open waters of the Baltic Sea. The park was founded following an Act of Parliament passed already in 1983. The islands and rocky islets belonging to the park are scattered in the archipelago between privately owned islands. Since 1983, the state began to purchase privately owned land in order to gradually enlarge the park area, which currently comprises 22 km² of land and 220 km² of water22 . The land area of the park is intended to be enlarged to 30 km² (Nurmela 1994, 40). The first management plan for the park was published in 1990 (Saaristomeren kansallispuiston...1994). An update of the management plan is currently being drafted.

People and the economy There are 1,200 people living in the biosphere reserve, but together with the main islands of Korpo, and Nagu, the number of people living in the case study area reaches approximately 3,300. The number of permanent inhabitants has been relatively stable in recent years. Some migration from outer archipelago to the main islands has occurred. Leisure housing boosts the population, especially in the summer months. There is approximately one summer cottage per one permanent local inhabitant in the municipalities of Houtskär, Korpo, and Nagu (Kestävän kehityksen...1995, 6). The Archipelago Sea has great importance for tourism, especially motor boating and sailing.

The majority of the local population (80%) speaks Swedish. The municipalities have two official languages, Swedish and Finnish (only Swedish is spoken on Houtskär). 23 The population along the northern boundary of the Archipelago Sea Biosphere Reserve is mainly Finnish-speaking. In terms of social interaction and cooperation between municipalities, this border has traditionally been rather clear.

22

The regional authorities were empowered with the right to purchase land. At present the newly established Southwest Finland Regional Environmental Center has taken on this task.

23 Finland has two official languages: Finnish and Swedish. The Swedish speaking minority (4%) is concentrated on the south and west coast.

71

The most important sources of livelihood are services, agriculture, fish farming, fishing, and to some extent forestry and tourism. The state administration and services (e.g. seafaring administration, coastguard, naval defense, and the mail) is an important employer on several small islands and also on the main island of the Korpo municipality (Lehtilä 1994, 9; Hokka 1992, 4). Local governments employ also a considerable number of people. Tourism is particularly intensive in the municipality of Nagu. The unemployment rate in the region is relatively low in comparison to many other rural regions in Finland. For example, the municipality of Houtskär, the most isolated due to its geographic location, nevertheless has an unemployment rate of 10% (summer 1995).

Main actors There are no branches of government at the county or district levels. The Archipelago Sea belongs to the Province of Turku and Pori. The provincial government cooperates both with the authorities of the state district administration and with the municipal administration. The provincial government is not elected through public elections. The size and number of provinces will be subject to change in the near future.

Together with other Swedish-speaking communities, the municipalities with land and water areas within the biosphere reserve (Houtskär, Korpo, Nagu, and Dragsfjärd), founded an organization called Åbolands Kommunalstämma to promote their common interests within the Archipelago Sea. The strongest local political party in all municipalities is the Swedish Folk Party (Svenska folkpartiet). In Houtskär it is the only party represented in the municipal council, while in Nagu and Korpo, a non-aligned group has some strength. In Dragsfjärd, which is industrialized, the Social Democratic Party (Sosialidemokraattinen puolue) and the Left Alliance (Vasemmistoliitto) play significant roles. In the latest local elections of October 1996, no major changes occurred in comparison to the previous election in 1992 (Saaristomeren biosfäärialueen...1994, 5-7).

The administration of the biosphere reserve functions within the context of the Southwest Finland Regional Environment Center located in the town of Turku. The only full-time employee is supported jointly for three years by the environment center and the Finnish Forest and Park Service. The Archipelago Sea National Park is managed by a separate Archipelago Park District Office, which is a part of the Finnish Forest and Park Service. In 1997 the two moved to the same building, although they remained separate entities. The administrative structure is presented in more detail in Chapter 5.1.2.

The Regional Council of Southwest Finland is the authority responsible for regional development planning and land-use planning on the regional level. The council is an organization of the munici72

Key characteristics of the case study areas palities, whose representatives serve on its executive board. There is an Archipelago Board (Saaristolautakunta) and an Agent for the Archipelago who is dedicated to archipelago issues.

The Southwest Finland Regional Environment Center was founded in 1995 and is responsible for environmental protection on the regional level. Its tasks include confirming land-use plans, designating protected areas, and carrying out monitoring on water quality. The Ministry of the Environment has overall control, but the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry controls the use and management of water resources.

The most important ministries for this study are the Ministry of the Interior, the Ministry of the Environment, and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. The Ministry of the Interior has a consulting board on archipelago issues (Saaristoasiain neuvottelukunta), which is involved in archipelago development through various campaigns (e.g. promoting more intensive use of leisure houses).

Important sectoral agencies of the state administration are the Defense Force, the Coast Guard, the Archipelago Shipping Authority (Saaristomeren merenkulkupiiri) as well as the Turku district of the Finnish National Road Administration (Turun tiepiiri). Other important organizations are the Forestry Board of Southwest Finland, the Turku Rural Business District, the Farma Rural Center, Åbo Handelskammare and Åbolands Turistförening.

There are few non-governmental organizations in the Archipelago. For example there are no Village Associations, as in many other places in Finland. There are however “Home Area Associations” (Hembygdföreningar), who focus on the conservation of the local cultural heritage. The Lions Club and the Rotary Club also have local branches. A Swedish-speaking environmental NGO with headquarters in Helsinki, the Finnish Society for Nature and Environment (Natur och Miljö), has been actively involved in environmental debates in the Archipelago Sea, but it has no locally based group and there are few members in the archipelago. A Finnish speaking environmental NGO, Finnish Association for Nature Conservation (Suomen luonnonsuojeluliitto) has been involved in land-use planning in the archipelago, although it is not as active in marine issues. It has a local group in Parainen (Paraisten luonnonsuojeluyhdistys), a nearby municipality on the mainland. On the national level, both the Finnish Society for Nature and Environment and the Youth Organization of the Finnish Association for Nature Conservation have demanded that the government should launch a crisis programme to fight the ongoing pollution of the Baltic Sea. There are numerous organizations involved in regional development in the Archipelago Sea. One of the intellectual contributors in the region is the University of Turku, which provides adult education, often combined with development projects. It has had specific archipelago programmes 73

(currently rural programmes). Also Houtskärs Kyrkliga Folkhögskolan has offered courses to entrepreneurs. The Center for Extension Studies of the University of Turku has been involved in the biosphere reserve by setting up a plan for sustainable development. The Archipelago Institute of Åbo Akademi carries out research and publishes a quarterly journal called Skärgård (Archipelago) in Swedish language. Kompassi is the name of an information center for the environment established as a joint effort by the biosphere reserve and the nature studies school of the Archipelago Sea (ÅU 10.10.1996). There are also organizations for international cooperation, including among others the Archipelago Cooperation of the Nordic Council of Ministers (Nordiska Ministerrådets Skärgårdssamarbete).

Local media The most important regional newspaper is the Åbo Underrettelser. Another important newspaper in the Swedish language is the Hufvudstadsbladet, which however has no regional editor in the Archipelago Sea. It thus concentrates more on issues with national importance and is published in Helsinki. The Ålands Tidningar, which is the regional newspaper of the autonomous Swedish-speaking province of Åland, located west of the Archipelago Sea, is important for the Swedish speaking population. The regional broadcasting station in Swedish is called Radio Åboland.

Two Finnish newspapers gain importance only in the summer months, when Finnish-speaking ‘summer folk’ (owners of summer cottages, boaters and tourists) arrive. 24 These are the Turun Sanomat, a regional newspaper, and the largest Finnish newspaper, the Helsingin Sanomat. The regional broadcasting station in Finnish language is Meriradio.

Problem analysis In the following I will describe what socio-economic and environmental problems are considered to be most important. The observations are based mainly on interviews and newspaper articles. Because problems are perceived differently by various actors, I also analyze the relative importance they assign to each issue, and the interrelationships thought to exist between perceived socio-economic and environmental problems.

From the socio-economic point of view, the idea of a ‘living archipelago’ was stressed by most interview partners. As a nation, Finland has maintained a strong regional policy to keep the archi24

Permanent inhabitants of the Archipelago Sea often use the words “summer folk” for this group of people. The year-round use of cottages as second homes makes the distinction between permanent inhabitants and visitors increasingly difficult.

74

Key characteristics of the case study areas pelago as well as other peripheral and distressed areas inhabited (e.g. Andersson 1997). The Archipelago law has secured good traffic connections and additional financial support for archipelago municipalities. But due to the economic crisis in the beginning of the 1990s, state subsidies were reduced, and simultaneously savings and privatization in the public sector had negative effects on services and employment in small municipalities. These included post office closings and relocations of banks and other services to the mainland, which have understandably caused irritation and fear about the future provision of services.

The importance of employment opportunities provided by the state (piloting, coast guarding, ferry traffic) has traditionally been important in the Archipelago Sea. On the other hand traditional economic sectors, like agriculture, fishing and forestry employ less and less people, and under current EU and national agricultural policy the situation is not likely going to improve. Tourism is being seen as one of the growing economic sectors in the archipelago, but currently it employs only a few people. The migration of young people in particular to other areas and the change to traditional economic structures have caused fear about the future. There seems to be a clear trend towards a decrease in the role of primary and secondary production, while the importance of the Archipelago Sea for recreation increases.

There are sharp conflicts of interest between permanent residents and ‘summer folk’. People living permanently in the archipelago are worried about the area becoming a summer paradise for the leisure class. In the two summer months (mid-June to mid-August), the population greatly multiplies when people come to visit their summer cottages by boat or car.

Meanwhile, nature protection is often considered a hindrance to economic activities in the archipelago. Conflicts are mostly related to fish farming, construction, and forestry. Perhaps even more important are the conflicts between traditional rights, ownership rights, and nature protection. Issues that were most hotly debated in a recent seminar in Nagu on the biosphere reserve included fishing rights, hunting rights (especially the right to hunt migratory birds during springtime), and restrictions caused by the ‘Natura 2000’ -programme.

Many interview partners considered the most urgent environmental problem to be the eutrophication of the Archipelago Sea. This issue is difficult because it is caused by air pollution, agriculture, forestry, and sewage from industry and dwellings. It has been difficult to address this problem on a local level due to the fact that the municipalities are economically dependent on fish farming, which has raised heated debates in local and national media. To some extent fish farming is a taboo theme, which is simply not taken up: “It is one economic sector which you can not wipe away just like that.

75

But you can not just pretend it does not exist” (interview). The local effects of fish farming are clearly visible, yet there is no agreement on its role in the total nutrient load.

There are other environmental issues that may cause even more serious conflicts in the future, however. They include wind power and sand-dredging from the sea bottom. So far these issues have been raised in discussion only on a limited scale.

4.3 Comparability of the case study areas Common features of the case study areas include the island or archipelagic conditions, the geographical position relatively close to mainland, the sources of livelihood, and their important role in nature and landscape protection nationally and internationally. There are however also significant differences among the areas. Firstly, the density of the human population varies considerably. While the population density on Hiiumaa is around ten persons per km², it is the eightfold on Rügen. In the Archipelago Sea, there are approximately five persons per km², although the geographic character with scattered islands makes this figure rather arbitrary.

Secondly, traffic connections are different. There is a bridge from mainland to the island of Rügen, while the two other areas are accessible by ferry. Thirdly, while Hiiumaa and Rügen are geographically coherent islands, the Archipelago Sea consists of a great number of smaller and bigger islands.

Figure 13 shows some key figures of case study areas and the biosphere reserves.

BR established

Population

Land area (Km2)

Water area (Km2)

Rügen Southeast Rügen BR

1991

78,300 11,500

974 109

126

Hiiumaa West Estonian Archipelago BR

1990

11,900 ca. 52,000

1,023 4,040

11,150 (7 miles zone)

-

ca. 3,300

ca. 620

-

1994

1,200

360

3,840

Archipelago Sea (with main islands) Archipelago Sea BR

Figure 13. Key figures of the case study areas and the areas that are actually designated as biosphere reserves (Sources: Key facts 1996; Biosphärenreservate in Deutschland 1995; Post 1995; Kestävän kehityksen...1995; Pank et al. 1996).

The case study areas also differ in regard to political background. Both Rügen and Hiiumaa were once islands belonging to socialist countries (until 1990 and 1991 respectively), while the region of 76

Key characteristics of the case study areas the Archipelago Sea has a longer democratic tradition. In socialist countries such basic democratic structures as free elections were non-existent, and non-governmental organizations were either not allowed or under state supervision to a greater or lesser extent. Currently there are local elections and other democratic institutions in all case study areas. But the former political systems seem to have a strong impact on the attitudes towards planning and politics.

For example, the local population of Hiiumaa is generally very skeptical towards local and state administration and politics in general. Even on the municipal level, the amount of trust in political representatives and public administration is low. According to a survey initiated by the Hiiumaa Biosphere Reserve Center and carried out in 1994, 70% of Hiiumaa residents were convinced that they cannot participate in decision-making on the local level (Island and Mainland Views...1995, 8).

A point of comparison is provided by a survey conducted among one thousand adult citizens in Finland in the same year (1994). According to this study, the majority of Finns (53%) believed themselves to be able to influence decisions made on the municipal level. Voting in local elections, personal contacts to representatives, and replying to public-opinion polls were considered to be the most effective ways of influencing public decision-making. Obviously the different historical background plays a significant role in this respect, and therefore poses a serious challenge to any effort to improve possibilities for public participation in planning and decision-making.

Only Rügen maintains an elected district administration encompassing the whole island. Although Hiiumaa also has a county government, its members are not directly elected but nominated by the central government. In the Archipelago Sea, no political body encompasses the respective geographical area. The Turku and Pori provincial government represents the upper level governance above the municipal level and encompasses the whole of southwestern Finland. It acts as a mediator between the central government and municipalities.

The former political system also has direct implications on the holding of land and housing in the case study areas. Land used to be state property on Rügen and Hiiumaa, while in the Archipelago Sea most of the land is in private ownership, including the coastal strip. Small family farms on Rügen and Hiiumaa were collectivized during the socialist era, and they were run by large state-owned agricultural enterprises. On Rügen and Hiiumaa, land is being returned to former owners, but this process is slow and cumbersome. Unresolved questions of ownership cause many difficulties, not only for agricultural enterprises; they sometimes hinder needed investments.

The intensity of tourism differs significantly among the three case-study areas. The rapid growth of the tourism industry on Rügen has encouraged a great deal of speculation in land and property 77

(Petschull 1993; Preller 1993). Critics have claimed that in many cases the local population has benefited little from this development, and subsequently unemployment is still high (Preller 1993).

Hiiumaa and the Archipelago Sea also hope to benefit from increased tourism, but similar pressure as on R端gen cannot be expected in the near future. The level of outside investment, particularly in tourism, is currently high on R端gen, while it is rather low on Hiiumaa and in the Archipelago Sea. The type of conflict between environmental and economic goals can be characterized as latent in the Archipelago Sea and on Hiiumaa, while it is overt in the conflict on R端gen. Main reasons for this seem to be the intensive pressures (mass tourism, investments, construction) and the presence of Characteristic

R端gen

Hiiumaa

Archipelago Sea

level of economic development

- high

political system

- until 1989 part of a social- - until 1991 part of a social- - western democracy ist country (German ist country (Soviet Union) - long democratic tradition Democratic Republic) - short democratic tradition - political system adopted from West-Germany - short democratic tradition

distribution of wealth and work

- not even

- low

- high

- not even

- even

level of outside invest- - high ments in touristic and other economic development

- very low

- low

main socio-economic issues

- high unemployment - poverty in rural areas - migration

- preservation of economic stability

- latent conflicts

- mostly latent conflicts; occasionally open

- high unemployment - migration

type of conflict between - open conflicts, environmental and eco- - campaigning nomic goals

relationship between en- - strong polarization - mainly consensus vironmentalists and devel- - conflict between private - appearing conflicts opers property rights, outside in- concerning land use vestors and nature and landscape conservation

- mainly consensus - conflict between private property rights and nature conservation

number of organized inter- - high ests groups

- low

- quite high

environmental NGOs ac- - several tively involved in the region

- almost none

- few

Figure 14. Some characteristics of the case study areas.

78

Key characteristics of the case study areas active environmental NGOs and the well-defined system of protected areas, which have direct consequences for land use.

Rügen in particular has experienced a ‘boom’ of development plans and concepts. Numerous sectoral plans and concepts have been set up. Similarly, in the Archipelago Sea various actors have initiated archipelago projects aiming at enhancing local employment and entrepreneurship. Figure 14 compares some essential characteristics of the case study areas.

One may argue that since the case study areas are quite clearly at different ‘stages’ of development, comparisons are likely to be irrelevant. Yet the differences can actually provide a justification for comparative study. Rose (1973, 70) has pointed out that “as some nations [in this study regions] are ‘ahead’ in their problems or solutions, then comparisons can provide a prospect of a future to be sought or avoided”.

The international framework of the case study areas is strongly influenced by the European Union, whose member countries include Germany and Finland. Finland joined the EU in 1995 along with Sweden and Austria. Estonia is one of seven former East-bloc nations conducting negotiations with the EU and it is currently making strong efforts towards membership. The country has already begun adapting its legislation to the requirements of the Union, and in February 1998 the Association Agreement between Estonia and the European Union came into effect (Estonian Review 1998)25 . The agreement created a markedly wider framework for Estonia to conduct relations with the EU, and was meant to help prepare it for membership.

European Union-funded projects (e.g. PHARE - Programme) in Estonia are one form of cooperation already taking place.

25

Fishing now provides a source of income to only a few inhabitants in the archipelago Sea. The importance of coastal fishing began to decline in the 1950s (Eklund 1994). Fishing for subsistence is still popular. Here nets for Baltic herring are being cleaned.

Photo: Martin Öhman

The Association Agreement came simultaneously into effect also in the other two Baltic countries of Latvia and Lithuania.

79

Not all archipelago inhabitants were fishermen or farmers. The shipping routes of commercial vessels and the navy plied the Archipelago Sea in the Middle Ages and a chain of pilot stations was established. The profession of pilots was passed on from father to son. The picture shows the staff of the pilot station in Utö (ca. 1910). Today pilot service Photo: Martin Öhman is provided centrally from Pärnäs in Nagu.

Nomadic seal hunters were probably the first people in the Archipelago Sea area. Archeological excavations on the island of Kökar indicate that intensive seal hunting took place as early as the Bronze Age. A bag made of seal skin from the turn of the 20th century.

Photo: Martin Öhman

80

The biosphere reserves of Southeast Rügen, the West Estonian Archipelago, and the Archipelago Sea 5.1 Designation of the biosphere reserves Rügen The addition of the Southeast Rügen Biosphere Reserve to the international list of biosphere reserves was approved by UNESCO on March 6, 1991. In the same year, the biosphere reserve administration started its work. The process of designating the reserve was brief and took place during a period of great political change in the German Democratic Republic (GDR). The designation of the biosphere reserve was part of the National Park Programme. The preparation of the programme started in 1989 and it was adopted by the Council of Ministers of GDR in March 1990.

On September 12, 1990, only three weeks before the unification of East and West Germany, the areas designated in the National Park Programme came under official protection. Altogether the programme comprised five national parks, six biosphere reserves and three nature parks. Four of these were located completely or partly on Rügen: the Southeast Rügen Biosphere Reserve; the Jasmund National Park, which was designated in the northern part of the island and includes the area around the famous “Königsstuhl” cliff; the Vorpommersche Boddenlandschaft National Park, which covers a small part of the coastal land and waters in the western part of the island; and finally the Nature Park, which covers the whole island (excluding the other protected areas). The nomination of the nature park was provisional and has not yet been confirmed by the district government.

The initiative for the national park programme originated from the ranks of the nature protection and environmental movement in the GDR. During turbulent times of political change in the GDR, activists from these groups saw the possibility of establishing new protected areas. It soon became apparent that the unification of East and West Germany would take place, and in order to have the areas designated, action had to be taken quickly. The process of designating protected areas within the legal system of West Germany was perceived as much more complicated and time-consuming due to intensive consultations with various government agencies, municipalities and interest groups. This lengthy process was not necessitated by GDR legislation and the politi81

cal will for designating such areas already existed. Inclusion in the Unification Treaty made it possible to safeguard the protection provisions even after the unification of East and West Germany (Guidelines for the...1995, 19).26 The underlying assumption of the initiators of the biosphere reserve (as well as other protected areas) was that the areas would be exposed to high pressures caused by increased tourism, recreation and construction. Thus the protected areas were established among others in order to be able to hinder unwanted developments. A number of older protected areas already existed on Rügen.

In the following I will concentrate on the designation of the Southeast Rügen Biosphere Reserve.

Municipalities that would be affected by the biosphere reserve were consulted and agreed to be part of the biosphere reserve. According to interviews with heads of municipalities the biosphere reserve was at that time seen as an opportunity, so that not much time was spent analyzing what the ordinance of the biosphere reserve could mean in practice. Also the legislative arrangements evolved only after the reserves had been designated, as for example the building law. Thus, the practical implications of the designation were clear to perhaps no one at that time. According to one head of a municipality: We had other things to do too. We were told that the biosphere reserve would be something that takes care of nature. After the political change we neither had the time nor the interest to study the biosphere reserve concept. Our daily work occupied us completely. We did not even read the biosphere reserve ordinance through. We just looked over it and said: ‘This is for nature protection, this must be good’. Afterwards it turned out that considerable restrictions accompanied it.

A representative of the biosphere reserve has a similar understanding of the process of designating the biosphere reserve: When the heads of the municipalities agreed to give their signature and seal, they of course did not know what would come about. They did not have any concrete ideas about it, only that it is an international program, which was thought to provide help in local development. What resulted was a nature protection authority which denies construction permits. Now they are not at all keen on it, some of the heads of municipalities are actually making war against us.

The criticism that no extensive public participation took place when the biosphere was established was raised in several interviews. In fact the whole legal basis of the biosphere reserve was later questioned in a lawsuit (see Chapter 6.2.4).

26

The national park program of the GDR gave a push for designating new protected areas also in the western federal states. The debate regarding the designation of protected areas has involved considerable conflict, and in many Länder it has become highly political (Hellström and Welp 1996). Discussions have also been very lively concerning the objectives of national parks, biosphere reserves, and nature parks (e.g. Kaether 1994, Großschutzgebiete als strukturpolitische...1995).

82

The biosphere reserves of Southeast Rügen, the West Estonian Archipelago, and the Archipelago Sea Hiiumaa There were protected areas on Hiiumaa already before the establishment of the biosphere reserve.

The Hiiumaa Islets Landscape Reserve was established in 1971 and is located in the southeastern part of Hiiumaa. It covers a 15 km long chain of islets in the sea. The Käina Bay Ornithological Reserve, an important breeding ground and resting place for migratory birds, was also established in 1971. Since 1989 it has belonged to the list of Important Bird Areas (IBA). (Nature conservation in Estonia 1994.)

In the early 1980s there were discussions about establishing a marine park (merepark) around Hiiumaa. The initiators were mainly representatives of the existing landscape reserve. Zoning was contrived so that the proposed marine park would have included coastal areas extending inland up to the main roads. Due mostly to the opposition of local residents and some members of the district government, however, the park was not established. (interview.)

In the middle of 1980 there were discussions among nature protection professionals about establishing a biosphere reserve. The first proposal presented in 1987 was to designate only the island of Saaremaa as a biosphere reserve. But there was interest among nature protection professionals on Hiiumaa to include Hiiumaa in the reserve. A research group was established to prepare a more concrete proposal to establish the biosphere reserve. After one and a half years, preliminary zonation was ready, including, in addition to both islands, the surrounding islets, the sea, and coastal areas on the mainland as well (Matsalu Bay and Haapsalu), while the areas on the mainland were excluded from the final proposal. (interview.)

The West Estonian Biosphere Reserve was founded on a declaration plane in the Supreme Soviet of Estonia in December 1988. In practice, however, it was established after the completion of preparatory studies and creation of provisory zonation through an ordinance passed by the Government of the Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic in December 1989. UNESCO approval to add it to the list of biosphere reserves was confirmed in March 1990. In August of the next year Estonia re-established its independence. The Hiiumaa Biosphere Reserve Center was established in the summer of 1990 (Uljas et al. 1996, 31).

The district governments played an important role in establishing the reserve, and initially financed the activities as well. The main motivation for the efforts of establishing a biosphere reserve was, according to one of the initiators and nature protection professionals, to protect Saaremaa and Hiiumaa against Russian ‘megaprojects’ (interview). Further military activities, port development, and subsequent clearing of land were considered to be major threats to the islands’ environment.

There was no significant local opposition against the biosphere reserve: 83

It was the time of the singing revolution and freedom. People had a positive attitude.

There is little documentation about the process of establishing the biosphere reserve. One of the interview partners criticized the fact that there was no broad discussion about the reserve during the initial phase: The reserve was established during Soviet era when nobody asked the people for their opinion.

Through successful lobbying the initiators achieved the establishment of the biosphere reserve.

Despite the fact that no there was public participation, the biosphere reserve is generally well accepted on the island. The legitimacy of the reserve was never seriously questioned, in the media or elsewhere.

Archipelago Sea There are currently two biosphere reserves in Finland: the Archipelago Sea Biosphere Reserve and the North Karelian Biosphere Reserve in Eastern Finland, which belongs to the boreal woodlands ecosystem type and is sparsely populated. The process of designating the two biosphere reserves took just under ten years.

For some time UNESCO had repeatedly urged Finland to establish biosphere reserves, until the national MAB-Committee (within the Academy of Finland) eventually launched the process (interview). It began in 1985-86 with a pilot study for selecting sites for inclusion in the international biosphere reserve network (Vickholm 1986). Statements concerning the pilot study were solicited from various parties, including the newly established Ministry of the Environment. On the basis of this study, a seminar entitled “Establishing a biosphere reserve in Finland” was organized in February 1987. Thirty representatives of research institutes and public administration took part in the seminar and a report was published (Rajasärkkä 1987). The establishment of one or two biosphere reserves was suggested, one in the Archipelago Sea and possibly one in North Karelia.

The Scientific Committee for the Environment (within the Academy of Finland) proposed that the Ministry of the Environment should establish a working group to prepare the designation of biosphere reserves. In 1988 the Biosphere Reserve Working Group under the Ministry of the Environment begun its work to determine the applicability of the existing Archipelago National Park (established already in 1982) and surrounding areas as a biosphere reserve, and to evaluate the need for another biosphere reserve in the mainland of Finland. Representatives of the Forest and Park Service, Ministry of the Environment, and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry were permanent members. In addition there were two permanent experts from the Association of Finnish Local and 84

The biosphere reserves of Southeast Rügen, the West Estonian Archipelago, and the Archipelago Sea Regional Authorities and the Finland’s Svenska Kommunförbund. The working group had 15 meetings. The municipalities affected were included in the planning process in 1988 when the working group visited the proposed sites (Biosfäärialueiden perustaminen...1989). The working group carried out discussion with representatives of the municipalities of Nagu, Korpo and Houtskär. Also the University of Turku and the Archipelago Development Project were consulted.

A few months later, a seminar was organized in Turku to inform about the biosphere reserve and to get feedback from the local people and the administration. Besides research institutes and government agencies, representatives of municipalities were also present, and local newspapers wrote articles about the seminar. Municipalities demanded clear statements that no further restrictions for land use would be introduced by the biosphere reserve (ÅU 1.12.1988). Regarding the perception of local residents, the same paper wrote that they were to some extent afraid of further regulations. The statement of one inhabitant was cited as follows: “We do not want to live in a reservation and behave according to other people’s expectations, like Indians are forced to do in North America.” In general the role of research was emphasized (TS 1.12.88, see also Helle 1990).

The municipality of Houtskär, the only municipality whose entire land and water area were to lie within the biosphere reserve, accepted the proposal under following conditions: (a) the majority of representatives in the advisory board of the biosphere reserve should be local people, (b) the status of being part of a biosphere reserve shall not restrict economic activities, and (c) there shall be no restrictions in land-use planning; in other words the municipalities shall retain their monopoly on planning (Statement of the municipality council to the Ministry of the Environment concerning the establishment of the biosphere reserve, dated 15.3.1989).

The basis for the zonation was the ‘area of cooperation’ already existing in the Archipelago Sea National Park, which was extended to cover areas north of the main islands of Houtskär, Korpo and Nagu. However, the main islands of the municipalities of Korpo and Nagu were excluded from the biosphere reserve, by request of these two municipalities. The obvious reason for this was the fear that economic development would be restricted. There were discussions about whether to exclude the northern parts of the municipalities, but the final zonation proposed in the working group’s report included these areas (Biosfäärialueiden perustaminen...1989). In addition the report presented an overview of research needs and a proposal for setting up the administration and the advisory board.

The Finnish MAB Committee sent the nomination forms of the North Karelian Biosphere Reserve and the Archipelago Sea Biosphere Reserve to UNESCO. The former was established in 1993 and the latter on May 24, 1994.

85

The process of designating the biosphere can be characterized as a relatively open and well-documented process that included discussions with representatives of various organizations, seminars and reports. However, many interview partners reflected that they knew very little about the biosphere reserve. For example, municipalities wanted to exclude the main islands in order to diminish the risks involved in the effort. The municipalities had also had certain expectations related to new working opportunities, research and funding.

5.2 Structure and tasks of the administration Rügen The responsibility for the protection, maintenance and development of the individual biosphere reserves in Germany lies within the Länder. This includes the safeguarding of the reserves’ legal status and the provision of administrative back-up. Subsequently there are considerable differences between administrative structures as well as financial and human resources of biosphere reserves in different Länder. Biosphere reserves are in most cases supervised by the Länder ministries for nature conservation and landscape management. The MAB National Committee has an advisory role. It publishes MAB reports, which provide information on national and international contributions of the German National Committee for MAB-program. Among the items developed by the committee are the “Guidelines for the Protection, Maintenance and Development of German biosphere reserves”.

(Guidelines for the...1995, 21, 29-30.)

The state of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern has established a National Park Agency which coordinates the National Park Programme of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern on the level of the federal state (Guidelines for the...1995, 30). In the beginning all protected areas on Rügen had their own separate administrations, which were branch offices of the National Park Agency of MecklenburgVorpommern.

In 1993 the administration of the Southeast Rügen Biosphere Reserve had twelve employees (four of whom were serving as conscientious objectors) (OZ 13.7.1993). The administration of protected areas on Rügen was reorganized in the beginning of 1996 (OZ 1.6.1995). The ‘Rügen National Park Agency’ was established to manage all large protected areas on Rügen, including the Jasmund National Park, the biosphere reserve, and the nature park. In 1997 the administration had 55 permanent workers, most of whom were working as rangers. There is still local representation in each of the protected areas, but the main office carries out administrative duties, including issuing statements on land-use plans and other sectoral plans. At the same time the previous overlapping jurisdictions 86

The biosphere reserves of Southeast Rügen, the West Estonian Archipelago, and the Archipelago Sea of the forestry administration and National Park Agency in the national park was eliminated by integrating the forestry administration and the administration for protected areas27.

Administrative functions of biosphere reserves in Germany may range from official opinions to participation in formal public planning and approval procedures, and may even include independent sovereign and regulatory functions (Guidelines for the...1995, 33). On Rügen the National Park Agency is the lower nature conservation authority for the biosphere reserve. In addition it can be considered as an administrative body promoting sustainable land and water use within different sectors, including agriculture, forestry, and tourism. It supports the district government in implementing the concept of a Rügen model region. The National Park Agency has a strong regulative role in land-use issues. The promotive role of the biosphere reserve is currently not as strong. The administration manages a state programme for the extensive use of pasture land28 and has, for example, taken part in the formulation of a LEADER II project proposal for the European Union. More recently it submitted an application to the European Union which intended to combine different programs to a unified whole, tailored for the specific needs of a region. The idea of the model region was also strongly anchored in this application.

Since the Rügen National Park Agency manages the three different types of protected areas, the title ‘national park agency’ may seem misleading (Jahresbericht 1996, 4). It has already caused confusion, particularly in respect to the different goals in different protected areas (“They want to make all of Rügen as national park!”). For practical reasons, in the following discussion the National Park Agency shall also be referred to as the biosphere reserve administration, especially when comparing the three case study areas, in order to avoid unnecessary confusion surrounding the term ‘national park’. The name obviously originates from the national programme of the GDR, which included national parks as well as nature parks and biosphere reserves.

Much of the work of the biosphere reserve administration consists of formulating statements on municipal land-use plans (kommunale Bauleitplanung) and on individual construction applications within the biosphere reserve (interview; Erdmann and Nauber 1995, 218-219). In the southeastern 27

Changes within the competences of different ministries have also brought change to the administrative structures of protected areas in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. Previously both the forestry administration and the national park office managed the national parks. Serious conflicts about competencies and management principles took place. Only after the administrations were combined were conditions in place for constructive dialogue. In biosphere reserves, the dual arrangements continued to exist. This is however not considered to be problematic because forestry is still practiced in biosphere reserves, and the principal question of not interfering with natural processes did not arise, as it did in national parks.

28 A clearly promotional task is to manage the state program for the extensive use of pasture land (Förderprogramm zur naturschutzgerechten Grünlandbewirtschaftung im Land Mecklenburg-Vorpormmer). Within this program, agreements are made between the land Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and farmers to reduce the number of animals on pasture land. Compensation is paid according to the terms of the agreement.

87

part of Rügen, the importance of the tourism industry has been growing fast since unification. At the same time, construction has also been increasing steadily. During the first three years the number of statements on different plans issued by the biosphere reserve administration doubled annually (see Figure 15). The amount of statements stabilized from 1995 to 1996.

Year Number of statements

1990/1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

49

151

291

540

489

502

Figure 15. Number of statements issued for various types of planning (Flächennutzungspläne, Bebaungspläne, Vorhaben- und Erschliessungspläne, Grünordnungspläne, Landschaftspflegerische Begleitpläne, Planfeststellungsverfahren, Bauvoranfragen, Bauanträge, Abbruchanträge, Widersprüche, Wegebau/Versorungsleitungen, Sonstiges) in Southeast Rügen Biosphere Reserve (Jahresbericht 1994, 14; Jahresbericht 1996, 38).

Although the activities of the biosphere reserve are usually restricted to regulatory functions, the ordinance of the Southeast Rügen Biosphere Reserve places a strong emphasis on the role of development. To date it is the only biosphere reserve ordinance in Germany that articulates the goal of developing practical models for ecological land use in agriculture, forestry, fishing, tourism, and traffic (Verordnung über die...1990, Weigelt 1995, 16). It also states that research conducted in the biosphere reserve shall have the goal of developing models for its sustainable use, and that public relation work and education shall enhance awareness on environmental issues.

To fulfill the goals of the biosphere reserve, the biosphere reserve ordinance (§5 (2)) further stipulates that “a maintenance and development plan shall be set up considering ecological, social, economic and cultural aspects”. Due to lack of funding, no detailed maintenance and development plan (Pflege- und Entwicklungsplan) has been set up so far. However, a framework management plan is currently being prepared (Guidelines for the...1995, 58). The federal government is also funding a project focusing on “Landscapes with national importance” (Gesamtstaatlich repräsentative landschaften). However, this project covers only part of the biosphere reserve and concentrates solely on traditional issues of nature protection. According to the representative of the biosphere reserve, social and economic issues are the most difficult, and they should be given greater emphasis. Yet the main concern of the federal government project remains traditional nature conservation.

What we need is what is written in the ordinance: a management plan which takes into consideration the ecological, economic, cultural and social aspects. This cannot be made within the framework of this project from Bonn, because they still are stuck to the old style of nature protection and they are only dealing with biotype protection. They do not believe us that other problems are more urgent, namely everything that has to do with socio-economic aspects. This we have to 88

The biosphere reserves of Southeast Rügen, the West Estonian Archipelago, and the Archipelago Sea tried to do with Länder funding, but there are few resources available, much too few. (Representative of the biosphere reserve.)

Although the biosphere reserve administration does not have a clear coordinating function, in many cases it has been able to influence sectoral decision-making through negotiations and by asserting its legal status as the nature protection authority.

Hiiumaa The territory of the biosphere reserve occupies portions of three separate administrative districts.

There is a ‘Center for the Biosphere Reserve’ for each one. The centers are located in Kärdla (Hiiumaa), in Kuressaare (Saaremaa), and in the town of Haapsalu on the mainland (responsible for the island of Vormsi). In 1996, six people were employed at the Hiiumaa center, and only one at Haapsalu. The staff policy of the Saaremaa center differs from that of the Hiiumaa; for instance, it makes use of fewer full-time employees, relying more on outside expertise, mainly from universities, to carry out various projects (interview).

The intention during the phase of establishing the reserve was to have a functioning coordinating body with decision-making power to make policy decisions about the development of the biosphere reserve. Members were intended to be: heads of the county governments, representatives of local municipalities, and representatives of the biosphere reserve centers (interview). Although a ‘Council of the Biosphere Reserve’ exists nominally, it never really got underway. More or less regular meetings take place between representatives of the biosphere reserve centers. But there is no institutionalized mechanism equivalent to an advisory board, either for the whole biosphere reserve, or for individual islands. Cooperation takes place within other forums and through informal channels.

The biosphere reserve centers are under the supervision of the Ministry of the Environment, which also finances them. Since the re-establishment of Estonian independence, the national MAB-committee has not been active and does thus not play an important role in the management of the biosphere reserve.

According to the ordinance of the rules of the West Estonian Archipelago Biosphere Reserve (LääneEesti saarestiku...1994) the overall tasks of the Center include: • elaborating nature management plans, • protecting core areas and natural landmarks, • elaborating and carrying out environmental monitoring, • participating in regional planning,

89

• ecological education, • disseminating knowledge about nature protection, • controlling the impact of tourism, • soliciting local participation in nature protection programmes, • promoting traditional uses of nature.

Representatives of the biosphere reserve Center of Hiiumaa see their main role in education and in creating and transmitting knowledge. A regulatory or controlling function is not desired (interviews).

In a leaflet on Hiiumaa (Hiiumaa - getting to know. 1995) the biosphere reserve Center presents itself in the following way: “Five questions to the Hiiumaa Centre of the Biosphere Reserve 1 What kind of a nature reserve is this here, where people work and are busy with their everyday activities like everywhere else? Nothing special strikes the eye.

So it has to be. A biosphere reserve is not a conventional nature reserve but something principally new and different. While on a common nature reserve the restrictions and supervision are the priority issues, then on the biosphere reserve the aim is to achieve that people in their everyday activities are nature friendly and would plan their future so that relations of man and nature remained friendly and supporting each other.

2 Could it be understood then that there are wise men in the biosphere reserve willing to bring Hiiumaa people to reason?

It is an old fashioned notion that somewhere wise men make the right decisions and then pour them down on people. On a biosphere reserve it is done on a quite new way - the decisions come from below. Every family, village, community and the county should be entitled to the right and responsibility to take care of the ecological situation on their territory. Why should we consider Hiiumaa people not to be sensible enough to measure twice and then cut. Our responsibility is to help Hiiumaa people acquire the up-to-date knowledge, information and technologies, but they themselves make the decisions. (...)”

Without addressing more explicitly problems and inequalities within the existing decision-making system and the question of different levels of governance, the self-presentation inherits a strong commitment to participatory planning and management. The biosphere reserve center clearly wants to distance itself from a ‘command-and-control’ approach to managing protected areas, preferring instead a more consultative approach (cf. Post 1998).

90

The biosphere reserves of Southeast Rügen, the West Estonian Archipelago, and the Archipelago Sea Indeed, the Biosphere Reserve Center is generally accepted as a neutral partner on Hiiumaa. For example, when a conflict on regional development and land reform occurred between the county government and the municipalities in the summer of 1996 (HT 5.7.1996), a meeting was organized to settle the conflict. This meeting was chaired by the director of the Biosphere Reserve Center (HI 13.7.1996).

The biosphere reserve Center has published articles in local newspapers on environmental and development issues on the island. A monthly biosphere reserve supplement (2-4 pages) is published in the newspaper Hiiumaa. Also a weekly radio programme was broadcasted in the past, but currently the local radio station broadcasts only short local news. Also several school projects on nature protection have been carried out (View from the lighthouse...1995, 9).

The biosphere reserve Center has been able to create good contacts abroad and has been successful in finding partners for various projects. Thus it has also a logistical role. One form of international project is the cooperative network, such as the Eco-Islands Network and the Seven Baltic Islands Network (B7). Through the Eco-Islands network, the biosphere reserve has been involved in tourism development. In cooperation with several tourist enterprises and the county government, the biosphere reserve Center launched a Hiiumaa Green Label Campaign for travel agencies, hotels, and restaurants. It has also promoted cooperation among businesses with the German island of Pellworm (import of wool and export of handmade wool-wear).

The biosphere reserve carries out and supports research on the island. The office initiated a social survey among Hiiumaa people which was carried out in 1994 together with the University of Tarto.

The results were published in numerous articles in the local newspaper and in various publications (e.g. Uljas et al. 1996). An own biosphere reserve publication series, “Pirrujaak”, has presented among others research results on nature resources and bird fauna, as well as a “Nature bibliography of the island of Hiiumaa”. An environmental laboratory in Kärdla was also established by the Biosphere Reserve Center. The laboratory is used for both internal research activities and for visiting research teams.

The biosphere reserve carries out mapping and zonation of nature conservation areas, which will become core areas of the biosphere reserve. The office identifies certain areas to be considered for protection, proposing them to the Ministry of the Environment, which makes the final decisions.

Archipelago Sea Preceding the Archipelago Sea Biosphere Reserve was the Archipelago Sea National Park, established in 1983. The agency responsible for managing the park is the Forest and Park Service. In 1990 the local 91

national park office had three full-time employees, four part-time rangers and one secretary (Saaristomeren kansallispuiston...1994, 30). The tasks of the office primarily involved managing the state-owned park sites (nature protection, recreation, environmental education); they did not include for example developing the local economy in the surrounding areas (Saaristomeren kansallispuiston...1994, 7).

The designation of a biosphere reserve which would also entail development issues was first planned and discussed in the 1980s. The biosphere reserve was finally established in 1994. For the two years the Academy of Finland financed one researcher at the Turku University to build up the biosphere reserve administration and to inform local people. There was no representative in the Archipelago Sea and thus the biosphere reserve remained quite unknown. In September 1995 a full time employee was hired and placed in the municipality of Nagu. The biosphere reserve functions within the context of the Southwest Finland Regional Environmental Center, since biosphere reserves in Finland do not enjoy a position of independent administration. In the following I will, however, refer to the biosphere reserve administration, even though it remains a part of the Southwest Finland Regional Environmental Center.

The post of the biosphere reserve coordinator was initially limited for three years. It intended to be a provisional solution until a more permanent organizational model was found (interview). Its juridical and administrative status, as well as financing, were discussed in various seminars.

The administrations for the national park and for the biosphere reserve were not consolidated, but remained separate. In practice, however, they work together intensively and since 1997 they occupy the same office building. A logistics center for environmentally related activities, called Kompassen (the compass), was established in Nagu in 1996. The same building houses the national park office, the biosphere reserve administration, the Archipelago Nature School, and the booking center for tourists, which both helps to save money and enables close cooperation among the different actors (Ă…U, 10 & 11.10.1996).

Finnish biosphere reserves are not managed by one single ministry. The Ministry of the Environment had a central role in designating the biosphere reserves, but it currently does not fund the administration of the biosphere reserve directly. At present the administration is jointly financed by the Southwest Finland Regional Environment Center and the Finnish Forest and Park Service (the Archipelago Park District Office). The core areas are under the protection of the Ministry of the Environment, but managed by the Finnish Forest and Park Service.

The Ministry of Education has authority over the national MAB-committee and the Finnish UNESCO-delegation, as well as its natural sciences section. The importance of the commitment of local governments to the biosphere reserve concept has been often stressed. Local governments are 92

The biosphere reserves of Southeast Rügen, the West Estonian Archipelago, and the Archipelago Sea under the supervision of the Ministry of the Interior, but so far it has taken not taken an active role in promoting the idea of biosphere reserves. There have been discussions of whether one ministry should have a leading role, or whether biosphere reserves should be jointly managed and financed, possibly by the three ministries named above.

The Advisory Committee for the Archipelago Sea with two sections, one for the national park and one for the biosphere reserve, was established in 1995. The new committee replaced the former Advisory Committee of the Archipelago National Park, which already existed since the mid-1980s.

The establishment of the new committee caused heated debates in the local press. This shall be more closely analyzed in Chapter 6.2.7.

Short after the approval of the Archipelago Sea as a biosphere reserve by UNESCO, the special researcher for the biosphere reserve wrote, “Hopefully the biosphere reserve can be an instrument of cooperation. Also (it could be helpful) in conflict situations between nature protection and economic activities, whose solutions require various channels for discussion and cooperation” (Lehtilä 1994, 37).

From the beginning the biosphere reserve was oriented towards improving cooperation in the area.

This meant acting simultaneously as a link between people and the state administration, and as a coordinator of research activities. The latter role has received greater emphasis. In fact, one interview partner stressed the need for every single agency must maintain direct contact with the local population (interview).

Some problems have occurred between the biosphere reserve and the existing organizations, including groups within the tourism industry (interview). The coordination efforts of the biosphere reserve have to some extent been perceived as a threat to existing organizational structures. It has been suggested that the biosphere reserve could also bring environmental considerations more explicitly into regional development planning.

5.3 Adequate zonation?

One criterion for an area to qualify as a biosphere reserve is its size. Precise criteria do not exist on the international level. According to the Statutory Framework (Biosphere reserves 1996, 17), biosphere reserves “...should have an appropriate size to serve the three functions of biosphere reserves” (conservation, development and logistic support). Each country may however have specific national criteria for biosphere reserves that take into account the special conditions of the country concerned. Not many countries have done this, although it is encouraged in the statutory framework.

93

Rügen Germany has set up national criteria, according to which the size of a biosphere reserve should be at minimum 30,000 ha of land area and not bigger than 150,000 ha (Kriterien für Anerkennung...1996, 7).

With a land area of only 10,900 ha the Southeast Rügen Biosphere Reserve would not meet this criteria.

Prior to its designation as a biosphere reserve, Southeast Rügen was protected by two nature conservation areas and one protected landscape area. The protected status of the designated biosphere reserve is still gained through several nature conservation areas and one protected landscape area, which covers the whole area of the biosphere reserve. The zonation of the biosphere reserve was partly based on the old categories of nature and landscape protection and on historical borders, including an old railroad line. The nature conservation areas comprise the core areas (1.5% of the total area), buffer zones (13.6%), and the protected landscape area in the transition zone (84.9%).

(Fünf Jahre Nationalparkprogramm...1995.)

The Southeast Rügen Biosphere Reserve is clearly too small to fulfill the tasks defined in the ordinance (Fünf Jahre Nationalparkprogramm...1995, 52, interview). Therefore it can hardly be regarded as a regional unit in which new sustainable models for resource use can be developed. There are however at present no intentions to make the biosphere reserve larger. It would currently be hardly possible to gain political support from surrounding municipalities for such an effort, mainly because the nature protection authority would gain a stronger position in land-use issues (interview). Instead of a long and cumbersome process of designating a larger area as a biosphere reserve, the biosphere reserve administration sees better possibilities to promote sustainable development through the concept of Rügen model region. The intention to ultimately designate Rügen as a nature park is seen as an essential step towards creating the model region. According to the biosphere reserve administration, “It is the same thing, only with different license plates” (interview). According to the annual report of the Rügen National Park Agency (NPA), “The policy of the district government and activities of numerous other institutions, especially NGOs, are oriented [towards the Rügen model region]. Thus the Rügen NPA sees as the first and foremost task to be involved in such regional development and to support the county government’s role within it” (Jahresbericht 1996, 6). The report further states that “In fact all activities of the Rügen NPA may be understood as a contribution to Rügen model region” (Jahresbericht 1996, 6).

The variety of protected areas on Rügen and the broad approach adopted by the Rügen NPA have made it possible to also extend the range of activities beyond the existing zonation. But for an individual citizen, the variety of protected and programme areas (national park, biosphere reserve, nature park, model region, protected landscape area) often appears confusing.

94

The biosphere reserves of Southeast Rügen, the West Estonian Archipelago, and the Archipelago Sea Hiiumaa The delineation of the zones for the West Estonian Archipelago Biosphere Reserve was begun towards the end of 1980s. The first zonation was rather general and outlined about ten core areas.

More detailed zonation of the biosphere reserve was carried out in the 1990s, totaling 43 core areas.

These core areas were defined by the requirement that no economic activity is allowed within their boundaries.

The current zonation includes also protected land- and seascapes. The five major protected landscapes serving as buffer zones for core areas are the Kõpu Peninsula and Õngu areas in the west, the Tahkuna peninsula in the north, the Sarve peninsula in the southeast, and an area in the middle of the island. There are three main groups of natural objects under protection: nature reserves, natural landmarks, and habitats for rare plant species. Among them are the Käina Bay bird sanctuary and the landscape reserves of Kassari and Sarve. In addition there is a total of 33 protected parks, avenues, groves, and old unique trees, and 27 remarkable boulders which are protected due to their size or attraction. (Kokovkin 1996.)

One of the tasks of the biosphere reserve is to set up the rules for protecting core areas.

For a long time, the legal status of the cores as protected areas was not very clear. Proper protection was gained only after completion of the protection rules for each area. A major problem was to unify the different zones of the biosphere reserve (core areas, buffer zones, and transition zones) and current categories of protection with the new categories listed in the Law on Protected Areas, Species and Natural Monuments (1994). The biosphere reserve center prepared the rules of protection for each area using the new categories, which were eventually confirmed by the Ministry of the Environment. The work was difficult because to a large extent questions of land ownership remained unresolved. If a landowner gets land back in an area where protection rules exist, he or she can decide to exchange this particular land for vouchers which can be used for buying land elsewhere.

Compensations are paid in the form of tax reductions in areas with special regulations.

The West Estonian Archipelago Biosphere Reserve is one of the largest biosphere reserves in the world. It is also exceptional because it includes large areas of the sea. The biosphere reserve is large enough to become a meaningful region for promoting sustainable resource use. The larger islands constitute coherent geographic, cultural, administrative and economic entities. Therefore it is important that both larger islands have their own biosphere reserve centers.

The issue of whether coastal areas on the mainland should have been included in the reserve, as was proposed in a draft zonation for the reserve, is currently not topical. In coastal planning and manage95

ment efforts, however, these areas should be included, depending on specific concerns. An important wetland area, the Matsalu Nature Reserve, for example, is located close to the biosphere reserve.

Archipelago Sea The Archipelago Sea Biosphere Reserve includes land and water areas of the municipalities of Houtskär, Korpo, Nagu and Dragsfjärd. The zonation can not be regarded as appropriate, since the main islands of the municipalities of Korpo and Nagu are excluded. Because of their size, they are important constituent islands in the archipelago. Although the boundaries of the biosphere reserve, particularly with the exclusion of the main islands, do not confine the day-to-day work of the biosphere reserve administration (interview), the present zonation does not substantiate the idea of biosphere reserves as model regions. Most of the population and most of the economic activity concentrate on the two largest islands.

The main reason for excluding the islands was that municipalities wanted to proceed cautiously and leave the economically important areas outside the reserve. In addition, within the Ministry of the Environment and the working group there were opinions that considered the main islands ‘too urbanized”, and thus not suitable to be included into a biosphere reserve. But if these islands are compared with areas included, for example in the Southeast Rügen or the West Estonian Archipelago Biosphere Reserve, the argument is not very convincing. One should also bear in mind that there have been discussions to include urban and even industrialized areas within the international network of biosphere reserves.

The division into three interrelated zones suggested by UNESCO has not been applied in the Archipelago Sea Biosphere Reserve. The area is divided into core areas, which simultaneously creates the Archipelago Sea National Park, and a cooperation area (yhteistoiminta-alue), which more or less equals the ‘transition area’. Under current agendas and legal arrangements this division seems to be appropriate.

5.4 Biosphere reserves in national legislation Rügen Nature conservation and the designation of protected areas in Germany is largely a responsibility of the individual states (Länder). The Federal Nature Conservation Act from 1976 is a framework law which includes the following categories of protection for nature and landscape: national parks, nature conservation areas, protected landscape areas, and nature parks. Biosphere reserves are not one of the categories of this legal framework, but in connection with the proposed amendment of the 96

The biosphere reserves of Southeast Rügen, the West Estonian Archipelago, and the Archipelago Sea Federal Nature Conservation Act there are plans to incorporate biosphere reserves into this Act as an independent category for the protection, maintenance and development of representative natural and cultural landscapes (Guidelines for the...1995, 31).29 The nature conservation laws of some eastern Länder, including Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Brandenburg, Saxony, Saxony-Anhalt, and Thuringia, incorporate legal regulations on biosphere reserves. These Länder thus already treat biosphere reserves as one category for protected areas.

(Guidelines for the...1995, 31.)

The Southeast Rügen Biosphere Reserve was established the 12. September of 1990 with an ‘Ordinance on nature and landscape conservation areas’ (Verordnung über die...1990). It lays down the goals of the biosphere reserve, defines the zonation as well as the orders (Gebote) and prohibitions (Verbote) in each respective zone. It is the only biosphere reserve ordinance in Germany which clearly defines the goal of environmental protection by developing models for ecological land use within the sectors: agriculture, forestry, fisheries, traffic, and recreation (Weigelt 1995, 16). Juridically the ordinance gives however only vague support for the fulfillment of the goals. Some changes to the ordinance were made in 1992 (Erste Verordnung zur...1992).

The biosphere reserve of Southeast Rügen is recognized in regional planning on the state level.

The first spatial plan on this state level (Erstes Landesraumordnungsprogramm MecklenburgVorpommern) includes biosphere reserves and other protected areas as special areas.

Hiiumaa Biosphere reserves are not explicitly mentioned in the environmental and nature protection legislation. The Law on Protected Areas, Species and Natural Monuments (1994) defines the following categories of protected areas: National Park (Rahvuspark), Nature Reserve (Looduskaitseala), Reserve (Kaitseala) and Programme Area (Programmiala). Biosphere reserves are covered by the category of programme areas, which are “managed under local, national or international programme for monitoring, investigation or educational purposes as well as combining conservation and management of natural resources” (§ 18 (1)). The Biosphere Reserve and one Hydrological Reserve (protected ground water area) are considered as programme areas in Estonia.

29

There have also been discussions about introducing a category of biosphere parks (Biosphärenparke) rather than biosphere reserves into the amendment of the Federal Nature Conservation Act. Biosphere parks would be nationally important cultural landscapes, and selected biosphere parks could also receive the international designation of biosphere reserves from UNESCO (Biosphärenparke. Perspektiven für...1993). One of the main arguments for the biosphere park is that there is a need for a new category of model regions for sustainable land use. The designation of biosphere reserve is, however, only possible for unique landscapes with international importance. Biosphere parks would thus be a national category which could be given for several similar biomes (major types of natural environment).

97

There is an ordinance establishing the West Estonian Archipelago Biosphere Reserve which was passed by the Government of the Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic in December 1989. According to the 1994 decree of the West Estonian Archipelago Biosphere Reserve, the tasks of the biosphere reserve include the elaboration of nature management plans, protection of core areas and nature monuments, and the elaboration and fulfillment of environmental monitoring. Further activities involve participation in regional planning, ecological education, dissemination of nature protection knowledge, control over tourism loads, enlisting local participation in nature protection programmes, and the promotion of traditional nature uses.

Archipelago Sea In Finland, various legal and administrative arrangements for biosphere reserves have been discussed in recent years. These are briefly discussed below. There are no legal provisions for the management and the administration of Finnish biosphere reserves. Neither the Nature Conservation Act nor any other act recognizes biosphere reserves as a category of protection or special status.30 The designation of the Archipelago Sea Biosphere Reserve was not based on any new law or decree.

The state-owned core areas of the Archipelago Sea Biosphere Reserve were already protected by the law (645/82) and the act (1040/82) of the Archipelago Sea National Park. The law and the act also specify the tasks and the organization of the national park administration. This specification concerning the biosphere reserve is still missing. The national park law specifies the area of cooperation, which is not identical with zonation of the biosphere reserve, however. The biosphere reserve encompasses additional areas north of the national park’s area of cooperation.

A decree of the Archipelago Sea Advisory Committee was enacted in 1994 (Förordning om delegationen för Skärgårdshavet 1994)31 . It replaced the former Advisory Committee of the Archipelago National Park. The new committee consists of representatives of local inhabitants, municipalities, governmental departments and universities. Two sections have been established under the committee. The Section for the National Park has been appointed in the decree of the committee and in addition a Section for the Biosphere Reserve was directly set up by the committee.

This decree defines the tasks of the Advisory Committee thusly: (1) to promote and coordinate research on the Archipelago Sea Biosphere Reserve, (2) to promote sustainable development in the biosphere reserve, (3) to keep contact with local population, observe their needs and make necessary 30

The Nature Conservation Act was amended and came into force in the beginning of 1997, but it did not include the category of biosphere reserves.

31 In the other Finnish biosphere reserve, no advisory committee has been established by decree. That this forum for cooperation now exists in the Archipelago Sea is due to the fact that the national park had already had one since the middle of 1980s.

98

The biosphere reserves of Southeast Rügen, the West Estonian Archipelago, and the Archipelago Sea initiatives, (4) to keep contact with the municipalities and state administration in the area, (5) to promote informing about issues related to the biosphere reserve, (6) to take care of other tasks that have been directed by the Council of State or the Ministry of the Environment. The decree has been criticized because these tasks cannot be fulfilled by the Advisory Committee alone, but they could become the general tasks of the biosphere reserve and its administration (interview).

The question of whether biosphere reserves should have a stronger juridical and organizational status has been discussed on several occasions, including two biosphere reserve seminars organized in Nagu (10-11.10.1996) and in Mekrijärvi (31.10.-1.11.1996). During the seminars, arguments were presented for and against a legal codification. On the one hand the present situation gives considerable freedom and flexibility for setting priorities among various activities. It also forces the biosphere reserve administration to cooperate with other organizations and groups. One argument that claimed that the danger of a permanent organizational structure was that it might soon become a self-sustaining organization which would no longer rely on good cooperation. On the other hand, the current short term ‘project-oriented’ approach gives no continuity to the efforts and thus no longterm plans can be made. In the present situation “activities turn out to be opportunistic - money is applied there where it can be gotten” (interview).

A stronger juridical status has been demanded by representatives of the biosphere reserve and the national park, who find it problematic that the administration lacks the authority to sign applications or contracts (interviews). Inclusion in the national legislation, even by means of a relatively general statement of its status as a model region for sustainable resource use, would probably increase the attention given to biosphere reserves by different ministries (interview). The argument against a stronger organizational status was that “if activities are intended to be voluntary and with a bottomup approach, the present situation might be better” (interview). Those interview partners who saw the biosphere reserve primarily as an ‘agreement’ among different actors were reluctant to introduce a formal and official biosphere reserve administration and legal framework (interview). For example, some municipal leaders considered it good that the reserve can now find its own ways of activities (interview). In addition, because introducing a law would mean a huge administrative effort, it is important that the benefits be clear.

The organizational structure implies an emphasis on voluntary agreements and cooperation, in contrast to regulation and control. The decree of the Advisory Committee states in general who is involved in the management of the reserve, but is not very specific about how the management framework should be organized. The protection of core areas has been secured by the pre-existing 99

national park. There are however various programmes for nature protection, including the recent NATURA 2000, which have been heavily criticized for lack of participation. The biosphere reserve administration has not been directly involved in these efforts.

The Ministry of the Environment has so far been reluctant to commit itself to financing the biosphere reserve, which indicates that biosphere reserves are not high on its list of priorities. Yet if one ministry alone would finance the costs of biosphere reserves, it would become easier for other ministries to withdraw from any responsibility. Administrative competence would again be a hindrance for successful cooperation. The ideal could be a model of a joint financing agreement of the three most relevant ministries: the Ministry of the Interior, the Ministry of the Environment, and the Ministry of Forestry and Agriculture. Agreeing on certain management principles or developing a biosphere reserve policy could be a fruitful start.

5.5 Comparison of the biosphere reserve’s roles The biosphere reserves have adopted a particular role shaped by the legal framework, administrative system, and institutionally agreed and individual priorities. The three roles suggested by UNESCO (cf.

Fig. 12 in Chapter 3.1), the conservation, development, and logistical support roles are emphasized in different ways. Ideally the administration of a biosphere reserve should fulfill all three functions The degree of visibility of some of the roles of biosphere reserve administrations varies. The perception of the biosphere reserve held by local people and other actors depends much on the local media and the public image created by the biosphere reserve administration through the distribution of information.

Rügen MORE VISIBLE

LESS VISIBLE

Hiiumaa

Archipelago Sea

- ‘no’-sayer in building permissions - nature police (rangers) - guided tours

- intellectual contributor - environmental educator - project launcher

- discursive facilitator - role seeker

- promoter of the concept of ‘Rügen model region’

- makers of international contacts - research coordinator - preparer of the designation of - coordinator of cooperation core areas within the tourism sector

Figure 16. Different roles of the three biosphere reserves.

The different roles of the three biosphere reserves are compared in Figure 16. In simple terms, the role of the Rügen National Park Agency may be characterized as a regulating agent, the role of the 100

The biosphere reserves of Southeast R端gen, the West Estonian Archipelago, and the Archipelago Sea Hiiumaa Biosphere Reserve Center as an intellectual contributor, and the role of the Archipelago Sea Biosphere Reserve as a facilitator (Welp 1998a).

Studies of the perception of local people concerning the biosphere reserve have been made on R端gen and on Hiiumaa. According to the study conducted in Southeast R端gen, about 40% feel indifferent towards the biosphere reserve, 30% have a negative attitude, and 30% have a positive attitude (Lichtenberg and Wolf 1998). According to the social survey conducted on Hiiumaa in 1994, more than 50% were not well informed about the Hiiumaa Biosphere Reserve Center. 30% had a positive attitude, 10% were indifferent, and 10% were critical towards it. However, it should be noted that these figures are rather old. A study was conducted for the Archipelago Sea National Park in the end of 1996 and the beginning of 1997, but this was prior to the existence of the biosphere reserve, and the study was not broadly distributed and remained internal (Linmell 1994a, 1994b).

There are about 41 000 islands and islets in the Archipelago Sea area. Ground-rock, which is almost 2000 million years old, can be seen everywhere and has been worn Source: Leaflet of the Archipelago Sea National Park smooth by ice and the sea.

101

One of the wooden sculptures, which was made by the Biosphere Reserve Hiiumaa Centre for the television program about sustainable development.

This sculpture symbolizes different aspects of sustainable development; the hand referring to the technical, the heart to the emotional and the head to the intellectual dimension. The sculptures are on permanent display at the Photo: Mart M천niste Soara Farm Heritage Musem close to K채rdla

102

Analysis and comparison of planning practice on Rügen, Hiiumaa, and the Archipelago Sea 6.1 Selection of illustrative examples The aim of biosphere reserves is to integrate environmental and development issues in planning and management. Therefore a whole range of planning activities in the area concerned is relevant to the concept of the biosphere reserve. The following analysis is a cross-cut of various planning activities in the case study areas. Because different public planning and decision-making procedures in the case study areas are so numerous and varied, a limited number of illustrative examples have been selected to highlight certain aspects of coastal planning practice. The following analysis and comparison does not include a comprehensive presentation of each country’s planning system (cf. Fig. 8 in Chapter 2.4). Because organizational structures, sectoral planning arrangements, and permit systems relevant to coastal management are numerous and complex, a comprehensive presentation is beyond the focus and the scope of this study.

No especially entitled ‘integrated coastal management’-programs or plans have been launched in the case study areas, except of one estuary management plan on Hiiumaa. Various other efforts have been undertaken to coordinate sectoral planning (regional councils, planning committees etc.). However, a broad range of planning activities is carried out by different actors.

There are different ways of categorizing planning into different types: by sectors, by government level where public planning is carried out (national, regional, local), or by geographic area. A distinction can also be made between project and strategic level planning. I have for the purposes of this study identified following types of planning: strategic regional development planning, sectoral planning, coastal land-use planning, water-use planning, coastal ecosystem management, and planning activities related to the biosphere reserve.

In addition, the designation of biosphere reserves in the case study areas can be considered as a special type of environmental and development planning that goes beyond planning for the establishment of protected areas. Biosphere reserves set down certain goals for future development and oblige sectoral agencies, local governments, and other actors to take special notice of their objectives. In Chapter 5.1 the designation, administration, and system of zonation for biosphere reserves 103

were presented. These issues are important in analyzing the present role of biosphere reserve administration in environmental and development planning.

The selection of examples is based on the following considerations: (a) a recent public environmental and development debate that in some ways manifested itself in the planning process, (b) the process included some interesting aspects for the course of lesson-drawing, (c) the process was considered by key informants as having regional (or in some cases even national) importance, (d) access to information, (e) special relevance of the process for the biosphere reserve and (f) a similar process was to be found in one or two of the other case study areas. The biosphere reserve administration might, but did not necessarily have to, be involved in the planning activities selected for this study. In most cases it did, however, either formally or informally.

The types of planning and illustrative examples selected in each case study area are presented in the following figure. The variety of examples illustrates the many issues and planning levels relevant to coastal management and the biosphere reserve.

Type of planning

R체gen

Hiiumaa

Strategic regional planning

Designation of protected Hiiumaa Development landscape areas and the Action Plan 2010 District Development Plan

Sectoral planning

Forestry planning

Coastal land-use planning

Construction on the coastal Construction on the coastal strip: the case of Seedorf strip: the case of Sarve

Water-use planning

Fish farming

Coastal ecosystem management Biosphere reserve related planning

Forestry planning

Fish farming

Archipelago Sea

Forestry planning

Fish farming

Special Area Management Plan for K채ina Bay Establishment of an Advisory Council of the biosphere reserve

Establishment of an Advisory Board of the Archipelago Sea

Figure 17. Examples selected for closer inquiry.

In the following the planning activities selected for closer inquiry in each case study area are shortly presented. Strategic regional development planning is increasingly considered important.

Broader analysis and discussion about future development paths has become essential. On R체gen 104

Analysis and comparison of planning practice on Rügen, Hiiumaa, and the Archipelago Sea numerous strategic sectoral plans have been prepared. The district government has been involved in preparing two strategic regional development plans, which were intended to integrate the sectoral plans. These plans were not legally binding according to the Planning and Building Act, but they are political statements about policy on the county government level. The process of designating protected landscape areas on Rügen caused heated debates and linked it closely to discussions about Rügen’s future. Also an alternative development plan was set up by a citizens’ initiative.

On Hiiumaa the UNDP (United Nations Development Programme) funded ‘Hiiumaa Development Action Plan 2010’ has been selected as an example of strategic regional planning.

Strategic regional planning in the Archipelago Sea has taken the form of a so-called ‘Regional Plan’. This was set up by the Regional Council of Southwest Finland already in the 1970s and 1980s, and was thus not topical for this study. The General Plan guides spatial planning on local level.

Numerous development projects have been prepared in the Archipelago Sea. The ‘Archipelago Programme’ was a first attempt to coordinate various projects and to integrate them into a strategic vision of the development in the Archipelago Sea. Because this process was just getting underway as interviews were conducted for this study, it was not selected as one of the illustrative examples.

However the comparisons below will refer to some of its key principles.

To illustrate sectoral planning, the example of forestry planning was selected. On Hiiumaa and in the Archipelago Sea, forestry planning was analyzed in two portions of sub-studies, carried out by Sonja Pekkola and Terhi Ahde. The analysis is based on their Masters’ Thesis at Helsinki University (Ahde 1998; Pekkola 1998).

Land use is a priority issue in all three biosphere reserves. In this study, land-use planning includes spatial planning and procedures for construction permits. On Rügen the focus is on landuse planning within the biosphere reserve. A conflict around the construction of a single house on Rügen and Hiiumaa is presented. These had the character of a precedent which would strongly influence future projects. In both cases the biosphere reserve was closely involved in the process.

In the Archipelago Sea the biosphere reserve administration has not directly been involved in land-use issues.

The two examples of water-use planning focus on planning processes related to fish farming. Fish farming has been and still is an important issue on Rügen and in the Archipelago Sea. On Hiiumaa, fish farming has not yet become relevant. The cases are closely connected with concerns of water quality and tourism development. Other possible important aspects of water-use planning might have been routes for ships and boats, marine safety, fishing, mining, and marine protected areas.

105

Preparing the Integrated Coastal Zone Management for Käina is an example of coastal ecosystem management, which took place on Hiiumaa. It is interesting to analyze this specific process, especially because it is the only planning report in the three case study areas that explicitly refers to ‘integrated coastal management’.

The advisory boards of the biosphere reserves are selected as examples of biosphere reserve related planning activities. They are established to provide a consultative framework for the biosphere reserve. There is such an institution in the Southeast Rügen Biosphere Reserve and in the Archipelago Sea Biosphere Reserve, but there is no advisory board on Hiiumaa.

6.2 Examples of planning practice 6.2.1 Strategic regional planning and the designation of protected landscape areas on Rügen Several key projects (see Chapter 4.2.1) and such controversial policy issues as the intensity of tourism development, land use, and traffic, highlight the need for long-term strategic planning on Rügen. In the following the focus is on planning at the district level (Island of Rügen). A Structural Plan for Rügen (Strukturkonzept Rügen) was prepared as early as 1991, shortly after German unification, by a consultant from West Germany. The follow-up, a District Development Plan (1.

Kreisentwicklungsplan, 1994-1998) was set up in the mid-1990s, but was never really concluded.

Both plans were mainly guidelines that were not legally binding. Planning at the district level is a political guideline for the course of the region’s future development.

Regional planning is carried out at the level of sub-regions of the federal state of MecklenburgVorpommern. Rügen belongs to the northeastern sub-region (Vorpommern), which is one of four subregions. The Regional Planning Programme (Regionales Raumordnungsprogramm) lays down the spatial development structure of the region. It is based on the state level spatial planning (Erstes Landesraumordnungsprogramm 1993) and prepared by the ‘Amt für Raumordnung und Landesplanung Vorpommern’ in Greifswald.

Several strategic level sectoral plans have been made for the island of Rügen. Probably few other regions in Germany have been subject to so many planning activities by different consultants (interview). The most important strategic sectoral plans and concepts are: Tourism Concept (TourismusKonzeption Rügen 1993), Ecological Traffic Concept (Ökologisch orientiertes Verkehrskonzept für Rügen 1993), Energy Concept (Energiekonzept der Insel Rügen 1993), Ecological Supplement to Regional Planning (Umweltbeitrag zur Regionalplanung für das Gebiet der Insel Rügen 1995), Agricultural and Fisheries Concept (Konzeption zur Entwicklung der Agrarwirtschaft und 106

Analysis and comparison of planning practice on Rügen, Hiiumaa, and the Archipelago Sea Küstenfischerei Rügens 1992), Concept for Waste Treatment (Abfallwirtschaftskonzept Landkreis Rügen 1995) and Economic Concept (Wirtschaftskonzept des Landkreises Rügen 1992). In addition a traffic concept was set up specifically for the biosphere reserve (Verkehrskonzept für das Biosphärenreservat Südost-Rügen). These were set up by different consultants at different times and thus little coordination took place among them.

None of these strategic level sectoral planning activities, nor the district level plans or the regional planning gained as much public interest as the designation of protected landscape areas on Rügen.

This will be analyzed in connection with the District Development Plan, which was at the same time under preparation.

The intended designation of protected landscape areas on Rügen caused a heated debate about democratic decision making and the content of the concept of Rügen model region. It was foreseen as one further step to achieve the final designation of Rügen as a nature park and as a planning instrument for improving the quality of life on the island (RÜ 13.9.1995). The presentation is based on interviews and more than one hundred newspaper articles and position papers, collected during the public debate (13.9.1995- 3.3.1996) by two of the interview partners.

Rügen had already several protected landscape areas; for example, the southeastern part of the island has been under landscape protection already since 1966. The designation was intended to be made outside the existing national parks and the biosphere reserve, and thus complete the system of protected areas. The biosphere reserve was already either a nature conservation area (zone I & II) or a protected landscape area (zone III). The objective of the designation of protected landscape areas on Rügen was to take a step closer to the final designation as a nature park. According to the Federal Nature Conservation Act (§16) more than half of the area of a nature park must be either protected landscape or a nature conservation area. At the time of the proposal, 37.1% of the total area of Rügen enjoyed some form of protective status, according to the nature conservation legislation (RÜ 28.11.1995).

Nature parks in the eastern Länder are not only areas of intensive recreation and tourism, but they more closely resemble the biosphere reserve concept. The Ministry of Construction, Regional Development and Environment of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern published an Environmental Report in 1994 according to which: “nature parks are intended to be developed to model regions for environmentally sound regional development and ecologically oriented land use and recreation” (Umweltbericht 1994, 14). This definition gives the category a broader scope than is stated in the Federal Nature Conservation Act (§16), which emphasizes the character of nature parks as places of 107

recreation and tourism. Some Länder have designated considerable parts of their land area as nature parks: e.g. 32% of the state of Saarland and 29% of the states of Bavaria, Hessen, Nordrhein-Westfalen and Lower-Sachsony (OZ 15.11.1995).

The preliminary designation of Rügen as nature park dated back to the national park programme of the GDR. This was also the initial start of the process of establishing more protected landscape areas. The district councillor in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern has the right to establish protected landscape areas. During 1990-93 little was done to establish protected landscape areas or take action towards the final designation of the nature park. The Christian Democratic Union (CDU) controlled the district assembly, and neither it nor the district councillor showed much interest. When a new district councillor came into office in October 1993, discussions were held with the environmental minister of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (who was also a ‘Rüganer’) and the regional nature protection authorities. Preparatory planning was initiated by the Nature Conservation Department of the Office of the District Councillor and the contemporary nature park administration (Aufbauverwaltung).

Representatives of the Nature Conservation Department and the contemporary nature park administration informed the district assembly about the intended designation of more protected landscape areas in 1994. Personal discussions were carried out in each of the seven offices and in towns. Discussions were carried out with some municipal leaders in order to come to an agreement about areas to be excluded from the protected landscape area, so that more intensive development (housing, industry, etc.) could take place. The basis for the discussions were the existing land-use plans of the municipalities. Discussions were also carried out with sectoral agencies like the forestry administration, road planning administration, and the mining administration. The municipalities were asked to consult their political representatives and local population. The intensity of the consultations varied considerably.

The proposal was sent to affected parties (Träger öffentlicher Belange), which according to the law of administrative procedures includes various sectoral agencies, affected municipalities, and NGOs. The process of designating protected landscape areas is not legally obliged to include public participation (Hartmann 1994, 7). The hearing held for sectoral agencies and municipalities was thus not a public one, as the law does not specifically require it (interview). Only a few sectoral agencies and two or three municipalities took part.

The process was delayed by the local elections of June 1994, which brought changes in local government in many municipalities. Some of these then asked for more time to evaluate the proposal. The dead-line was extended to the end of 1994. The nature protection administration offered 108

Analysis and comparison of planning practice on Rügen, Hiiumaa, and the Archipelago Sea possibilities for new discussions with the municipalities, and five or six of the municipalities took advantage of this. Statements were collected and worked out during 1995, and a further proposal for the ordinance was made. Since 1990, a total of 80 actors with public interests were consulted , including 20 municipalities (dpa 15.10.1995). Only two municipalities opposed the project during this phase.

The revisited proposal included the extension of protected landscape areas to 92,410 ha. Altogether, 69 areas with a total area of 4365 ha were excluded, including industrial sites (Gewerbegebiete) and larger settlements. A 19-point list of prohibitions included restrictions on construction outside settlements, and bans on burning and incineration, motor vehicles and horseback riding, christmas tree-plantations, camping sites, and the establishment of new fish farms in natural or renatured waters. Many of these restrictions were already contained in existing laws, and were merely consolidated by the ordinance.

Normally, the district councillor would have had the right to pass the ordinance by simply undersigning it. However, the councillor wished for wider acceptance and therefore wanted the ordinance to also be passed by the district assembly. This took place without any opposition from the environmental section of the district assembly (Umweltausschuß) but with two opponents in the district section of the district assembly (Kreisauschuß). In newspaper articles it was stressed that the ordinance should not primarily bring restrictions and should not be seen as an instrument for hindering future development, but is rather a policy guideline to protect the cultural landscape on Rügen (VB 17.9.95).

However, shortly before approval was given by the district assembly, the issue became highly politicized on the local, district, and state levels - and to some extent on the federal level as well. One week before the ordinance was to be discussed and passed in the district assembly, the Christian Democratic Union, which previously held the majority on Rügen and at that time had the majority in most other districts in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, started an intensive campaign against the proposal. The campaign was obviously discussed and launched in a regional meeting of the party in Wolgast, which is located close to Rügen.

The main arguments against the designation were: negative impacts on economic development, exaggerated restrictions on construction, and the danger of making Rügen a “total reserve by putting a cheese bell over it”. The federal Minister of the Environment (Christian Democratic Union, CDU), Angela Merkel, who simultaneously had her electoral district on the island, cautioned that “the designation of more protected areas on Rügen would be a wrong signal for investors”. The CDU also 109

launched a petition drive to gather signatures from those who were against the ordinance. Within two weeks 4,550 names were collected (OZ 21.11.1995).

During the following weeks, various interest groups positioned themselves in the local media.

Several business organizations and the economic advisers of the CDU published a joint advertisement in the local newspaper against the proposed designation. An initiative called “Pro Rügen” responded with its own advertisement accusing the CDU campaign of being demagoguery, misleading, and flawed. Several claims made by opponents of the designation were proved to be untrue.

Struck by the strong opposition and the irritation among the islanders, the district councillor decided to withdraw the issue from the agenda of the meeting of the district assembly. A decision was made to carry out further discussions with the municipalities, NGOs, and business organizations (Wirtschaftsverbände).

The heated discussion continued in the local media and the proposed ordinance was printed in the Rüganer, a commercial advertisement paper, and also in the official information leaflet of the district. The local population was encouraged to form opinions on the proposal and write to the environmental administration. Only a few statements were received.

Proponents of the protected landscape area accused the CDU of starting a political campaign based on partly false accusations and demagoguery which successfully instilled fear in the population.

They also claimed that the entire debate was imported to Rügen from the outside, mainly by the head of the CDU fraction. Statements made by the Minister of the Environment, Merkel, regarding the establishment of protected landscape areas and a nature park on Rügen, were also harshly criticized by local politicians and nationwide environmental NGOs, who considered them inappropriate to her position as a national authority on the environment.

Public discussion of the issue took place in various municipal events. After a few questions were raised about the protected landscape area, the discussion soon changed to topics related to regional development. Representatives from the highest political circles, including the district councillor and the deputy councillor, took part in these hearings, and many citizens made use of the rare opportunity to express themselves. The goals of full employment vs. nature- and landscape protection were often pitted against one another.

The main conflict had to do with the size and the content of the areas proposed by the ordinance.

Opinions about the appropriate size ranged from 51% to 98% of the island’s total area. The CDU and various economic actors claimed that 51% was large enough, while the nature protection administration claimed that 98% of the area deserved protective status. A consultant was commissioned to 110

Analysis and comparison of planning practice on Rügen, Hiiumaa, and the Archipelago Sea evaluate this in greater detail. The proposal for the ordinance included several restrictions, but many were already covered by existing legislation. Questions also arose about whether the development plan for Rügen should first be completed, or whether this should be done parallel to the designation of further protected areas.

The claim that the landscape protection area would cause unemployment and hinder the creation of new jobs was an argument considered flawed by many of those interviewed. The municipalities had set aside areas for small and medium sized industry and business, often providing recently built infrastructure. However, a great deal of these areas were not yet in use. “If all the areas designated for small and medium size enterprises were being used, Rügen would be rich” (interview). The argument was, according to many, used to create majorities from a population living in great economic and social insecurity. On the other hand, certain interest groups clearly would have been disadvantaged by the designation: obtaining construction permits would have become more difficult in rural areas. The value of land directly depends on whether or not it can be built up. But no extensive presentation of the benefits and drawbacks for different interest groups was presented in public.

A call for more information about the designation made in a letter to the editor of the Ostseezeitung (OZ 1.11.1995) is worth quoting here in full length: “There is a lack of clarity of the terms. The question: ‘Should all of Rügen become a protected area?’ is currently very heated. The discussion has been partly very emotional, and wrong and inappropriate arguments have been used for and against the protection. The needed discussion could be somewhat calmer, if everybody knew what they were talking about. . . There are such terms as national park, protected landscape area, biosphere reserve, etc. Could experts once tell the readers what these and other used terms in fact mean? What is...? Who decides about it? Who controls the designation? What can citizens do in these areas? What can’t they do? How will noncompliance be punished? What are the economic and financial implications for Rügen, its people, and its guests?

G.B., Sassnitz”.

Whether this letter was an advertisement for the special issue of the Rüganer on the ordinance published two weeks later, or if the paper only reacted quickly, is of secondary importance. The letter expressed the wish of many islanders for more information in order to be able to come to their own decision about the ordinance. So far they were merely confronted with claims of opposing parties about false statements, misleading comments, and intentional misuse of terms. Thus, the Rügen case highlights the importance of public participation, the role of politics in planning, and the need for integrated consideration of environmental and socio-economic aspects.

111

Alternative planning An alternative strategic development planning has been carried out by the Initiative for Rügen (Vorschläge zur...1993).32 It was entitled, “Suggestions for the Economic Development of the Island of Rügen” and it contained suggestions for ecologically oriented economic development of the island. The paper was prepared prior to the conflict on landscape protection, during a time when the district government was led by the CDU (Christian Democratic Union). The initiative for Rügen consisted mainly of people working in the nature protection administration or in the field of environmental research. The content of the idea of Rügen as a model region was with this plan more concretely specified. Emphasis was put on self-reliant economic development, traffic and energy issues, tourism, and land-use planning, waste and water management.

The plan was discussed in the local media. Representatives of the initiative however criticized that the local media picked up only the suggestion to introduce a fee for crossing the bridge, which connects Rügen to mainland and the idea of sheepfarming as a source of local income. Representatives of small and medium size enterprises criticized the plan for economic development as unrealistic and not providing enough job opportunities for all people living currently on Rügen. In addition the expectations of tourists visiting Rügen were thought to be more demanding than was suggested in the plan: a restrictive land-use policy and emphasis on nature-related tourism would not promote the growth of tourism, because it would not fully serve the desire of visitors to engage in certain activities, such as golf or tennis (RÜ 4.8.1993).

The Rüganer published portions of the plan and asked the public for comment. It then published several letters to the editor, as did other papers. Most letters were critical of the proposal and did not consider it a viable plan for future development, but rather a backwards-looking policy (e.g. RÜ 8. and 22.9.1993).

The ‘Alliance for Rügen’ used the paper as a basis for its election campaign during local elections in the following year. The main message was that Rügen is a place too beautiful, exceptional, and valuable for it to be spoiled by speculators and commercial interests. Eventually it succeeded in the elections to gain political power in the district assembly and, for example, the councillor of the district was selected from this group.

6.2.2 The Hiiumaa Development Action Plan 2010 On Hiiumaa not many strategic level plans have been made after the re-establishment of independence. In 1993, however, the County Government of Hiiumaa assembled a working group to derive a 32

Alternative planning refers here to plans, concepts, and studies set up by non-governmental organizations and citizen initiatives.

112

Analysis and comparison of planning practice on Rügen, Hiiumaa, and the Archipelago Sea regional development concept for Hiiumaa. The introduction of the planning document stated that, “The need for making a development concept was recognized when a number of active persons on Hiiumaa observed radical changes in the environment conditions which affect the present situation and the future of Hiiumaa. This made them concerned about the future of the island” (Development Concept...1993, 3). ‘Environment’ was apparently understood in a broad sense including the economic, social and ecological environment. One of the main motivations for the concept was the difficult economic situation on the island. State subsidies for islands were cut and the farming collectives from the Soviet era had serious economic problems. Thus a new economic basis was needed (interview). The development concept intended to find the answer to the following questions: “What will the future of Hiiumaa be like? What will be its basis? How will we reach this point?” (Development Concept...1993, 6). One of the main principles emphasized in the plan was sustainable development: “The whole plan is based on the principles of sustainable development according to the ambitions of the Biosphere Reserve .” (Development Concept...1993, 6).

In principle, everyone who was interested was able to participate in the process of working out the concept. In practice, however, only a few active people took part in the work. The working group, consisting of a chairman, fourteen permanent members, and six experts, met nine times within a period of six months. Represented in the working group were: the Hiiumaa County Government, municipalities, the Hiiumaa Research and Education Center Tuuru, the Biosphere Reserve Hiiumaa Center, the Hiiumaa Association of Small-scale Entrepreneurs, the Hiiumaa Highway Department, and two companies. The team was instructed by experts of a consulting company (EKE-ARIKO).

(Kokovkin 1993, 46.)

The working group composed a paper entitled “Development Concept for Hiiumaa” which it published in 1993. The concept aimed to be a strategic plan for the development of Hiiumaa as a natural, economic, social and cultural entity. It was also intended to serve as basis for an action plan and more detailed plans on the municipal level. A form of scenario technique was used and three main development alternatives were identified. These were based on different emphasis of the economic sectors of tourism, industry, and agriculture. Tourism was chosen as the most promising alternative and as a priority sector for future economic development (Development Concept...1993, 25-30).

There was a broad consensus that the goals of the biosphere reserve should be taken into account and that ‘sustainable development’ should be the guiding principle in all development.

The concept also included proposals for the development of the public administration on the island. The administrative system of Estonia was not yet well elaborated at the time. For example, the 113

roles of county government and municipalities were not clear. The presentations called for a high degree of self-governance and even for a special status for islands in the Estonian administrative system. Considerations about linking local and national levels of government were presented, and a ‘Charter’ including long-term policies and priorities was suggested. The establishment of a development council was proposed to apply and monitor the ‘Charter’. In addition a ‘Hiiumaa law’ was proposed, one of whose tasks was to restrict the ownership of land for not-Hiiumaa people (Development Concept...1993, 20-23).

The development concept was reviewed by the county government and presented for broader review in two seminars arranged by the Hiiumaa Research and Education Center Tuuru in February and April 1993. Several articles about the development concept were published in the local newspaper Hiiumaa. The concept was subsequently approved by local governments, but it did not have a very clear role in their decision-making. The purpose of the plan was however clarified in the introduction of the planning document. According to it: “[The] development concept is for advisory purposes. The process of its creation has been democratic and public. It could be a basis for a broader social agreement for the development of Hiiumaa” (Development Concept...1993, 3).

Although the development concept was more a compendium of ideas related to the development of Hiiumaa than a detailed plan or guideline for economic, social, and environmental development, it showed that it is possible for different actors to work together and agree on a strategic level development concept (interview). The concept also drew the interest of various international organizations and researchers, including myself.

A new alliance, called “Oma saar” (Our Island), originated from this joint effort. It received a majority vote in local elections in several municipalities, but soon after the elections it fell apart.

Political parties did not play an important role in the elections in 1992.

At least as important as the concept itself was the cooperation between various actors. This process orientation was even more strongly emphasized in the follow up of the development concept, which began taking shape one year after the development concept was published.33 The Hiiumaa Research and Tuuru Education Center, as part of the Regional Development Department of the County Government, applied for funding for the “Coordination of the development process on Hiiumaa” (interviews). This would support the development of the Hiiumaa Development Action Plan 199533

In the meantime, two other studies had been published. The Center for Extension Studies of the University of Turku in Finland arranged two project management courses in the West Estonian Archipelago Biosphere Reserve. The “Programme for Sustainable Development of the Biosphere Reserve of the West Estonian Archipelago” was worked out in 1993 and a development programme was focused on tourism one year later (Ympäristöä säästävän matkailun...1994). The plans were translated into English language, but not into Estonian language. Thus these plans did not gain much interest or public discussion on Hiiumaa (interview).

114

Analysis and comparison of planning practice on Rügen, Hiiumaa, and the Archipelago Sea 2010 in a democratic process. The funding was eventually given by United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). As it is in the nature of UNDP to support pilot projects, Hiiumaa was chosen as a region where a model for such plans can be elaborated. Hiiumaa was an ideal site because of the homogeneity of the population and its compact economic, social and environmental systems (Letter from Mr. Viik to Mr. Pere, 23.2.1995).

The process started in the beginning of 1996. According to the project information sheet, “The objective of the project is to support coordinated democratic development process on Hiiumaa”. The project consisted of seminars, education and training, and the compilation of development action plans for local governments and the county of Hiiumaa.

Expert & theme groups

Large work group

Local group Town/mun council

Cooperation between County Govt. and Local Govts.

Small work groups

Local group

Town/mun council

Local group Town/mun council

Local group

Local group

Town/mun council

Town/mun council

Education Figure 18. Organization of the HDAP 2010 process.

The Hiiumaa Development Action Plan was coordinated by the Hiiumaa Research and Education Center Tuuru and a small working group, which in addition to representatives from Tuuru, consisted of officials from the Biosphere Reserve Hiiumaa Center, the county government, the Hiiumaa Union of Local Governments, and the Estonian Savings Bank in Hiiumaa. Under the management of this group, documents were drafted to form the basis of development action plans for both local governments and Hiiumaa.

115

It was the aim that the action plan should be created in a democratic way, by calling together local working groups to provide information and ideas to a larger working group representing the whole island. The larger working group was made up of representatives from the local and special topic groups. The groups working on specific topics provided supporting material for both local and large working groups. Both local and topic groups were open to anybody interested in participating.

The process of calling together and activating local work groups has been characterized by the project manager as cumbersome and slow (interview). In the beginning, local governments showed little interest in the effort. It took about half a year before the municipal administrators showed any sign of cooperation (interviews). The leaders of local work groups (who were paid for their work) were nominated.

The Hiiumaa Development Action Plan, which was dealing mainly with socio-economic analysis and development strategies, did not include the implementation of spatial planning. Therefore, in a joint project between the municipality of Gotland and the Hiiumaa County Government, a series of seminars on regional planning and development was organized. Three seminars devoted to spatial planning in general, and one workshop concentrated specifically on spatial planning on Hiiumaa.

The seminars were closely linked to the Hiiumaa Development Action Plan. The project was funded

by SIDA (Swedish International Development Agency). (Hiiumaa Development Action...1997.)

Several interviews conducted with municipality representatives showed that there was much skepticism about planning initiated by the county government. The following citation describes the position of municipalities: “Planning should start from the municipalities...Local work groups should be more continuous and systematic. We have not met so much with the Tuuru Center, so we were not well acquainted with their ideas about Hiiumaa 2010� (interview).

The process of creating the HDAP 2010 plan was affected by a conflict between the local government and the Hiiumaa County Government in the summer of 1996. For some time, there had been conflicts between the municipalities and the county government (e.g. Tiirinen 1991). Only the former is an elected body. There was once an elected county parliament, but the county director is now nominated by the central government.

The conflict became public for the first time shortly before the local elections in 1996, which were to be held only a few months after the fieldwork was conducted on Hiiumaa. Two issues triggered the conflict: the slowness of land reform measures and the delay in regional development funding, which was not received on Hiiumaa, but only on other small islands and the neighboring island of Saaremaa.

In fact, these problems activated a discussion about how the island should be governed.

116

Analysis and comparison of planning practice on Rügen, Hiiumaa, and the Archipelago Sea In an open letter addressed to the prime minister, and speaking in the name of the Union of Local Governments, the municipal leaders and their local councils accused the county governor for making insufficient progress in promoting regional development on Hiiumaa. They demanded his resignation, arguing that “the county lacks a forum where local authorities and county government could meet and discuss local problems” (HT 5.7.1996). A further accusation was that the regional development department and the Tuuru Center does not deal with the problems of municipalities, but only with education (HT 5.7.1996). The counter-argument was that at the time of writing the letter, such a forum had existed for half a year, but the municipalities had not realized it (interview). In fact, municipal leaders and the county governor met every two weeks. But municipal representatives felt that while this forum may be good in itself, it is too abstract and does not deal with everyday problems (interview).34 It should be remembered that during the Soviet era, there was no local level government in Estonia, and that it was re-established after independence was regained in 1991. According to the head of the economic department and the head of the regional development department, the county government is trying to delegate decision-making power to the local level (interviews). The conflict indicates that municipalities want to play a more important role in regional development and that they are not satisfied with the performance of the county government.

When work was begun on the Hiiumaa Development Action Plan, visits to municipal councils were made by the project coordinator. Obviously the municipalities did not feel the process belonged to them. Similar problems have been also noticed by the Biosphere Reserve Hiiumaa Center: “It is difficult to cooperate with the local level if there is no partner who is interested in it” (interview). But local government is slowly gaining more understanding about its tasks and responsibilities.

The formulation of topics for study to be worked on by special groups was left quite open and no predeterminations were made about the specific issues that should be thematized. Five topics were established. These were tourism, rural economy, information technology, education, and culture. The emphasis and intensity of the working groups has varied. While the rural economy group has mainly focused its work on establishing a label for Hiiumaa products, the tourism group has been thinking about such problems as transportation between the island and the mainland, and on the island itself.

The role of NGOs was still somewhat unclear in the process. Local work groups were mainly set up by municipality workers and elected politicians. The Village Movement wanted to have a more active role in the process, but it largely remained an outside observer. It also suggested the inclusion 34

Five main reasons were identified for the letter: the coming elections and the demand from people that something should be done; the fact that state development money was not received on Hiiumaa; underlying personal reasons; the perceived slowness of the land reform; and finally, the fact that the county governor is not elected and local governments wish to be involved in regional development. (interviews.)

117

of Agenda 21 into the process. The project management team was open to such a suggestion (interview). The Kassari Educational Society took part in the educational work group and the local work groups of the municipality of Käina. It also conducted a questionaire on Kassari. This mainly related to the need of having a municipal school (interview).

Participation in the process remained confined to a small group of people and was accused of being too centered on Kärdla (interviews). Taking into account the short period of time the process has been going on and the small size of the island community, it is no wonder that active people involved in the process were mainly from the town. However, a planning process had to be started somewhere and the challenge was to involve more people.

A number of obstacles were revealed through the interviews: • Some of the municipal leaders were skeptical towards the plan.

• The county government was not involved in a very direct way in the process.

• Most people did not know enough about the process. It was unclear for what purposes the project funding was used.

• Planning was generally unpopular, and there was skepticism towards the public administration.

• The long-term agenda of HDAP 2010 contrasted expectations of more immediate outcomes.

There was a great need for more publicity about the process itself and the contents of HDAP 2010.

There was also need to train village residents (interview). Education activities were mainly directed towards entrepreneurs and municipal leaders. The top-down-approach was strong in planning in the past. Although the project coordinators were committed to providing an opportunity to take part in strategic regional planning, the top-down approach still influenced the process. People still perceived planning as something removed from their lives. Many of the interview partners emphasized that people are concerned about everyday problems and that a time frame of fifteen years seems to be too far away.

The coming local elections did not seem to have any strong impact on the local or theme work groups. Most interview partners considered the two as separate issues. Some of those interviewed assumed that the results of certain groups might be used in the programmes of certain political groups. In general, the role of party politics was small on Hiiumaa and elections had more a personal character. The project leader complained that there is little knowledge about organizing such a planning process. The lack of adequate guidelines was considered to be a serious problem.

118

Analysis and comparison of planning practice on Rügen, Hiiumaa, and the Archipelago Sea The case highlights the difficulties involved in starting participatory regional development planning in a society, which has no long democratic tradition and which lacks organized interest groups.

Also the cooperation between levels of governance seemed to be problematic due to poor flow of information and political profilation prior to elections.

6.2.3 Sectoral planning: Forestry planning on Rügen, Hiiumaa and Archipelago Sea Background Forestry planning is selected as illustrative of sectoral planning. Forestry practices can have a significant impact on other land and water uses. Clark (1995) has in the ‘Coastal Zone Management Handbook’ identified the following impacts. Firstly, increased sediment loading in rivers is caused by removal of the forest cover. Water quality is reduced and silting increases, which can negatively affect such activities as aquaculture, fishing, or recreation. Secondly, coastal erosion may also be caused when forest cover is removed (landslides on hill slopes may have serious damages for areas lying below). Of special interest globally are mangrove forests, which are important for fish breeding and represent a separate issue within coastal management literature. There are also other types of lowland and wetland forests such as tidal swamps.

In the three case studies examined here, no such dramatic interactions with other land and water uses occur. The issues are rather related to nature and habitat protection, to landscape design, and to some extent coastal protection. Competition occurs also with other land uses, like construction, agriculture, and tourism. The forestry sector also contributes to local economic development, which makes regional development planning relevant. (Welp 1998b.)

Forestry planning in the Southeast Rügen Biosphere Reserve During the GDR era, the demands of the wood-processing industry largely dictated forestry practices. In contrast to West-German forestry practices, which were more or less based on the principles of sustainability and multiple use, forestry in GDR aimed toward maximizing wood yield.

Profound changes have taken place in forestry on Rügen and elsewhere in Eastern Germany since unification took place in 1991. The forestry administration has been reorganized, various types of protected areas have been designated within the national park programme (including national parks, nature parks and biosphere reserves), and the forestry legislation has been amended on the basis of the federal forest act, which has been the framework law for forest legislation in the old Bundesländer since 1977.

119

In the federal state of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, a Forest Act was issued in 1993 which laid down the foundation for a shift towards close-to-nature multiple purpose oriented forestry. Increasing the proportion of forested areas was declared as one of the legislative objectives. A decree for the implementation of close-to-nature forestry was launched in 1996. Key tasks of the close-to-nature forestry programme include increasing the share of broad-leafed species, increasing the share of mixed and not even-aged forests, limiting the use of exotic species, and using natural regeneration as far as possible. Further objectives are increasing the share of old forests and dead wood in forests, protecting plant and animal species, designating and managing forest reserves, and increasing nature protection and recreation in forests.

These principles are applied in forestry practices also in the Southeast Rügen Biosphere Reserve. Core areas are not managed. For example, the current policy is to transform the coniferous forests (Norwegian spruce, larch) back to broad-leafed forests (Biosphärenreservate in Deutschland.

1995, 149). The decree of the Southeast Rügen Biosphere Reserve has no detailed regulations concerning forestry. The ordinance, however, defines the goal of protecting the environment by developing models for ecological land use within the sectors: agriculture, forestry, fisheries, traffic, and recreation (Verordnung über...1990). In this case it can be said that forestry follows the policy guidelines of the state. To suggest that new models of ecological land use within forestry would be developed would perhaps go too far, even though the forestry administration in cooperation with the biosphere reserve takes special notice of nature protection and recreation. An initial effort towards combining ecological land use, economic development, and increased use of local resources has been the First Wood Exhibition of Rügen, which was organized in the summer of 1997 (Erste Rügener Holzmesse 1997).

There are three main reasons for problems in promoting ecological land use within the forestry sector in the biosphere reserve: first, ownership questions have not yet been resolved; secondly the biosphere reserve is too small (forest area is only 2270 ha, 25% of the total land area of the biosphere reserve); and finally, there are no markets for timber, nor is there a local wood-processing industry.

Currently little of the forest area is privately owned. However, there are areas where ownership questions remain. In fact over 60% of the total area belongs to the federal state and will presumably be privatized. The forestry administration is managing these forests on a year-to-year basis, and thus no interim or long-range plans can be made.

Various forms of cooperation with other agencies and sectors take place. The forestry administration and the biosphere reserve administration, which is the nature protection authority in this 120

Analysis and comparison of planning practice on R端gen, Hiiumaa, and the Archipelago Sea area, have reached agreements about the use of forest resources. The protocol of an early meeting in 1991, before the forest law was passed, clarified the respective competencies and is a rough guideline for forest management in the area. Accordingly, close-to-nature forestry and special silvicultural treatments are preferred in coastal forests. Cooperation also takes the form of on-site visits, and the forestry administration usually informs the biosphere reserve administration about major cuttings. In making the management plans, the biosphere reserve is involved in the early phases of planning. The joint cooperative efforts were considered to have worked well by all partners interviewed. The Biosphere reserve administration has chosen forestry as a central sector where the sustainable use of local resources for local purposes and employment is demonstrated in an exemplary way.

Several agencies have a say in coastal protection: the forestry administration, the biosphere reserve administration, and the Coastal Protection Division of the Nature Protection Administration (Staatliches Amt f端r Umwelt und Natur). These three agencies may have different opinions about the methodology of coastal protection. For instance, the Coastal Protection Division has a technical and engineering approach, the forestry department does not want to let forests to be cleared for other coastal protection measures, and the nature protection authority wants to have natural grasslands and overflooding.

Conflicts have also emerged concerning tourism and recreation. Often, hotels, clinics, and camping sites are built too close to the shoreline, which has caused conflicts in coastal erosion control. In the GDR there was a 200 m coastal strip of protected forests which were managed only for purposes of coastal defense (erosion control and flood prevention). Currently the 200 m strip has been included in the nature protection and construction legislations.

Agricultural land is currently being shifted to other uses. Afforesting these areas has so far been limited. Conflicts related to forest increase have also emerged. Landscapes should not be significantly changed, but on the other hand forest cover should be increased. Finding suitable places for afforestation has been difficult. The forestry administration is also much involved in land-use planning because of the amount of construction, so that issuing evaluative statements on construction permits occupies a great deal of time.

Some statements concerning forestry can also be found in strategic regional plans made for R端gen.

The Structure Concept (see Chapter 6.2.1) which was made in 1991, before the launching of the forest law, states that: (a) the policy of the district government is to increase forest area from 16% to 18%; (b) no exotic species shall be used, monocultures shall be avoided, forests shall be gradually 121

transformed to appropriate species, clear cuts shall be avoided; (c) recreational needs are considered; and (d) local atmospheric emissions from industry and animal production shall be avoided.

The draft of the subsequent ‘District Development Plan’ includes all these statements except the ban of clear cuts. These plans are not legally binding, and the forestry administration is not subordinate to the district government which makes the strategic plans, but is directly under the authority of the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Nature Protection. The plans are thus policy guidelines for the district government.

There has been no public participation in forestry planning. If forest cutting takes place in sensitive areas, the public may be informed in advance. Strategic forestry planning is made within the forestry administration in close negotiations with the biosphere reserve administration. Advising private forest owners is also a task of the administration. There have been no locally initiated demands for more participation in forestry planning.

Forestry planning on Hiiumaa Hiiumaa is the most forested county in Estonia. About 70% of the total area is covered by forests.

The share of mires is about 10% and the share of agricultural land is about 20%. Over 80% of Hiiumaa’s forests are natural in origin. In coniferous forests the most predominant tree species are pine (47%) and spruce (12%). In broad-leafed forests, the most dominating tree species are birch (36%) and common alder (4%). (Ahde 1998.)

During the Soviet era, Hiiumaa’s forests were allowed to grow in their natural state and their utilization was not significant. Timber was mainly used for firewood. Therefore the average age of Hiiumaa forests is relatively young. As on Rügen, forestry and agriculture were separated: agriculture was practiced by state farms and forestry by state-owned forestry enterprises.

The situation is changing due to the land reform program. Although state-owned forests still comprise the biggest share, there is a new group of privately owned forests. Small farm forests are thus a new phenomenon on Hiiumaa. Therefore the increasing role of private forest owners represents a significant change in forestry on the island. Since they have owned their forests for a very short time, however, most do not yet know what to do with their forests. Almost 10% of the forest owners live off-island. Some are older and are not particularly interested in using their forest resources.

The West Estonian Archipelago Biosphere Reserve has brought new nature protection objectives to Hiiumaa (Lääne-Eesti saarestiku...1994). Most of the forests classified as core areas with the formation of the biosphere reserve were already protected under earlier regulations. About 1,300 ha 122

Analysis and comparison of planning practice on RĂźgen, Hiiumaa, and the Archipelago Sea of so-called profit-yielding forests were added to the core areas with the formation of the Biosphere Reserve. About forty strictly protected areas in the traditional sense of nature conservation are now included in the core areas of the biosphere reserve. They cover about 7% of the area of Hiiumaa.

There are special regulations concerning the use of coastal forests; cuttings are not allowed on a 20 m strip and limited on a 200 m strip (e.g. no clear cuts allowed).

According to the Estonian Forest Law, the management of all forests is planned and controlled by the Forests Department. On Hiiumaa, the Forest Department is divided into three forestry districts, whose task it is to develop the management plans for state-owned and private forests. The department is working closely with the Hiiumaa Environmental Department of the County Government and the Hiiumaa Biosphere Reserve Center.

According to the Estonian Forest Law (§8), forest owners are entitled to take part in drafting the forest management plans concerning their forests, and have the right to be present when the plan is up for approval. In practice, taking part in drafting the management plan is not common among private forest owners. No participatory arrangements have taken place in state forest planning.

So far no demands for public participation have occurred, nor have there been any public conflicts related to forestry. The process of developing management guidelines for the core areas has met with some potentially serious conflicts with new landowners, but the biosphere reserve administration has been able to resolve these disagreements through negotiations.

Occasionally there is disagreement between the Forest Department and the Hiiumaa Biosphere Reserve Center about the amount and location of cuttings, but cooperation has been close and regular communication takes place. In terms of the biosphere reserve, cooperation with private forest owners is more difficult, because they do not often exactly know what they want to do with their forests.

Education for private forests owners is organized by the Hiiumaa Forestry Department. There have also been discussions about a green label for forestry (similar to the already existing green label for tourism enterprises). For example, a Swedish enterprise has offered to pay a higher price (3%) for eco-labeled timber to motivate forest owners.

In strategic regional development planning forestry has not been the main focus. Within the preparation of the Hiiumaa Development Action Plan 2010, discussions were carried out to determine whether a separate forestry working group should be established in addition to the existing rural economy working group. General problems related to forestry are the lack of local woodprocessing industry and handcrafts, and the separation of agricultural and forestry extension for small farmers.

123

Forestry planning in the Archipelago Sea Biosphere Reserve Ownership of forests in the Archipelago Sea is mainly private. Forestry is not a priority economic sector in the archipelago, but forests are important sources of additional income especially for farmers. Archipelago forests are also important to recreation and nature protection. The archipelago belongs to the oak forest zone and is thus unique in Finland. (Pekkola 1998.)

Forestry has never been practiced on large scale, due to the small size of most of the islands.

Nevertheless, one of the first environmental conflicts in the archipelago was about forestry practices. The conflict concerning forest cuttings on the island on Nรถtรถ was given national media attention. Other forestry conflicts have occurred concerning the national nature protection programmes as well, regarding such issues as the protection of old-growth forests and groves and more recently the Natura 2000 areas. The protection of the sea eagle has also been a controversial issue.

There are no specific regulations in the new forest law or nature protection law on forest management practices in the archipelago. Due to the small size of forest estates no large-scale cuttings have been made. No compulsory guidelines exist, but a book on forest management practices in archipelagos has been published in cooperation with a Swedish partner.

The administration of the Archipelago Sea Biosphere Reserve has no specific role related to forestry planning. Although it functions within the context of the Regional Environmental Center of Southwest Finland, it has no regulatory role concerning forestry or other land-use planning.

The Regional Forest Center responsible for the Archipelago Sea is located in Parainen. For ten years it has been preparing forest management plans for private forests. The plans are of an advisory nature. Participation by forest owners is allowed but does not often take place in forest management planning. According to forest planners this is mainly due to the lack of personnel. Forestry planners however emphasize the need for face-to-face discussions, because the management plans alone do not influence the decisions of forest owners.

Demands for more public participation have been expressed by forest owners mainly concerning the designation of protected areas. Obviously informing and consulting forest owners has been insufficient in designating new protected areas. This has created great suspicion towards the nature protection administration.

Cooperation with other sectors was considered insufficient by most persons interviewed. In particular, cooperation between nature protection authorities and forestry professionals has been unsatisfactory. So far the designation of protected areas and forestry planning have been separate. According to the new forest law, however, the forest districts shall make a strategic forest plan (tavoiteohjelma). The 124

Analysis and comparison of planning practice on Rügen, Hiiumaa, and the Archipelago Sea plan should be made by the forest district in cooperation with nature protection and other sectoral agencies and interest groups. Because the law was amended only recently and there have in addition been major organizational changes, the methods of cooperation have not evolved yet.

There have been several development programmes which to some extent have taken forestry issues into consideration. The overall tenor has been to promote local wood-processing industry and handcrafting. Also within strategic development planning participation and cooperation procedures are still undeveloped.

Conclusions Biosphere reserves are intended to become model regions for sustainable resources use. Often the biosphere reserve concept is, however, perceived as too abstract and its promotional role as very limited. Within the forestry sector this model character could be demonstrated in an exemplary way.

Using local wood resources for local purposes (construction, energy, handcraft, etc.) requires new ways of cooperation between various actors. Initial steps have been taken especially on Rügen.

Nature protection and forestry often include potential for conflict. On Rügen and on Hiiumaa close cooperation takes place between the forestry administration and the biosphere reserve administration, so that in most cases an agreement on the use and protection of forest resources has been found. In contrast to other sectors, like construction and traffic, the conflicts have been small.

Forest management in the case study areas can be characterized as ‘sectoral management’, or, using the typology of Olsen et al. (1997), as ‘enhanced sectoral management’ (see Figure 6, Chapter 2.3). A more integrated management approach would systematically address the use of natural resources and link these closely to regional development efforts. The advisory boards of the biosphere reserves (currently existing on Rügen and in the Archipelago Sea) could serve as launching pads for such efforts.

6.2.4 Two coastal land-use conflicts on Rügen and Hiiumaa Background The clash of interests between property rights, free access to coasts, and nature and landscape protection makes the construction of buildings one of the most controversial coastal issues. In the Southeast Rügen Biosphere Reserve land-use planning is the first and foremost reason for continuous conflicts between municipalities and the biosphere reserve administration. In the following, two examples of illegal construction on Rügen and Hiiumaa are examined. Although these examples are not representative, they can be considered important in terms of the biosphere reserve. In addition,

125

they sparked a more basic public discussion about coastal land use and decision-making procedures.

Both cases must be viewed against the profound changes in the administration and the legislation that took place during these years. Because the ‘rules of the game’ were not yet clear, the situation could be exploited by some entrepreneurs (interviews).

The states around the Baltic Sea usually have legal provisions for the protection of the coastal strip. The aim of these provisions may include ensuring the public free access along the coastline, protecting coastal landscapes, nature conservation, protection from erosion, and prevention of water pollution from land-based activities. Legal provisions, planning guidelines, or special policies for coastal zones extending further inland and seawards are much more vague. HELCOM (Helsinki Commission) has recommended (15/1) that countries around the Baltic Sea should establish a 3 km coastal planning zone. So far no country has implemented this recommendation.

In Germany, land use on the coastal strip is considered to be a concern of the states (Länder) and neither the Federal Nature Conservation Act nor other federal legislation includes specific rules for the protection or planning of the coastal strip. In Mecklenburg-Vorpommern the first Nature Protection Act from 1992 (Erstes Gesetz zum Naturschutz im Land Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, §7) states that buildings may not be erected or essentially enlarged within a 200 meter wide strip from the coastline outside settlements. Exemptions may however be entitled in certain cases and under certain conditions. The exemptions mostly refer to shore-bound activities like harbors, water sports, and bathing. The endorsement of the nature protection authority is needed in such cases (cf. Nordberg 1994, 7). The Water Act of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern from 1992 (Wassergesetz des Landes Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, LWaG) also includes the regulation concerning the use of the coastal strip, as is the regulation of 200 m.

In Germany there are no specific regulations for planning in the larger coastal zone (extending 200 m) neither in federal nor in state environmental and planning legislation. However the first spatial plan on a state level (Erstes Landesraumordnungsprogramm Mecklenburg-Vorpommern), which was enacted in 1993, assigns most coastal areas the status of either ‘priority areas for nature and landscape protection’ (Vorranggebiete Naturschutz und Landschaftspflege) or ‘provision areas for nature and landscape’ (Vorsorgeräume Naturschutz und Landschaftspflege). In priority areas, all spatial planning and projects have to be compatible with the goals of nature and landscape protection. In provision areas spatial planning and projects are to be carefully considered and, as far as possible, should not influence the importance of the area for nature and landscape protection. (Erstes Landesraumordnungs-programm...1993, 31-32.)

126

Analysis and comparison of planning practice on Rügen, Hiiumaa, and the Archipelago Sea In Estonia the Act on Shore Protection (1995) prohibits construction on large islands closer than 200 meters to the coastline (on mainland 100 m), in order to protect the shore landscape and to prevent water pollution from land-based activities. Some shore-bound activities like harbors are excluded from the prohibition. The protected strip can be enlargened or made narrower by decisions of the local authority.

Finland is the only European country, which has no legislation for the protection of the coastal strip (Järventaus 1995). Neither the Nature Conservation Act from 1923 nor the Planning and Building Act from 1958 include specific provisions on the protection of the coastal strip. The Nature Conservation Act, however, was amended in 1997 to include a provision that construction are only allowed if a general or shore plan exists. The national Shoreline Conservation Program, launched in 1990, protected only 4% of the coastal strip along the Finnish Baltic Sea coast (Nurmela 1994, 44), while 3% was protected as national parks or nature reserves.

The house in Seedorf Numerous land-use conflicts concerning the construction of hotels, rehabilitation clinics, private apartments, and other structures have taken place on Rügen and in the biosphere reserve in the last few years. Local media has covered the most controversial cases. One land-use conflict concerned the construction of a house in the village of Seedorf and had special importance for the biosphere reserve. The conflict took place during a period of time when new ministries were being established, new legislative arrangements were introduced, and the jurisdictions of different levels of government were not clear yet. This particular conflict cannot be regarded as typical, however at its time it was important as a precedent of illegal construction. It was also critical to the very existence of the biosphere reserve as well as the development of the media on the island.

Development control in the form of construction permits and zoning gained new importance after German unification. Many well-funded investors from West-Germany recognized new opportunities within the construction sector in the ‘new Bundesländer’. In coastal regions, like Rügen, the rise of tourism made investments in hotels and other touristic facilities very attractive. In addition, federal policy directed investments to the new Bundesländer by making investments ‘tax-free’, which quickly increased the amount of construction (interview).

One of the most important developers on Rügen had established good relations with the district councillor during the first legislative period in the beginning of 1990’s. With a special permit from the district councillor the investor started to build a house for himself on the coastal strip (less than 200 meters from the coastline) in a nature protection area. The biosphere reserve office was not consulted

127

when the permit was issued. A further permit from the regional planning authority was issued, but withdrawn within 24 hours. Construction work continued on the site, however. The issue went to the ministry level and the Ministry of the Interior declared the project illegal. But the district councillor refused to take any action to stop the project. Construction was finally halted when the district councillor, accused of several unclear affairs in the construction business, withdrew from his position.

Soon afterwards, the construction project was judged to be illegal and a decision was made that the investor would have to tear down the nearly finished building. As a response to this the investor initiated a law suit arguing that the ordinance of the biosphere reserve was invalid because the process of designating did not meet the requirements concerning public participation. The local newspaper wrote (OZ 15.9.1993): “[The investor] submitted his case to the higher administrative court (Normenkontrollklage) against the ordinance by the environmental ministry establishing the southeastern part of the island of Rügen as a biosphere reserve. The status of protected area shall, claims the investor, be withdrawn so that construction is possible.”

The higher Administrative Court of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern ruled on the issue on April 20,1994, stating that GDR legislation had designated the biosphere reserve, and the ordinance was carried over into the new legal structure by the terms of the unification treaty. This important decision also affected all other large protected areas established within the national park programme. In addition, the ruling confirmed that landscape protection is a task of the biosphere reserve in densely populated areas as well, thus resolving what had been a longstanding controversial issue. The position of the biosphere reserve was, however, weakened by the decision, so that its statements concerning construction in densely populated areas are not binding but have only an advisory character for the district government.

The investor brought the case to an even higher court, but it only confirmed the earlier decision.

The house was removed at the expence of the investor. Because of his unpleasant experiences with the local press, the investor decided to found his own newspaper. He bought the Rüganer and used it as a channel to influence public opinion (see Chapter 4.2.1).

The house in Sarve The first serious land-use conflict on Hiiumaa discussed in local media occurred in early summer 1996, during my field trip to Hiiumaa. The Hiiumaa Biosphere Reserve Center was involved in this conflict in various ways. The case was believed to have, at least on Hiiumaa, the status of a principal ‘showcase’ for future coastal land use, putting the emerging issue of coastal land use on the public agenda.

128

Analysis and comparison of planning practice on Rügen, Hiiumaa, and the Archipelago Sea The strongest development pressures on Hiiumaa are expected to be in the most attractive coastal areas. Therefore land-use planning is especially important on coastal areas and not so much in inner parts of the island, which are only sparsely inhabited. So far construction have been on a small scale, because of the slow process of land reform and the lack of financial power. Many persons interviewed believe that when ownership questions are solved and people will have the financial means to build, construction on the coastal strip will increase significantly.

The conflict arose when local construction companies under the supervision of a local real estate company started building a summer cottage in Sarve in the municipality of Pühalepa. There was a general plan for the whole municipality, but no detailed plan for this particular area. Nor had the general plan been accepted by the municipal council (interview), and the property in question was not yet privatized (interview). There was only a preliminary promise from the district government to return the land to the former owner. The real estate company had made a preliminary agreement with the former owner about selling the land to an Estonian woman who is married to a Finnish man.

Currently the law prohibits sales of land to foreigners (interview).

The company started to build a house closer than 200 m from the shoreline in a core area of the biosphere reserve. The building permit was given by the local government. When the environmental department of the county government pointed out that the permit is not valid, the local government withdrew the permit.

According to the environmental department it was illegal and the local government employees who issued the construction permit were not authorized to do so. At this time, however the basement of the house was completed and the construction carried on, despite the withdrawal of the permit.

Several articles were published in two local newspapers, Hiiumaa and Hiiu-Teataja. The public discussion soon turned into a more fundamental discussion about the conflict between nature conservation and building, as well as the relationships between public and private interests. The approaching local elections also influenced the discussion. The main parties in this discussion were one representative of the Hiiumaa Biosphere Reserve Center and an agent from the real estate company.

In a newspaper article titled “Dance around the land” (HI 13.6.1996) the director of the real estate company asserted that the nature protection areas, the 200 meter coastal protection strip and the slowness of the land reform hinder economic development on Hiiumaa. The main message was that if state bureaucrats continue to act in an inflexible way, Hiiumaa will become a museum and there will be no development. A political dimension was added through the fact that the realtor was also the leader of the conservative Reform Party Fraction on Hiiumaa. In the article’s postscript, letters were solicited in the name of the Reform Party from people who have had problems with the land reform.

129

A representative of the Hiiumaa Biosphere Reserve Center responded with an article pointing out that nature conservation directly affects construction on only 0.4% of Hiiumaa’s land area (HI 15.6.1996). Further on he noted that the 200 m zone was issued by a government act and confirmed in the general municipal development plan of Pühalepa. The article pointed out the political nature of the conflict and stressed the need for land-use planning in coastal areas.

The response from the representative of the real estate company pointed out that a decree for the protection of this particular core area is being prepared with great speed in the Hiiumaa Biosphere Reserve Center (HI 4.6.1996). Furthermore the biosphere reserve was criticized for not seriously considering the opinions of landowners. It was also pointed out that because people are very skeptical towards public administration, the planners should go directly to the landowners. In the end of the article the writer expressed a desire to end the discussion, saying he would not write any more.

An interesting aspect was that the person from the real estate company was also a stockholder in a company called Tareste which also owns the local newspaper, radio, and printing plant. The editors of the paper had however explicitly distanced themselves from the realtor’s opinions by stating that: “Some of the editors of the paper are also members of the Reform Party. One should not think that all opinions presented by [the realtor] represent the opinions of the Reform Party” (HI 15.6.1996). In the local elections in 1996 the Reform Party faction split into three. The elections were apparently centered on individual candidates and the left-right political orientation was not always particularly relevant (interview).

At the time of the start of the construction, the core area did not have proper legal protection. The process of adapting the existing zonation (core areas, buffer zone and transition zone) with the new Act on Protected Natural Objects was underway. The Hiiumaa Biosphere Reserve Center began writing new decrees using the new categories, and it planned to be finished by the end of the year 1996 (interview). Even though the legal protective status was not finalized, the construction was illegal due to the fact that the house was built closer than 200 m from the sea.

The case was brought to the ministerial level and was also discussed in the county government. In fact there was no way to 130

The conflict concerning the summer house in Sarve was one of the first Photo: Mart Mõniste public environmental conflicts on Hiiumaa.

Analysis and comparison of planning practice on R체gen, Hiiumaa, and the Archipelago Sea physically stop the construction. After discussions with various stakeholders the county governor, who had the decision-making power, delegated the issue to the council of the local government (interview).

Many of those interviewed stated that by doing so, the governor took a fundamentally positive attitude towards the construction of the house. On June 25, 1996, the director of the Hiiumaa Biosphere Reserve Center wrote an official letter to the head of the municipality council pointing out that the biosphere reserve is not a controlling institution, but the position of the biosphere reserve is that the house should be removed. When needed a juridical decision should be sought in court.

According to several interview partners, this was the first case in which the biosphere reserve was publicly accused and involved in a public land-use conflict (interviews). Although the Hiiumaa Biosphere Reserve Center has no legal role in controlling the core areas (the task of the environmental department of the county government), it designates and prepares the decrees for protected areas.

There had already been conflicts with landowners in this particular area in Sarve, when the size of the core area and the content of the decree were determined (interview). This was however the only truly public conflict; in the other cases a compromise was found earlier on (interview). One of the persons interviewed said that the role of the biosphere reserve should be clarified, since it is taking part in the political discussions, but has no formal responsibilities.

As the pressure on coastal areas is growing, similar conflicts are anticipated in the future (interview).

That this type of conflict did not occur before was merely due to the fact that land ownership questions were to largely unresolved and there was little money for investing in building. This is slowly changing and in addition there are more foreigners who are interested in buying summer cottages on Hiiumaa.

It is important to note that the person who coordinated the construction of the house had studied law, so that he was able to challenge the legal structure. For a normal citizen the current planning system is new and barely understandable (interviews). The obvious overlap of his economic and political interests as the owner of the real estate company and as the leader of the Reform Party fraction of Hiiumaa initiated the public outcry. In fact according to one interview partner, the house was not going to be the last, but the first of nine other houses planned to be built (interview).

Similar conflicts of interests were resolved in the neighboring municipality of K채ina, where detailed plans were made for coastal areas. The planning process had been long but a compromise was found between building construction and nature protection (interview). In this municipality the K채ina Bay Integrated Management Plan was also made (see Chapter 6.2.6).

In the Sarve case the outcome of the conflict was multifaceted. It questioned the legitimacy of the biosphere reserve and brought party politics into the sphere of nature and coastal protection. For the 131

first time there was a polarization between ‘environmentalists’ (represented by the Hiiumaa Biosphere Reserve Center) and ‘developers’, who promised jobs and opportunities to sell land and earn income. The house itself has not been removed so far.

6.2.5 Water-use planning with special reference to fish farming on Rügen and in the Archipelago Sea Background Fish farming is a water-use issue which distinctively illustrates the land/sea interaction of human activities. It is estimated that globally aquaculture (i.e., fish, shrimp, and mussel farming) has growing importance as a source of food for the increasing human population. The environmental effects of aquaculture, however, range from destruction of coastal ecosystems (such as mangrove forests) to water pollution, and to impacts in natural fish stocks, from diseases to changes in natural fish populations.

The planning and public discussion concerning a fish farm which was planned for a site close to the town of Binz on Rügen will serve as the first example of water-use planning to be studied here.

Water-use planning with special reference to fish farming in the Archipelago Sea is also selected for closer inquiry. Fish farming is one of the most debated environmental issues in the Archipelago Sea, while it is of minor importance on Rügen. This specific case near Binz, which is presented here is based mainly on thirty newspaper articles.

Rügen Bodies of water in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern are divided into two categories. The first category includes rivers, ditches, and groundwater, and the second category comprises coastal and offshore waters. Decision-making concerning the first category is the responsibility of the environmental department of the Office of the District Councillor, and decisions concerning the second category by the State Office for Environment and Nature (Staatliches Amt für Naturschutz und Umwelt). The latter is also responsible for the controlling of water quality and has a net of control stations. The municipalities are responsible for drinking water and for the treatment of waste waters. They have formed a joint administrative commission (Zweckverband) to take care of these tasks.

The quality of coastal waters in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern has improved since the German unification, mainly due to the decrease of industrial and agricultural production. The treatment of sewage from settlements has also improved with modern facilities built in the last years. The planned fish farm in the Bay of Prora was by many considered as a step in the wrong direction.

132

Analysis and comparison of planning practice on Rügen, Hiiumaa, and the Archipelago Sea The conflict took place from 1993 to 1995. In September 1993, the company Skalölaks Deutschland Inc. received a permit from the State Office for the Environment and Nature in Stralsund to produce two hundred tons of rainbow trout in the Bay of Prora. The facility was planned to be located one sea mile off the coast. The permit was given based on a study and the consent of the district and the town of Sassnitz (OZ 3.1.1995). The permit included the obligation for the enterprise to monitor the impact of the fish farm on water quality.

The fish farm in the Bay of Prora would have been the first new fish farm to be established after German unification. The decision concerning this farm was considered to be of great importance, because it would be have been a signal of encouragement to others interested in fish farming.

During the GDR era, intensive fish farming took place in the coastal waters. But many of these farms were closed after German unification. Thus the nutrient load caused by fish farming decreased considerably: in 1988, 40 tons of phosphorus was emitted from fish farms and in 1994 it was only 1.1 tons (OZ 5.4.1994), and the current production of fish was 125 tons. A draft of a policy guideline for fish farming in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, worked out by the ministries in authority suggested an increase in production to 1000 tons. A map showing six possible sites for fish farms on the coast of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern was drawn and also published in an article of a local newspaper (OZ 5.4.1994). The guidelines were never completed and officially launched, however, but remained in the form of a draft (OZ 3.1.1995).

The intended location of the fish farm was close to the town of Binz, in the Bay of Prora, one sea mile from the shoreline. Binz is the most prominent beach for bathing on Rügen (for example there is an overnight express-train from Basel in Switzerland to Binz during summer months) and its economy is dependent on high-class tourism. The intended site for the fish farm was located approximately three sea miles from the water areas of the biosphere reserve (see map 2).

In November 1994, the company confirmed that it wanted to start fish farming in May 1995.

After it contacted Binz’s municipal government, it met with opposition. According to the head of the municipality, the local government had not been informed about the decision made by the State Office for Environment and Nature. Strong opposition against the project grew on the whole island.

The environmental agency that had issued the permit was accused of not taking into account the economic effects of the project. Surprisingly, however, this criticism was directed against the fish farm. An adverse effect on local tourism was feared. The narrow sectoralized viewpoint in the process of issuing the permit was criticized in local newspapers: “The economic questions, for which the State Office for Environment and Nature does not have to answer or take responsibility, remain unanswered. These are: Is the fish farm going to have impact on the public image of the tourism 133

region? Is the fish farm a competitor for local fishermen? Whom are the subsidies going to benefit?”

(OZ 16.2.1994) Also a local representative of the environmental NGO NABU criticized that no environmental impact assessment was required in the permit process and that socio-economic issues were not taken into consideration (OZ 24.2.1994).

The main arguments of the opponents against the planned fish farm were that it would have negative impacts on water quality in the coastal waters. First and foremost, it would detract from the image of Binz and the whole region as a coastal tourism resort. The municipality of Binz was also concerned about the possibility for approval as a ‘coastal health resort’ (Seeheilbad), a designation given by the Ministry of Social Affairs (OZ 15.2.1995). Further, it argued that it makes no sense to construct expensive water treatment facilities if such projects are allowed to take place simultaneously. In fact, one of the arguments for issuing the permit was that since a new water treatment facility was to be constructed in Sassnitz a fish farm would be justified. The estimated three to five new jobs were put against the 1500 persons working in the tourism sector in Binz. In addition the fish processing would have taken place in Denmark (OZ 10.10.1994). Opponents were also concerned that further permits would be issued, and that this case would thus have an exemplary character. The local newspaper Ostseezeitung wrote: “Nobody wanted it. The permit was however issued as a product of German bureaucracy and faith in laws” (OZ 10.10.1994).

The State Office for Environment and Nature confirmed in the press that the permit was issued in compliance with existing laws; that the decision conformed to the Helsinki Conventions (HELCOM); that no significant negative impacts on water quality were anticipated, and if so, the five-year permit would be withdrawn. The older fish farms that had existed during the GDR era were responsible for the bad reputation of fish farming in general. The state office pointed out that farming techniques had improved since then.

Seldom has there been such a consensus of opinion among different actors on Rügen as in this case. The district councillor, the business section of the district council, the town of Binz, the chamber of industry and commerce, the East Rügen Landscape Preservation Union (Landschaftspflegeverband Ostrügen), tourism associations, and various environmental organizations all took positions against the fish farm in the local press (OZ 14.10.1994). An environmental foundation from Hamburg called “Save Our Future” became involved and made a marine biological survey and a legal survey on the issue. An initiative called the People’s Initiative Against the Fish Farm (Volksinitiative gegen die Fischmastanlage) was founded.

A public hearing was organized by the town of Binz and “Save Our Future”, which presented the results of the surveys. Representatives from the Ministry of the Environment, of the State Office for 134

Analysis and comparison of planning practice on Rügen, Hiiumaa, and the Archipelago Sea Environment and Nature, and the district were present and answered questions from the audience.

The Minister of the Environment confirmed that no negative effects were expected and that the production would be stopped should any materialize. The audience showed little sympathy for the idea that this particular fish farm should be a ‘test area’ (RÜ 12.10.1994). According to the representative of the Nature Conservation Academy of Vilm, the case turned on a fundamental question: do we want such farms on our coasts? The next day a demonstration was organized on the shoreline and coastal waters of the Bay of Prora. A petition bearing one thousand names of opponents was collected by the initiative (OZ 9.2.1995).

The municipal executive of Binz opposed the permit, but this position was rejected by the State Office for Environment and Nature. The next step was that the municipality entered a law suit against the decision made by the State Office for Environment and Nature in the Greifswald administrative court (Verwaltungsgericht Greifswald, OZ 14.12.1995.)

During the public debate the important role of state subsidies became clear. Without the 50% subsidy from the structure fonds of the European Union the enterprise would not be interested in building the fish farm. Opponents questioned the policy of giving subsidies within a Euro-roundtable in the capital of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (OZ 9.2.1995).

The administrative court confirmed that in the permitting process conducted by the State Office for Environment and Nature, “The interests of the municipality and the main direction of development, which lies within the tourism sector, was too little or not at all taken into consideration” (RÜ 6.3.1996). Ultimately, a decision was made to ban the farm.

Although the issue mobilized people opposing the planned fish farm, no broader issues concerning the quality of coastal waters or the Baltic Sea were addressed. The conflict was a very local one and focused only on a single issue, ignoring larger concerns. For example, no demands were expressed that the intended enlargement of the port of Mukran, located also close to Binz, should fulfill specific environmental standards, or that specific attention should be given to safety as the number of shipping activities increased.

Archipelago Sea A wide range of water-use issues have been the subject of public debates in the Archipelago Sea. Some of the most important include ownership of water areas, fishing rights, ship routes and sand mining. However the most striking issue has been the eutrophication of coastal waters. Questions remain unresolved regarding the relative contribution to eutrophication from local fish farming, 135

from such large cities as St. Petersburg, or from general atmospheric pollution. Numerous studies have been published, but no general agreement has been found so far on the issue.

Land-use planning and water-use planning are separate issues in Finland (Siirala 1990, 174-176).

There is no comprehensive system of water-use planning at the local level. General plans set up by municipalities have usually only the symbol of “W” for water areas. The only issue related to water use has been the placement of small village harbors (interview). Regional plans take notice only of major shipping and boating routes, and few other water-use issues.

One of the most obvious needs for integrated land- and water-use planning is related to the conflict between fish farming and leisure housing, comparable to the dilemma over tourism vs. fish farming on Rügen. Other issues include boating routes and perhaps most importantly, the eutrophication of the Archipelago Sea. Fish farming is the most controversial water-use issue in the Archipelago Sea. Environmental problems related to fish farming include eutrophication and unknown effects of the use of antibiotics. Fish farming has caused serious local conflicts with housing and leisure housing. The line of conflict runs partly between summer folk and year-round residents. Owners of summer cottages in the vicinity of fish farms are upset by local effects, including muddy water, eutrophication, and increased noise and excrement from sea-gulls. Of course, permanent residents are also affected, but they appear to give more weight to the impact on the local economy and are thus in general more moderate in their opinions.

Notification and permission procedures under the Water Act concern projects that affect water quality, navigable waterways, and ground water. The Water Rights Court have the authority to give approval, and the Water Rights Appeal Court, the Supreme Administrative Court, and the Supreme Court have the authority to uphold appeals. The notification procedure involves reports on projects using certain hazardous substances, as well as a number of other projects specified by decree. The permitting procedure is required for any projects resulting in non-compliance with the prohibitions.

They take place prior to the court proceedings.

In cases of major significance, the public inquiry process is applied. The main phases of public inquiry are the opening session, examination, the supplementation and inspection of the report of the ad hoc board of inquiry. In cases where no public inquiry is conducted, the application is made either by public announcement or through inspection proceedings. The former is for projects that have only a minor impact on navigable waterways, while the latter is used to complement the public announcement if further inspection is needed (Paldanius 1994a, 6.).

136

Analysis and comparison of planning practice on R체gen, Hiiumaa, and the Archipelago Sea A permit from the Water Rights Court is needed for fish farming. The application with the necessary supplemental information is sent to the court, which makes it public. Affected land and water owners can send their written concerns to the Water Rights Court. A statement is also solicited from the regional environment center, the rural development agency, and other administrative bodies involved. The court makes a decision by calculating a so-called cost-benefit relation. The Water Rights Court decides on permits on a case-by-case basis, but is guided by policy level plans for fish farming. The right to appeal after the decisions has been made by the Water Rights Court is often used in fish farming issues.

A policy level plan specifically regarding fish farming was made by a working group set up in 1994 by the National Board of Water and the Environment (currently Finnish Environment Agency).

It included representatives from the Ministry of the Environment, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, associations of fish farmers, the Turku Rural Development Agency, the Research Institute for Game and Fish, and the National Board of Waters and the Environment. The plan proposed that the emissions on the level of year 1993 (116 tons of phosphorus and 808 tons of nitrogen) be reduced to the level of 75 tons of phosphorus and 520 tons of nitrogen by the year 2005.

Also the Turku Water and Environment District (currently the Southwest Finland Regional Environment Center) has set up a development plan for the management and protection of water and the environment. It dealt mainly with the problem of water pollution. It was made within the environmental administration without much consultation or participation of municipalities and was mainly for internal use.

On local level few attempts have been made to mediate the conflict. Municipalities have been very reluctant to take the issue as a topic. There are two obvious reasons for this: firstly, fish farming is probably the largest private sector employer in the municipality of Houtsk채r and also its economic importance is considerable in other municipalities. Secondly, currently there seem to be no technical solutions to make fish farming more environmentally friendly.

Fish farming has not been directly addressed in land-use planning of municipalities. Although representatives of the Southwest Finland Regional Environment Center and the Regional Council of Southwest Finland have continuously stressed the need to take the issue into account in general planning, municipalities have not been willing to do so (interview). The indirect way of avoiding conflicts in land-use planning is not to place building rights in the vicinity of existing or planned fish farms (interview).

On the whole, water-use and land-use planning remain very separate issues. Land-use plans need not be taken into account in permit decisions (Paldanius 1994a, 7). Moreover, plans and permit 137

decisions are not taken in chronological order in administrative planning and decision-making (Paldanius 1994a, 7, ref. Palokangas et al. 1993, p. VII/23-24). It has been suggested that the biosphere reserve could act as mediator in this specific issue. Rather than accusing one another of being the ‘biggest polluter’, the various parties should seek constructive solutions.

6.2.6 Käina Bay Integrated Coastal Management Plan (Hiiumaa) Käina Bay (Käina Laht) is situated between the southeastern coast of Hiiumaa and the island of Kassari. It is more a brackish water coastal lake than a typical ocean bay. It is connected with the sea by two streams, the Laisma and the Orjaku. Käina Bay is very shallow and does not exceed one meter in depth. Due to the decreasing water level, it has become more and more separated from the sea. The water area of the bay is about 9 km², and it contains 23 small islands.

Spatial planning has been carried out in different ways in different periods. In 1983, the island of Kassari became a landscape reserve. This included the zonation of Kassari island into areas of agricultural protection and small-scale industry, nature protection, and tourism and recreation. The Nature Protection Scheme for Hiiumaa was set up in 1988, and it included a zonation of the area. The bay was also identified as a core area of the biosphere reserve. More recently the municipality of Käina prepared a land-use plan (detailed plan) for the village of Orjaku and the surrounding areas. A general plan for the municipality has not yet been prepared.

Käina Bay is also an internationally important wetland area, which meets the criteria of RAMSAR. The Kaina Bay was designated as an ornithological reserve of local importance as early as 1962 and in 1971 it was reconfigured into a bird sanctuary of state-wide importance. Since 1989 it has been on the international List of Important Bird Areas (category I).

Supported by HELCOM (Helsinki Commission), the Hiiumaa Biosphere Reserve Center set up a management plan for Käina Bay in 1994-1996. The Käina Bay Integrated Coastal Zone Management Plan was part of HELCOM’s efforts to facilitate the creation of integrated coastal management plans for a number of priority areas (coastal lagoons and wetlands) in the Baltic Sea. The Working Group on Management Plans for Coastal Lagoons and Wetlands (HELCOM PITF MLW) was established in February 1993. In April 1994 it was agreed that Käina Bay should become one of the task areas within the overall framework of the Gulf of Riga Task Area. The major objective of the work of MLW was to contribute to ecologically sustainable development in the coastal areas of the Baltic Sea Region.

The management plan included following steps: 138

Analysis and comparison of planning practice on Rügen, Hiiumaa, and the Archipelago Sea • description of natural conditions • legislation, control structure and territorial planning in the area • identification of interests • identification of conflicts • prospects for cooperation • recommendations for use of land and water areas • proposal for a monitoring system of water quality One of the first tasks was to define the management area. Three separate zones were identified: first, the bay itself and its immediate catchment area (about 9 km² of land surrounding 9 km² of water). Second, the southeastern catchment area of the Luguse and Vaemla rivers and the adjacent parts of the sea. Thirdly, the whole island of Hiiumaa, “whose development considerably influences the situation on the coasts and the northern portion of Väinameri” (Kokovkin 1996). Both the ‘catchment area’ and the larger ‘influence area’ were identified as the most populated agricultural areas on Hiiumaa. No clear boundaries were identified, so they are determined by the issue at hand.

The identification of interests and possible conflicts were carried out in collaboration with local residents. These were personally asked to attend meetings to discuss management issues in the area (interview). This form of engagement was considered more effective than just making a public invitation in the local newspaper. In the meetings people were able to express their ideas and interests related to the management plan (interview). The invitation was made by representatives of the local government (interview). According to the project report, “Special attention was also paid to the possibilities that the project offered for education and information”. For example, local newspapers printed articles on the value of the bay and the potential threats.

Since little research work had been done in the area, data collection and basic research was now carried out. Land-use planners from municipalities, the Environmental Department of the County Government, the Estonian Marine Institute (Eesti Mereinstituut), Hiiumaa Biosphere Reserve Center, and Tarto University were involved (interview). Six to seven working groups dedicated to different topics were established, among them fisheries, birds, and water quality.

In the meetings with local residents (mostly farmers), three main resource uses were identified: grazing, reed cutting and tourism (particularly horseback riding and bird-watching). The municipal administration of Käina had identified the following interests: developing the Orjaku passenger harbor and its facilities, exploiting therapeutic uses of mud deposits, and tourism development in the Kassari-Sääre area close by.

139

The report (Kokovkin 1996) suggested that Käina Bay should remain an important wetland and bird area and a caretaker should be hired to manage the area. In addition, the establishment of a marine reserve was suggested. The report also emphasizes that Käina bay, a lagoon with its catchment area, is not an isolated system. Solving land- and water-use problems of the lagoon and its surroundings is not possible without working out the nature management plans for broader areas, particularly for the coasts and the sea southeast of Hiiumaa (areas called Kassari Laht and Laidelaht).

This area has been already proposed to be a Baltic Sea Protected Area and also requires the elaboration of the ICM. The process and principles of integrated coastal management were also presented in the biosphere reserve supplement of the local newspaper (Kokovkin 1996).

The Käina Bay Integrated Management Plan was a comprehensive management plan for a relatively small area. It identified a broad list of current and potential uses, threats, and opportunities (e.g. nature-tourism), and was set up using collaborative planning methods. The basic environmental and socio-economic data which was gathered and the research which was conducted in the area was not used to ‘scientifically’ justify certain management principles, but the main emphasis was on creating a partnership with various stakeholders.

6.2.7 The establishment of an advisory board for the biosphere reserve on Rügen and Archipelago Sea Background The Seville Strategy for biosphere reserves (Biosphere reserves 1996, 8) recommends that each reserve should “develop and establish institutional mechanisms to manage, coordinate and integrate the biosphere reserve’s programmes and activities” (Objective II.2.3). Further on it is recommended to “establish a local consultative framework in which the reserve’s economic and social stakeholders are represented, including the full range of interests (e.g., agriculture, forestry, hunting and extracting, water and energy supply, fisheries, tourism, recreation and research)” (Objective II.2.4.).

In the three case study areas such a consultative framework was put into practice in quite different ways and at different times. In the Archipelago Sea Biosphere Reserve, the ‘Advisory Board for the Archipelago Sea’ (Delegationen för Skärgårdshavet) was established by a decree and it began to meet regularly right from the beginning. A similar board was not established on Rügen until quite late - five years after the biosphere reserve designation. On Hiiumaa, a consultative framework has not been institutionalized in the form of an advisory board.

140

Analysis and comparison of planning practice on Rügen, Hiiumaa, and the Archipelago Sea Two approaches for advisory boards for biosphere reserves can be identified. First, an advisory board may deal strictly with the management of the biosphere reserve. Often issues are related to nature protection and the use of natural resources (e.g. fishing and hunting rights, use of pasture land). A broader approach would be adopted by a advisory board, which intends to coordinate and integrate different activities and plans within the biosphere reserve. The question of who is represented on the advisory board depends on the objectives of the board, and these should be carefully considered. The question of who is represented in the advisory board was a particular factor subject to controversial debates when the advisory boards were established on Rügen and in the Archipelago Sea. Rügen Conflicts between the biosphere reserve administration and some municipalities have mainly concerned land use. The biosphere reserve administration (Rügen National Park Agency) is a ‘representative of public interests’ (Träger Öffentlicher Belange) and has thus an important role to play when local land-use plans are set up. The following statement by a representative of the biosphere reserve describes the polarized situation: The background is the planning competence of municipalities, which is completely overestimated by mayors. Sure, it is anchored in the constitution. But there is also a subordinate clause: “within the legal framework”... And this is always overlooked. In practice so far, things look like this: the municipalities try, due to their planning power, to wrench the maximum of admissions and try to enforce this against advocates of the public interest. Municipalities want as much as possible, want to push through the maximum of demands against us. They are successful in this and this is the core of the conflict. Municipalities want as much as possible, we want as little as possible. We view things over the long-term, municipalities rather in the short-term. They want to have quick successes. This is a conflict which is not so quickly resolved. (Interview.)

The conflicts between the biosphere reserve administration and the municipalities centered around the question of the establishment of an advisory board for the biosphere reserve. Such a consultative framework was not included in the biosphere reserve ordinance. Some interview partners had vague memories about a meeting concerning a consultative framework held in 1990, but there was no report of the proceedings, nor a list of participants. Thus an advisory board never existed in practice (interview).

141

In December 1995 a position paper was presented by one municipal head (mayor) and the ombudsman from the legislature (Bürgerbeauftragter des Landtages), entitled: “The biosphere reserve is a municipal responsibility” (Jahresbericht 1996, 29). The paper proposed the establishment of a ‘Biosphere Reserve Council’ (Biosphärenrat). According to the proposal it would be composed of mayors, one other representative from each municipality, and the district councillor. One representative of the biosphere reserve could be present, but would only have an advisory role and no vote. The paper was presented to the mayors in a meeting to discuss the ordinance of the protected landscape area (cf. Chapter 6.2.1). The main objective of the paper was to start a discussion about the future development of the biosphere reserve. Issues to be discussed included “the jurisdiction of the biosphere reserve administration and the renewal of the ordinance from 1990”.

As the conflicts continued to escalate, the district councillor tried to act as a mediator.35 She made a proposal to establish a ‘Biosphere Reserve Advisory Board’ (Biosphärenkuratorium) which would have an advisory role and could enable appropriate participation of all relevant interest groups concerning decisions made by the Rügen National Park Agency (Satzung des Kuratoriums...1996). The proposal envisaged 25 permanent members, among them mayors and town managers, fishing and hunting associations, the Farmers Union, the Chamber of Industry and Commerce, representatives of the local museum, and environmental NGOs. In response, the municipal administrators opposed the inclusion of different interest lobbies and user groups into the advisory board, and kept hold of their proposal to establish a ‘Biosphere Reserve Council’ (instead of an ‘Advisory Board’). They argued that NGO representation would cause the group to become too large; a smaller group would be better to solve the existing relationship conflicts between some mayors and the biosphere reserve administration. In addition many mayors considered themselves the legitimate representatives of different interests. According to one mayor: The problem with the NGOs was that, if we are going to establish a board to make an impact on the way the biosphere reserve administration acts, then only the heads of the municipalities should be included; they represent all citizens and institutions in this area.

The municipal administrators thus adhered to the previous proposal, according to which only mayors and the district councillor could be board members. No other interest group would be a member, and the representative of the biosphere reserve administration would have only an advisory role 35

In September 1995 a seminar was organized on Rügen about mediation in environmental conflicts (Konfliktregelung im Umweltschutz...1995). Some interview partners considered that a mediation process, which is tailored mainly to big projects like airports, highways, and waste-burning-sites, is too complicated and requires too many resources (financial and manpower) to be implemented on a smaller scale. There seems to be a need for appropriate mediation techniques in smaller local environmental conflicts.

142

Analysis and comparison of planning practice on Rügen, Hiiumaa, and the Archipelago Sea (Jahresbericht 1996; interview). An even tougher position intending to exclude the biosphere reserve administration completely from the board was presented (interview). The specific aim was to change the ordinance so that the biosphere reserve administration would no longer have such a strong say in local land-use issues. According to a mayor: The biosphere reserve administration is increasingly interfering with planning efforts by local governments, and is thus canceling the municipal right to self-governance which is anchored in the constitution. We are resisting this. So we wrote a position paper, “The Biosphere reserve is municipal concern”...It is a suggestion, a provocation. They can certainly make a counterproposal. So far they haven’t made one. They have just ignored us.

The ministerial level considered that it can not take a leading role in the issue.

The federal state sees little potential to be influential, because it was a stated objective that such a body should grow from below, from local demands and not prescribed by a central administrative body.

Many of the interview partners considered that relationship conflicts were the underlying reason for the aggravated situation, which in some cases had led to a total cessation of face-to-face communication. One of the heads of the municipalities had mobilized others in the neighboring municipalities to effectively oppose any attempt to admit as members on the board anyone other than mayors and town managers. Others who held more moderate positions considered the situation to be unproductive and unlikely to result in a solution.

In essence the conflict was about who will be a member of the advisory board and what character it should have (advisory or making binding decisions). The intention of the ‘biosphere injured’ municipal administrators was to unite their strength against the biosphere reserve.

Two approaches were presented to solve the problem. The first was to establish a small board, which initially includes only mayors and representatives of county government and the biosphere reserve. This would be important in order to first mediate within a small group to solve the relationship conflicts. Various other interest groups would be included later. The other approach was that the inclusion of NGOs and sectoral agencies would bring ‘more sense’ into the discussions and the personal fights would recede into the background.

A ‘Biosphere Reserve Council’ (Biosphärenrat) was eventually established on November 22, 1996, based on the initiative of the Amt Mönchgut-Granitz, which includes seven of the ten municipalities 143

located within the biosphere reserve (Jahresbericht 1996, 29). The fifteen permanent members of the council are the district councillor, the municipal administrators, the District Farmers Union (Kreisbauernverband), the Water and Land Association (Wasser- und Bodenverband), the Rügenfang Fisheries Cooperative Society (Zentrale Absatzgenossenschaft der Fischerei “Rügenfang”) and the Insula Rugia Association. The ‘guests’ are the Planning Department, the Office of the District Councillor, the State Office for Nature Protection, the Forestry Department, the Stralsund Waterway and Shipping Administration, the administrator director of the Amt Mönchgut-Granitz and the Rügen National Park Agency. Depending on the issues for discussion, other ‘guests’ can be invited to the meetings of the council. The district councillor was chosen as chairman. Environmental NGOs (primarily NABU and WWF) were excluded by a majority of votes.

The establishment of the ‘Biosphere Reserve Council’ can be regarded as a compromise. A consultative framework with an advisory role was established, but in the end the municipal administrators accepted only the participation of representatives from resource users’ interest groups and associations. The main topic of debate so far has been the Management Plan for the Biosphere Reserve (Pflege- und Entwicklungsplan). According to an interview with the biosphere reserve representative carried out one year after the establishment of the council, the working atmosphere had improved. The issues discussed in the council mainly dealt with the management plan which is currently being set up. Issues that are relevant for all members of the council were also selected. The council meets infrequently. In 1997 it had three meetings.

Archipelago Sea The Advisory Board for the Archipelago Sea (Delegationen för Skärgårdshavet) was established in 1995 according to the governmental decree 1124/94. It has two sections, one for the national park and one for the biosphere reserve. The ordinance for the Archipelago National Park was amended simultaneously. The new board replaced the former Advisory Board of the Archipelago National Park, which existed since the mid-1980s. The new mandates were chosen for a four year period by the Ministry of the Environment. A debate in the local newspaper about the selection of participants and the role of the board in general preceded the decree. The debate took place mainly between the national park administration and representatives of affected municipalities. The content of the debate and the various positions will be briefly described in the following.

It was known in 1991 that a biosphere reserve will be established and that it will cover some of the same areas as the existing national park. Because the mandate of the existing Advisory Board for the 144

Analysis and comparison of planning practice on Rügen, Hiiumaa, and the Archipelago Sea Archipelago National Park was running out, representatives of the Ministry of the Environment considered it reasonable to combine the advisory board of the national park and the advisory board of the coming biosphere reserve.

In the old advisory board for the national park, local people had the majority. It had fourteen members: two from each of the eight municipalities, a representative from the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, the provincial government, nature protection organizations, and one representative from the primary sector (agriculture, forestry and fishing). Although the board had an advisory role and was intended to support the National Park administration, it was considered as important that local people had the majority. In the new proposal the inclusion of other government agencies and research institutes was planned.

Different opinions existed about the role of the old and the new advisory board. According to a representative of the national park, the municipalities had used the advisory board to promote their own interests against state agencies, especially the national park. Issues that had been controversially debated included the hunting rights of local people. Instead of being a forum for constructive discussions, the old board was reduced to a political battlefield. The national park wanted to see its role as advisory rather than guiding decisions. The municipalities on the other hand wanted the board to have more decision-making power. The local governments claimed that they should have the majority too: “Why take so many new administrative bodies, which hide behind each other, into the new council?” asked the former mayor of Korpo in a newspaper article. The response of the park was that including other organizations was important for exchanging information and promoting coordinated research. It called into question the need for local communities to have the majority. (ÅU 2. and 5.11.1991.)

There was a period of time when the old advisory board was no longer working and the new one was not yet established. In a newspaper article entitled “Archipelago inhabitants without a voice” (ÅU 8.9.1994), community representatives found this situation unfavorable and were concerned that the national park administration was now able to act without their involvement. Concern was expressed that the bond of mutual trust which was formed in previous years would be endangered. A representative of the national park highlighted that the most important day-to-day contacts to some local people still existed, but admitted that regular contacts to political communal representatives were missing.

The new Advisory Board was established in 1994, with representatives from the Turku Rural Business District, National park, Åbo Akademie, The Southwest Finland Regional Environment Center, Natur och Miljö (Swedish speaking environmental NGO), two representatives of local entrepre145

neurs, the mayors of Nagu, Korpo, and Houtskär, and another representative of each municipality.

Each representative has a personal deputy. The chairman of the advisory board is a director general of the Ministry of the Environment and his deputy a university representative (Åbo Akademie). The chairman of the national park section was also nominated, but the biosphere reserve section was left open. The Ministry of the Environment reimburses members of the advisory board for expenses (travel, daily allowances, etc.).

Conclusions The two cases highlight some of the possible problems related to the establishment and work of an advisory board for biosphere reserve. Reluctance of — in these cases mayors — to accept the full range of interest groups as equal discussion partners, is a serious hindrance when trying to involve other local actors in the reserve’s management. It seems also to be important to establish such a consultative framework already early, like the Rügen case shows. If an advisory board is established only after serious conflicts have taken place, the forum gets a character, more oriented towards conflict resolution, than constructive cooperation. The meetings of the advisory boards should also be well-moderated, possibly with the help of an neutral moderator.

6.3 Planning practice in comparison to the ideal model In the following section, planning practice in the case study areas is discussed in relation to the four key characteristics of ‘good coastal planning practice’: comprehensiveness, participation, cooperation, and feedback (see Chapter 2.3). The comparisons are based on the illustrative examples presented in the previous chapter, but also on more general observations and statements made by interview partners about planning practice. Statements on closely related issues made by interview partners from Rügen, Hiiumaa, and the Archipelago Sea are presented in Boxes (1-11). The main points of the comparison are summarized at the end of each section (Figures 19-22).

6.3.1 Comprehensiveness According to the first of the four key characteristics, namely comprehensiveness, the planning area should be based on natural rather than administrative boundaries. In coastal areas it is essential that plans and programmes include both land- and water-use issues, and that they be characterized by a more comprehensive approach than has been customary in sectoral planning. In addition, comprehensiveness refers to the need of assessing both environmental and socio-economic issues in strategic and project planning.

146

Analysis and comparison of planning practice on Rügen, Hiiumaa, and the Archipelago Sea Planning across municipality borders Administrative boundaries seldom take notice of processes within and among ecosystems. Issues extending across municipal borders are often not adequately addressed in spatial planning on the local level, which is carried out by local governments for the whole municipality or parts of thereof. (See Box 1.)

BOX 1 PLANNING ACROSS MUNICIPAL BORDERS

...There is great competition between municipalities. It is difficult to thematize regional thinking. Part of the solution is to point out potential dangers, address mistakes in development and educate people. (District planner, Rügen.)

Municipal level planning competence, which is anchored in the constitution, is used as a weapon against anything that tries to introduce a wider perspective, for example the establishment of a Biosphere Reserve Advisory Board. On the one hand it is an important tool and an achievement of our democratic system. On the other hand it is an obstacle to dealing with issues which have nothing to do with municipal borders. (Representative of biosphere reserve, Rügen.)

The best solution would be if the five municipalities on Hiiumaa were able to join forces and employ a professional planner, maybe with a future aim to set up a joint regional development and planning department. On an island with 12,000 people and an area of more than 1000 km² it seems quite impossible to acquire professional planners any other way, let alone in five small municipalities. (Planning consultant, Hiiumaa.)

[The municipalities] are very independent ‘island states’. (Regional planner, Archipelago Sea.) Thanks God, [the municipalities] were so wise to hire the same planner. In a way the cooperation came about that way. There was the same style and the same way of presenting things.

Houtskär, Nagu, and Korpo have been handled in pretty much the same way. (Regional planner, Archipelago Sea.) On Rügen, and in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern in general, municipalities tend to be very small.

Although municipalities are organized into ‘offices’ (Ämter) to carry out certain administrative duties, spatial planning is carried out independently of neighboring municipalities. According to interviewed mayors the small size of the planning area was, however, not considered to be problematic.

Instead it was pointed out that good cooperation takes place between municipalities. Such coopera147

tion, however, seldom takes place in spatial planning, and intervening in land use issues of the neighboring municipality is avoided.

Although the planning competence of municipalities is seen as a central element of democracy, the often parochial view was criticized by representatives of the Rügen biosphere reserve and the district government. Both try to promote a wider perspective concerning the island’s development, believing that better coordination should take place as a result.

In Germany, regional planning (Raumplanung) coordinates spatial development on the level of the Länder. The First Spatial Programme for the Federal State (Erstes Landesraumordnungsprogramm) was a rough outline for the spatial development of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. It was further elaborated and focused into four regional spatial development programs (Rügen belongs to the regional unit of Vorpommern). In contrast to others, such as the District Development Plan (see Chapter 6.2.1), these regional plans are legally codified and binding for sectoral agencies as well as municipalities. Larger development projects with potentially regional impacts are scrutinized within a special process of evaluation (Raumordnungsverfahren). The regional planning level is, however, considered generally to be ‘remote’ from the average citizen and has been criticized as a weak instrument.

On Hiiumaa spatial planning is carried out on the county and municipal level. Although the spatial planning system is not yet well elaborated, the Planning and Building Law (1995) expects county and local governments to finish their land-use plans by the end of 1998. But this is hardly a realistic dead line, since the island’s five municipalities are only just beginning to set up land-use plans (general plans and detailed plans). The Sarve case (see Section 6.2.4) indicates that there is great need to start the process of land-use planning, especially in the coastal zone where the most intensive development pressure will be on. There does not seem to be a great deal of competition among the municipalities about investment projects at the moment, due to the lack of investors, but this may change in the future. A joint regional planning department would be preferable to each municipality independently making its own land-use plan. Two main arguments for joint land-use planning for neighboring municipalities are that it can save costs and increase the quality of the plans created.

Further, it could facilitate the establishment of an ecosystems approach to planning activities.36 Land-use planning in the Archipelago Sea is carried out on the regional level by the Regional Council of Southwest Finland. Municipalities hold the responsibility for general and detailed plan36

A serious problem for any kind of spatial planning on Hiiumaa is the lack of qualified planners on Hiiumaa. The final report of the series of seminars on regional planning and development mentiones the risk that planning will be done by local people without previous planning experiences who are appointed ad hoc or by hiring consultants from mainland (Hiiumaa Development Action...1997, 4). Although the consultancy solution might result in better plans, it might be detrimental to the future planning and development activities on the island.

148

Analysis and comparison of planning practice on Rügen, Hiiumaa, and the Archipelago Sea ning (the Town Plan, the Building Plan, and the Shore Plan). In regard to land-use planning on the municipal level, the lack of cooperation between municipalities was considered as problematic mainly by planners working within the regional level. The derivation of general plans for the municipalities of Houtskär (coasts of the whole municipality), Nagu, and Korpo (southern archipelagos), was able to achieve a certain degree of comprehensiveness, or rather similarity of approach, by virtue of the fact that the planner (a private consultant) was the same in all three municipalities. This kind of indirect coordination of planning activities is the exception in Finland, although in this case it was limited to the main issue of the amount and placement of leisure housing on the coastal strip.

Planning of land and water areas Joint planning of land and water areas is not practiced in any of the case study areas. The planning competence of municipalities in all three areas ends where the water area begins. Land- and wateruse issues are usually considered separately on the strategic and regional level as well. None of the sectoral plans on Rügen addressed water-use issues, with the exception of the Agricultural and Fisheries Concept, nor does the Spatial Programme for Mecklenburg-Vorpommern address questions related to uses of coastal and marine resources.

In the regional strategic plan, the Hiiumaa Development Action Plan 2010, the planning area encompassed the whole island, but the plan did not explicitly define how far seawards and in what way the coastal waters are included. In general marine issues were not addressed by planning efforts, except for coastal fishing in the rural economy work group. A pilot plan on integrated coastal management in the Käina Bay was launched in 1995 (see Section 6.2.6). The report of the management plan, which covers a small portion of the coastal waters, states that problems can not be solved in isolation. After this plan was completed, the biosphere reserve center considered to create a management plan for a larger area of southwestern Hiiumaa (interview).

In the Archipelago Sea, land-use planning and water-use planning are quite separate fields of planning. For example, fish farms need a permit from the Water Rights Court (see Chapter 6.2.5).

Paldanius (1994a) has noted that: “coordination between permit decisions and land-use planning is quite weak. ...plans need not be taken into consideration in permit decisions. Moreover, plans and permit decisions are not taken in chronological order in administrative planning and decision-making.” Joint planning of land and water areas has been suggested in a number of earlier archipelago studies. The Tammisaari Archipelago Project was one of the first to identify the disadvantages of current planning arrangements (Siirala 1990).

149

Comprehensiveness in sectoral and strategic regional planning Ideally, plans and programs should be characterized by a more comprehensive approach than has been customary in sectoral planning. On Rügen the numerous sectoral plans cover sectors and issues ranging from agriculture and fisheries to traffic and energy. There is, however, lack of integration between these plans. This is partly due to the fact that the plans were set up at different times and by different consultants.

The district government was the coordinating body in most sectoral plans. One problem, however, was that the methods and approaches applied in various plans were not consistent. The integration of these plans was intended in the District Development Plan, after the sectoral plans were completed. However, the goal of integrating them into a District Development Plan was abandoned. A nearly completed draft existed, but the district government chose to move away from ‘all-embracing plans’ towards implementation oriented negotiations (interview). This decision was apparently influenced by the conflicts related to the designation of the protected landscape areas (Section 6.2.1), and the polarization between environmental and development interests, also on the political level.

The Hiiumaa Development Action Plan 2010 intended to cover various sectors and spheres of the society in an open democratic process. Altogether five work groups were established. These were the tourism, rural economy, information technology, education and culture theme group. There would have apparently been a need for theme groups on coastal waters (interview), coastal land use, fishery, forestry and energy issues. There was no clear connection between the strategic level HDAP 2010 process and land-use planning.

In the Archipelago Sea regional development planning has shifted from individual disjointed projects, towards planning where a broader vision is first elaborated. So far the numerous development projects were carried out independently by various actors (e.g. universities and other organizations). For example, the Archipelago Programme was a compilation of over 50 projects without any common vision (Varsinais-Suomen saaristo-ohjelma 1994). Recently the Archipelago Development Center was established to coordinate development activities.

Assessment of environmental and socio-economic considerations On Rügen an environmental complement for the District Development Plan was intended to be a contribution for the anticipatory and comprehensive integration of environmental consideration into regional development planning and spatial planning on the regional level. However, its role in regional and local land-use planning and in sectoral planning was not clear and not widely discussed.

The plan was not statutory, nor was it based on a broad consensus among different actors. It had more 150

Analysis and comparison of planning practice on Rügen, Hiiumaa, and the Archipelago Sea a character of a research and development (R&D) project, which was funded by the Federal Environmental Agency. Many interview partners criticized that socio-economic issues have not been adequately addressed in any of the planning documents.

On Hiiumaa, there is no clear mechanism of including environmental considerations within the planning activities within the HDAP 2010 (interview). Two representatives of the biosphere reserve center were members of the small work group that coordinates the process. This was believed to serve as a guarantee that environmental issues would be included in the strategic plan. According to the environmental department, an environmental impact assesment should be carried out also on this strategic plan (interview).

An environmental or a social impact assessment have not been carried out in the Archipelago Sea, neither on the strategic level nor the individual project level. For example, within the Archipelago Development Programme, no systematic way of assessing environmental impacts was adopted. It has been suggested that the biosphere reserve administration could more strongly emphasize environmental considerations on the agenda in regional planning.

Criteria Comprehensiveness

Rügen

Hiiumaa

Archipelago Sea

municipality borders

municipalities did spatial spatial planning only municipalities did landplanning independently started recently use planning independ(though coordinated by ently, but had the same the regional planning planner (guided by the relevel) gional plan)

land and water

land- and water-use plan- land- and water-use plan- land- and water-use planning separated ning separated ning separated (pilot plan on integrated management, Käina Bay)

comprehensiveness in great number of sectoral sectoral and strategic plans (effort to integrate them into a District Develplanning opment Plan was abandoned; tendency away from ‘all-embracing’ plans towards implementation oriented negotiations)

HDAP 2010 is an effort towards a comprehensive vision and action (included several thematic working groups)

strategic regional planning has shifted from individual disjointed projects to building a broader vision of the wanted development path

Figure 19. Comprehensiveneness in planning practice in the case study areas

151

6.3.2 Participation The second key characteristic, participation, involves giving all stakeholders the possibility of taking part in formulating problems and problem-solving strategies. The rules of the planning process should be agreed on in a common process. A prerequisite for successful participation is that the planning system and the language used in communication be understandable. Citizens and interest groups should also have clear means of access to the public administration and appropriate methods should be used.

Driving forces for public participation There are great differences in the driving forces behind public participation in the case study areas.

On R端gen, alternative planning, NGO campaigning, and citizen protests have forced the public administration to become more responsive. On Hiiumaa, such international agencies as the UNDP have supported public participation in strategic regional development planning. HELCOM (Helsinki Commission) has supported management plans which include intensive consultation. The Hiiumaa Biosphere Reserve Center has been very interested in issues of public participation. There is no vocal citizen protest in the Archipelago Sea. Some agencies and local governments have adopted principles of public participation. (See Box 2.)

BOX 2 DRIVING FORCES FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

After people were upset and formed opposition, there were discussions about public participation and people became involved. Something has to happen before people get involved. (Mayor, R端gen.)

If there is a bang, the public administration goes into the public with highest level representatives, in a way you do not find in the west any more. Consulting people and public participation is intensive in that moment when the administration is in a difficult situation. But the method follows a short term strategy, there is much conflict potential: it is picked up by the press and exacerbated. (Local journalist, R端gen.)

Because of their history, people are not used to discussing things together and the planners are not used to asking the opinion of normal people. (Head of municipal council, Hiiumaa.)

[According to a social survey, Hiiumaa people perceive that they have little possibility for influencing decision-making.] I think that this was the first time people were confronted with

152

Analysis and comparison of planning practice on Rügen, Hiiumaa, and the Archipelago Sea this kind of question, perhaps they have never thought about it before. So the answer is very likely to be negative... You must know something, have experience, and know the rules of how to act - then you can have some impact. (Representative of the Tuuru Center, Hiiumaa.)

The people of Hiiumaa.... regard political and public activities as a very suspicious area. Politicians and civil servants are believed to have sought their positions mainly for personal gain. Now and then actual examples unfortunately confirm these attitudes. ...There are many deficiencies in today’s Estonia concerning social networks, trust in the state, public institutions, and the legal system, and commonly accepted norm systems are not in abundance. (Planning consultant, Hiiumaa.)

There have been no demands that go beyond what the legislation prescribes. (Local journalist, Archipelago Sea.) After German unification took place, new laws and administrative structures were introduced and little time was spent on exercises in public participation. Rügen was also exposed to developments within the tourism sector more rapidly than most other coastal areas in Germany. Public participation on Rügen has typically taken place only after strong opposition has arisen towards a plan. There are a number of reasons for this delay. First, financial resources and human capacities in public administration are not adequate for facilitating proper public participation. Secondly, planners sense that there is great apathy and resignation among people living on Rügen. This is thought to be caused by unemployment and social insecurity. The third reason is that the level of readiness to anticipate potential conflicts has not been very high. There are examples where the ignorance of the general public has been politically used to induce protest and opposition — as was the case in the designation of protected landscape areas (Section 6.2.1). While the need for more landscape protection should be subject to an open democratic process, the heated debate which took place contributed little to a constructive dialogue and consensus seeking. What it did show, however, was that people on Rügen have not fallen into a state of resignation, but are willing to take part in decisions affecting their lives. Also the discussion carried out in the newspaper on coastal land use and the Sarve case (see Section 6.2.4), shows that whether intended or unintended, misunderstandings can easily escalate to conflicts, which in turn can be used for political purposes.

In Estonia, public participation in planning has only recently evolved. During the Soviet era planning was carried out centrally on a high level of the administrative system. Little or no public participation took place. After the re-establishment of Estonian independence, a new democratic system was established that was oriented towards Western and Nordic democracies. The transition from a central state 153

system to a representative democracy can be seen as an ongoing learning process. New government structures have been established and new laws enacted. There is, however, still great skepticism towards politics and public administration among Hiiumaa’s population (interviews).

Because the legislation and administrative structures are quite new and have been subject to many changes, much depends on the personal interest of the planner towards participation. Professional identity and world views play here an important role. There are few formal or informal rules about specific measures for facilitating participation.

The ways in which strategic planning is carried out vary considerably among the case study areas in terms of public participation. For example, when the District Development Plan was set up on Rügen, little public participation was incorporated into the process. On Hiiumaa, the UNDP-funded Hiiumaa Development Action Plan (HDAP 2010) was one of the first efforts to support democratic decision making through planning (Section 6.2.2). There was great ambition among the project leaders of HDAP 2010 to involve local people in the planning process. But there was frustration as problems were encountered in starting the local working groups and involving the county government more directly into the process. Not all were frustrated about the slow and cumbersome process, however. According to a representative of the biosphere reserve center: “Perhaps I was too optimistic when I was thinking: all right, now we have the opportunity, lets all participate...When ‘democratization’ is happening with western money the fact that it is happening slow might in fact be good.” A town planner highlighted that: “Foreign experts do not know the situation here; they might tell how the process works in Sweden, but how to do it here is something different. It must be thought out by people living here.”

In the Archipelago Sea, where intensive public participation has already been made possible - in coastal land-use planning, for instance - no strong demands have been made for an increase. The general plans made for the southern parts of the municipality of Nagu and Korpo and for the whole area of Houstkär were carried out with intensive consultation of landowners. In strong contrast to this, however, the environmental administration has been accused of not consulting landowners when designating new protected areas. There have been several national programmes for nature conservation, such as the programme for coast protection, the programme for the protection of old growth forests and the programme for ridge protection. One permanent inhabitant interviewed claimed: “It is impossible for landowners to know what thoughts different agencies have. It is their job to change style and to contact landowners at a very early stage. They have caused a lack of trust because they have not discussed things (with us). You become suspicious if you read things in the newspaper. We need new rules, more discussion.”

154

Analysis and comparison of planning practice on Rügen, Hiiumaa, and the Archipelago Sea Commitment to public participation Successful public participation requires the commitment of political leaders and planners, resources and knowledge about techniques and methods. On Rügen a clear shift towards more open methods of governance took place in the second legislative period. On Hiiumaa municipalities and the county government have adopted some new ideas about participation in planning. In Finland many agencies have since 1980s adopted participatory planning. (See Box 3.)

On Rügen, changes in the political leadership took place which influenced public participation.

During the first legislative period the government had little interest in public participation, or even in providing access to planning information. After 1994 when the new district councillor was appointed, the information policy of the district government became more open, while NGOs also became more involved.

With regard to the District Development Plan, one key person laconically stated, “It is being prepared and nobody knows the content so far”. Clearly, the paper is legally not binding and is rather a policy guideline for the district level administration under the current political leadership. However, the process was begun during the CDU-led administration (Christian Democratic Party), and if there is to be some degree of continuity, and if the paper is intended to have the character of a strategic policy guideline for different sectors, then a broad consensus should be achieved. This will hardly be possible without consultations and more intensive public participation.

BOX 3 COMMITMENT TO PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

In the first years there was no work towards structured public relations. Here was so much going on, and it was not so well-planned...With no money and no personnel capacity, we were not able to put somebody on the job. Nor was it possible through employment programs. The time was also unfavorable. Sometimes they say that Rügen experienced in five years things that took fifteen elsewhere. (District Councillor, Rügen.)

Broader public participation is possible if there is the political will. If this is lacking, you do not even have to bother. If the political will is there, it has to be carried out with resources (personnel), and in most cases this is insufficient in the eastern part of Germany. There might be a will per se, but the way to handle it is completely missing. It is necessary to start it with local political and administrative resources and then carry it out. And... to have the necessary funds to facilitate it. Because public participation does not come about on its own. It will happen if the needed materials and information are there. And these cost money. (Planning consultant, Rügen.)

155

Then we made a set of questions for people. We got only six responses. The questions were distributed to every household. Questions were printed in the Pühalepa-teataja... People think, if I write it will be of no use anyway. They will throw it into the trash can. This is not so, because we were waiting for those comments. We wrote also after that in the newspaper, “Please come and do something.” (Head of municipality, Hiiumaa.)

We want to make [HDAP 2010] democratic. But I am very skeptical about it - because it is impossible that every person could have the same opportunities... it is impossible in our society...But we try to minimize manipulation. Wider understanding about our work is essential.

People have to understand what we are doing; if they don’t, it will not work. (Regional Planning Department, Hiiumaa) We try in most questions to have contact with local people at an early phase, for example in questions concerning timetables of ferries, post service, state services, or planning. There are not that many people out there. So that people know about what is going on, but their direct impact on things is not that big. (Mayor, Archipelago Sea.) Role of NGOs NGOs have different roles in the case study areas. On Rügen environmental NGOs and peoples initiatives have been especially intensively involved and quite influential. On Hiiumaa, only a few organized interests groups exist, but the village movement and educational societies have to some extent been able to mobilize people, despite their role in the HDAP 2010, which has not been very clear.

By contrast, there are a number of citizens’ associations in the Archipelago Sea, but they do not play an important role in planning. Although two environmental organizations located in Helsinki have been active in the Archipelago Sea and in marine issues (mostly concerning eutrophication), they do not maintain local offices, and do not have as strong a presence as those on Rügen. (See Box 4.)

BOX 4 ROLE OF NGOs

...[municipalities] did not involve us. We just fought for the right, and currently the municipalities send us the planning materials. Not according to the Nature Protection Act, but because they made the experience that they are better off, if they involve us in the beginning. They have many more problems if we eventually start a campaign against a project that we consider inappropriate — so they treat us as like an ‘Advocate of the Public Interest’. (Representative of Naturschutzbund, Rügen.)

156

Analysis and comparison of planning practice on Rügen, Hiiumaa, and the Archipelago Sea ...we advised local people several times...It was a big tourism project, a holiday park close to the municipality of Garz. It was far too big for a village of 30-50 inhabitants. During the Raumordnungsverfahren the whole village was there. All of them made petitions against the project. Some of them visited us and asked for advice... in this case they really put pressure on the Regional Planning Office, which, due to the complexity and controversy and the petitions, felt that they had to invite all the people. In a normal case this would not happen, only the authorities are usually present. It was their activity that insured the people were involved. (Representative of Naturschutzbund, Rügen.)

[The coordinators of the HDAP process] have not seen the social aspect of the process. They have not made clear for themselves what money is for supporting entrepreneurship and what is for social purposes. (Representative of the village movement, Hiiumaa.) ...At a certain phase you can express your opinion, but your possibilities to present alternatives are very bad. You can just give your opinion, you can say if you like it or not. You can come up with small corrections, but you have no possibility to influence the structures. The process is very troublesome and hard. It is often so that environmental NGOs which can give statements are not given consideration in the same way as private landowners’ interests, which play a big role when plans are set up. (Representative of Natur och Miljö, speaking about the Archipelago Sea.) On Rügen, NGOs and citizen initiatives have been actively involved in public debates on environment and development. For example, the Initiative for Rügen (Bürgerinitiative für Rügen) has set up an alternative development plan for Rügen, and was thus able to bring differing opinions to the public agenda (see Section 6.2.1). According to the Federal Nature Conservation Act (§29), legally recognized environmental associations (anerkannte Naturschutzverbände) have the right to give statements on environmentally relevant planning and legislation. Currently there are six recognized environmental associations in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (NABU, BUND, Grüne Liga, Landesjagdverband, Landesanglerverband and Schutzgemeinschaft Deutscher Wald). But not in all planning processes NGOs are involved by law.

Through public campaigning, the environmental NGOs on Rügen have succeeded in reaching a certain status, so that information about all important planning activities is submitted to them. For example, the local office of NABU has been involved in spatial and project planning, and has in some cases also informed and supported local people in planning issues. Not all interest groups have been able to join the planning committees that were established to guide the planning processes, and 157

some NGOs criticized the fact that they have not been invited in many of the strategic level planning processes. Similarly, the Association of Farmers was not invited to the planning committee of the Agricultural and Fisheries Concept, and loosely organized interest groups were not involved in the various plans in any way.

There are only few organized interest groups on Hiiumaa. The strategy in the HDAP 2010 process was to start with the existing associations or informal groups of active individuals. This proved to be a good approach when initiating and supporting the formation of theme groups. Both theme groups and local groups were open to anyone who was interested in participating. One interview partner claimed that because of the involvement of existing organizations only, there was no new dynamic (interview). A broader basis of participation was called for, but how this could be arranged remained unanswered. According to another interviewee, “You have to start somewhere. You cannot just invite all Hiiumaa people to start a planning process. Someone has to have an idea and start the discussion”. (Planning consultant.)

Although the Educational Societies and the Village Movement were interested in taking part in the HDAP 2010 process, their role was not very clear. Some activities were carried out by these groups as part of the HDAP 2010. For example, in the village of Kassari the local educational society conducted social surveys among villagers. In some villages local work groups were established around Educational Societies and the Village Movement. Village Movements were also involved in landuse planning (interview), as well as in regional development. Motivating people to take part in political decision-making was considered an important task by representatives of NGOs. One representative of the Village Movement argued that despite intentions to involve NGOs in the HDAP 2010 process, the project managers could not imagine what role they could possibly play, commenting that “the county government is used to top-down planning”.

Education was considered an important aspect of public participation in the HDAP 2010 process.

NGOs also criticized that the project managers viewed business associations and individual representatives of local businesses as most important actors beyond local government and central government agencies. This preference happened at the expense of other social groups, who were excluded from seminars organized within the HDAP 2010. For instance, the Hiiumaa Business Days and seminars on spatial planning were mainly addressed to entrepreneurs and municipal leaders.

Few interest groups organized themselves during the process. One group which was in a way a result of the HDAP 2010 was the new association of private forest owners (PATAK) in the municipality of Kõrgessaare. It was difficult to organize rural people (interview). The HDAP 2010 had to 158

Analysis and comparison of planning practice on R端gen, Hiiumaa, and the Archipelago Sea some extent a mobilizing effect in politics. Some people used the process as a platform to candidate in local elections. Educational courses and greater insight into the planning mechanism and decision-making provided access to strategic information for some people.

In the Archipelago Sea, NGOs have not played a major role in planning. Paldanius (1994a, 18) has noted that in Finland, rights of ownership or possession of private property are generally considered the main basis for defining private interests. In land-use planning and in permit procedures, participation has been very much directed towards landowners. Only in recent years in legislative reforms and interpretation of legislation, have more extensive rights been given to other groups which have not been defined as parties with legitimate interests. For example, in the reform of the Waters Act, all residents of the impact area whose circumstances are significantly affected also have the right to express their views in hearings. In many cases, however, citizen organizations, unregistered associations, and also registered associations, do not have the right to be heard or make complaints.

An essential question in the selection of participants in the Archipelago Sea is who is considered an archipelago resident - and thus legitimate to participate. The issue has often been discussed, and a key distinction is typically made between summer people and permanent inhabitants.

I see one big discrepancy in the discussion: about 3000 people live in the Archipelago, but there are far more people who otherwise enjoy the archipelago, people who have their summer cottages here, or travel here by boat. Ten, perhaps a hundred times as many as [the number of] permanent inhabitants. Despite this, those who live here year round have the loudest voice, as if they were the only legitimate discussion partners when dealing with archipelago issues. They say well you like to come here in summer, but visit us during winter time. Property taxes are eagerly collected and summer people buy the food in the local shops. They have a big economic role, but they are excluded from discussions. (Researcher, Archipelago Sea).

There are many associations representing the interests of these local groups (fishers, boaters etc.), but in regional or local planning their role has not been important.

Social mobilization Many interview partners on R端gen and Hiiumaa said they perceive great apathy and resignation among the public. Also in the Archipelago Sea only a small number of active individuals usually take part in planning and public discussions. (See Box 5.)

159

BOX 5 PERCEIVED APATHY AND RESIGNATION

There is great resignation among many people. Broad groups of people do not take part in what is happening... “If I say something or not, well it is the same, things happen anyway as planned.” This procedure alone, you have to make a written statement. ...Then the municipal council is going to consider it. It is a difficult task in this way to formulate something so that it will not just be ignored. The competencies are not always there. (Planning consultant, Rügen.)

On the other hand, people in Germany and especially in eastern parts are fed up with the numerous political discussions, and do not want to take part actively. They are used to others doing things for them. If you as a planner make two clear proposals for public participation opportunities and nobody comes, or just ten people come, then you might as a planning agency say “all right then we’ll do it this way”. But you cannot neglect public participation in advance.

This mistake is tempting. Planners think they know that people won’t come; that’s their experience, so they don’t do it at all. (Local politician, Rügen.)

The attitude of many people is: I know nothing. The others know it better. Let them do it. (Hiiumaa.)

A common attitude is that someone else will solve the problems and if not, no-one else can do it either. This is an obvious legacy of the Soviet era, magnified by the typical mentality of islanders. (Planning consultant, Hiiumaa.)

[People] are just so cynical about government. They have these meetings in local government advertised in the paper, these are public meetings and anybody can go there and talk about any damned problem they want to. Elections are coming in the fall. If developing democracy means to encourage people to participate, to say, “Look, do not sit around and cry, you have to do something.” I am not sure if the people are going to feel that they have any kind of direct impact in this forum [HDAP 2010]. (Peace Corps volunteer, Hiiumaa.)

There are not many activists, and active people are already involved in many things. (Representative of the biosphere reserve, Archipelago Sea.) Apathy and resignation is often said to be typical in eastern parts of Germany. The social and political movement which took place in the late 1980s soon turned into a preoccupation with individual survival, and for many who lost their jobs, to social apathy. The experience of local people was that their voice was not heard. For planners, their experience with an uninterested general public was not encouraging.

160

Analysis and comparison of planning practice on Rügen, Hiiumaa, and the Archipelago Sea On Hiiumaa, not expressing views on public forums was a strategy to keep out of trouble in the former political system. On a remote island, it was relatively easy to live ‘undisturbed’ by the state government to a great extent. Even today people on Hiiumaa tend to be skeptical about government, whether on a local, regional, or national level. People do not believe they can have an impact on decision-making, which obviously affects their willingness to participate in planning.

On Hiiumaa only a small group of people determined the content of the plan. Most of them live in the island’s capital, Kärdla. This was obviously one of the reasons for the accusations made by some interview partners that the HDAP 2010 would be too Kärdla-centered. Many were concerned about obtaining information about how the project funding, a total of US$ 50,000, was used. They seemed to be jealous of the high sum of money, and believed the project would be good primarily for the income of the project manager. As one individual commented, “Everybody is minding his own business, and this is the business of these men”.

Because Hiiumaa is a small island society, special consideration is required in planning public participation. One problem is that there is only a small number of active people. In the HDAP 2010 process, the kind of people who took part in work groups were thought of as ‘island activists’: The problem here is that our community is very small and the group of active people is very small and they cannot participate everywhere. And there is this problem that if it is not done by active people and the groups are not led properly, they might write something very superficial together. The problem is that people have to do it on their free time. People do not participate very easily... they know that the work is going on, but they are just passive, and so it happens that a very small group decides. (Teacher.)

Also in the Archipelago Sea the general perception was that there is only a small number of activists, who already are involved in various ways in public issues on local level.

Methods used in public participation Methods used in public participation should be tailored to its particular objectives. In the illustrative planning processes on Rügen, no concept for public participation was prepared in advance and the methods used were selected more or less ad hoc, often in response to public criticism. On Hiiumaa, on the other hand, a concept for public participation in HDAP 2010 did exist, while in the Archipelago Sea, intensive negotiation took place in some planning processes. (See Box 6.)

161

BOX 6 METHODS USED IN PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

There was a wish to have a perspective for the island and it was entitled “District Development Plan”... I do not know to what extent public participation played a role; of course there were press releases. There were no presentations in citizen committees or in communities. (District planner, Rügen.)

[After the conflict on the protected landscape areas escalated:] The ordinance [of the protected landscape areas] was printed in the Rüganer, in the newsletter of the district, and as far as I know also in the Ostseezeitung, so that every citizen had the opportunity to read it. People were asked to make comments and send them to the environmental department. Very few people used this opportunity.

There were a number of public events, which were initiated by political parties and NGOs, but also by some municipalities. Usually me...and the district councillor went there. Emotions ran high, because the conflict was stirred up in the press in such a way, and because it was no longer a question of protected landscape areas but of regional development...After two or three questions about protected landscape areas, we were soon discussing job opportunities, children’s day care, investments, and road building. (Head of the Environmental Department of the District government, Rügen.)

The general frustration of the citizens came up, because there had not been events like this where people could express themselves. Here was the opportunity to articulate and present their dissatisfaction. For many it was not clear that this took place on a “good thing”. Through several false presentations, people got the message: “protected landscape areas prevent the creation of jobs”. If such things are said in a situation in which unemployment is rising, it is no wonder that people react in such a way. I will never forget it — in Sassnitz we had a meeting organized by the PDS [Party of Democratic Socialism], and a woman said: “I am unemployed, my three adult children are unemployed, that is why I am against the protected landscape area.”

(Head of the Environmental Department of the District government, Rügen.)

There have been some articles in the newspaper about the courses and the plan [Hiiumaa Development Action Plan, HDAP 2010], but it has not been further explained. I have not seen such articles. (Hiiumaa.)

I think [democratic participation in HDAP 2010] is still at the starting point; people should get first some training, normal village people, so they would understand what it is all about. The seminars have been mainly addressed to entrepreneurs and municipal leaders. (Local journalist, Hiiumaa.)

162

Analysis and comparison of planning practice on Rügen, Hiiumaa, and the Archipelago Sea I sent a letter to the municipalities and suggested that I would come and start this work [Archipelago Development Programme]. I asked the municipalities to call together entrepreneurs, farmers, civil servants, political decision-makers, and the municipal officials. I set no limits to the size of the group. Usually there were about 12-16 people. That is the way it started, in the beginning I had to explain what it was all about. (Regional development planner, Archipelago Sea.) Various methods of public participation are used on the local and regional levels. The municipal level is closest to people and their everyday life, and is therefore very important to democratic decision making. In all three case study areas, the meetings of the municipal councils are usually open to anyone interested. In practice, however, few people use this opportunity (interviews).

Often the methods that have been used in public participation have been inappropriate; usually they represent one-way or two-way communication, in form of press-releases, meetings, or calls for comments on proposals. Methods, such as structured negotiations or working groups are seldom used. In connection with the debate about protected landscape areas on Rügen, public meetings were organized, but not until a political battle on the issue had already started. Holding large meetings at such a late stage cannot be considered a meaningful way to contribute to the policy formation process. The public discussions were, in addition, usually very unstructured, and as mentioned, the call for written comments to be sent to the Office of the District Councillor did not elicit a big response among the islanders.

Many interview partners criticized the biosphere reserve administration on Rügen for not having encouraged very much public participation, even though it plays an important role in land-use planning. One mayor, stressing the importance of face-to-face contact, said, “These things can only work if it is open and public. You have to talk to people on the streets, on the fields, and in their boats...”

But in many cases, however, this is not a realistic way to achieve broader public involvement in the biosphere reserve’s management, particularly in an reserve with over 10,000 inhabitants.

I should take my bike and cycle through the villages every weekend, and have chats over the garden fence, but sooner or later my family is going to hit me. This is what he [the mayor] always tells me, but his area is much smaller (Head of the biosphere reserve administration).

To the extent that it is possible, meeting and talking with people can build more trust between the biosphere reserve administration and local people. A planner or administrator can thus acquire insight about people’s problems, get feedback and anticipate conflicts. However, it does not substitute for more structured participation.

163

Planning committees can be a method of organizing intensive cooperation among different agencies as well as between agencies and NGOs, and with active citizens. Although planning committees were set up on RĂźgen to guide strategic level regional planning, such groups had a more active role in regional planning on Hiiumaa. On Hiiumaa the emphasis in participation was on the working groups within the HDAP 2010 process. The work groups were set up in the following way. The small work group, comprising representatives of the county government, the Tuuru Center, and the Biosphere Reserve Hiiumaa Center, had the function of coordinating the process. It was not open to everyone. The local work groups and thematic work groups, therefore, were open. Leaders of the theme groups, who were selected by the small work group, also invited people to join them. For example, the tourism work group was set together so that written invitations were sent to some individuals and to some organizations. Those who attended the first meeting were put on a regular mailing list.

Existing structures such as the Common Council, which brings together representatives of the county government and the municipalities, were also involved in organizing the HDAP 2010 process. Some interview partners criticized that the work groups, although said to be open to everybody, were open only in theory. Information about the opportunity to take part was not widely circulated in local newspapers. While the basic structures of the local and theme groups were consolidated, there could have been more people involved, whether through surveys, questionnaires, interviews, structured workshops, and planning groups.

There seems to be also a lack of information about the HDAP 2010 process itself, its objectives, and future impact. Most interview partners, including leaders of the work groups, believed that there had been too few significant articles in the newspapers. Even journalists admitted that the media did not draw too much attention to the process. Some interviewees doubted that many people would have read important articles, had there been any (interview). The media, according to one planning consultant, “has a key role in this process [HDAP 2010], not least as important as those people who are working with regional development. If the professional media is not able to cover and support this process, then of course it is very difficult, because you reach people through newspapers and the media�.

Land-use planning is carried out in the case study areas on the regional and local level. While public participation concerning land-use planning is legally required by the respective legislation, in practice there are considerable differences among various municipalities (interview). The size of the municipality is not necessarily the primary criterion for these differences. Methods used in landuse planning usually include displaying drafts and plans for public inspection, making site visits, and holding public meetings. In Estonia, the methods of public participation in land-use planning 164

Analysis and comparison of planning practice on Rügen, Hiiumaa, and the Archipelago Sea activities defined by the Planning and Building Act include announcements, public display, and opportunities to respond with comments. However, because the spatial planning process is still evolving - only Pühalepa and Kärdla have prepared municipal land-use plans - little can be said about the participation procedures in practice.

The situation is somewhat different in the Archipelago Sea, where intensive negotiations with landowners took place in some areas, as in Houtskär and the southern parts of Nagu and Korpo. Almost all those permanently residing there were consulted in personal discussions regarding the general plans.

Apparently the motivation of the planner and the special character of the area made it possible to carry out such intensive consultations. It should also be noted that land use has been regulated by general plans in few other coastal areas in Finland.37 The Archipelago Sea is an exceptional area in this respect.

This is primarily due to the interaction of the national park and the biosphere reserve. Additionally, the general plans were financially supported by the Ministry of the Environment. (See Box 7.)

BOX 7 EXAMPLE OF INTENSIVE NEGOTIATIONS IN LAND-USE PLANNING IN THE ARCHIPELAGO SEA

We had this general planning committee. ...In December we organized village meetings, where landowners could take part and discuss. After this he [the planner] was driving around and was able to make contact. ...To visit every land owner personally was our ambition, but that would have been too time-consuming. (Mayor of Houtskär, Archipelago Sea.) I would say that few plans have been made as conscientiously as the general plans of Southern Nagu and Korpo when it comes to openness and discussion. They were mostly islanders, permanent residents. In Nagu I carried out at least two rounds of discussion with every land owner. I visited every household, explained what a general plan is, what I am going to do, what the consequences will be, and what it all means. That was the first phase. The second phase was when the first draft was on paper. I discussed it with practically everybody...This kind of openness concerns not only landowners but all inhabitants in the municipality, though here most are one and the same. (Planner, Archipelago Sea.) In making these two plans it was on the one hand necessary and on the other hand possible. If there would have been more inhabitants it would not have been possible in this way...And it is not necessary, because people can themselves come to meetings or we can arrange “dentist like” appointments. (Land-use planner, Archipelago Sea.) 37

According to the amendment of the Nature Conservation Act in 1997, a general or shore plan has to be made before a permit can be given to construct on the coastal strip. This will substancially increase planning activities.

165

Overall, it seems clear that public participation requires political will as well as human and financial resources. The lack of human and financial resources, or too little of either, can represent a serious constraint on successful public participation. Unfortunately, no regional funds for covering the cost of public participation were provided in any of the case study areas. Public participation may be mandated by legislation, but a change in planning cultures is essential to make it possible.38 Criteria: Participation

Rügen

Hiiumaa

Archipelago Sea

driving forces

loud demands for more great skepticism towards no loud demands for pubpublic administration and lic participation public participation planning

commitment

public participation takes ongoing process of transi- intensive negotiations with place only after a conflict tion to democratic decision- landowners in spatial planning on municipality level making has escalated

role of NGOs

NGOs and organized interest groups have gained access to information and have formal and informal ways to influence planning

social mobilization

planners perceive great small number of active citi- small number of active zens involved in planning citizens apathy and resignation

methods

methods used in participation have been inappropriate (hearings, large meetings, no outside moderators)

some mobilization has taken place via Village Movement and Educational Societies

open work groups within HDAP 2010 provided few active people a forum to participate in strategic regional planning (informing perceived as poor)

narrow selection of participants (stakeholders are mainly defined through ownership or property rights); NGOs do not play a major role

more public participation in strategic regional planning through work groups (participants for work groups selected by the municipality)

Figure 20. Participation in planning practice in the case study areas.

6.3.3 Cooperation While participation refers to the involvement and communication with citizens (organized or unorganized), the third key characteristic has to do with communication between agencies and 38

The memorandum prepared by «the Planning and Building Law Committee» in Finland notes the following about changing planning cultures: “Planning is developed towards greater citizen guidance. This requires increased openness and interaction in planning, changing planning processes and practices. Increasing public participation and changing into a new planning culture can be promoted with the planning and building legislation, but the change to a new planning culture requires also changes in the attitudes and developing new practices.” (Rakennuslakitoimikunnan muistio lakiuudistuksen...1997.)

166

Analysis and comparison of planning practice on R端gen, Hiiumaa, and the Archipelago Sea various levels of the public administration. Ideally, different sectoral agencies should cooperate closely. The extent and nature of cooperation may be improved using several institutional approaches. Expert-knowledge should be made comprehensible to non-experts and experts in other fields.

In such situations as those on R端gen or Hiiumaa, where new legislation was amended and competencies re-defined, establishing good cooperation among various agencies takes time and patience.

For example on R端gen, cooperation between the biosphere reserve administration and the District Government was not always as good as it is now. There were once serious conflicts between the different offices of the District government. In the past, the planning and building department and the environmental department each held fundamentally different positions towards construction activities. Over the last few years, the problems were solved to a great extent, and the district government now speaks more with one voice: Cooperation between sectoral agencies develops slowly. In the first three years [after unification] one department of the District Government did not know what the other one was doing. ...There are always going to be different positions [held by] the planning and building department, the department for the regional economy, and the environmental department. ...To what extent the departments regard the district development plan as a political guideline depends much on the district councillor and... the deputy district councillor. How seriously it is taken depends on them. (Planning consultant.)

Cooperation between regional and local level in strategic planning In two of the case study areas, namely R端gen and Hiiumaa, the kind of cooperation between municipalities and the district or county level government, was considered inappropriate, and was difficult to organize, particularly in strategic planning. In the Archipelago Sea a district or county level government does not exist. (See Box 8.)

BOX 8 COOPERATION BETWEEN REGIONAL AND LOCAL LEVEL IN STRATEGIC PLANNING

When we started, we thought we would be able to generate more intensive cooperation with the help of a planning committee for the District Development Plan. Well, we come from West Germany and we misjudged the situation in East Germany. We have carried out similar projects in the west, and there municipalities were very much involved in planning. In the east it was different. This had to do with the planning and administrative structures, which are not so 167

developed and established. There was not the kind of planning culture which the west has had for forty years. (Planning consultant, Rßgen) Regarding the Soviet legacy present in people’s minds (information meant power), it will be a long time yet until it is commonly understood that sharing information is a more effective way of getting results in a democratic society. There is great need for more activities in the future (exchange of knowledge and experience, training, and education) within the fields of management and information. (Planning consultant, Hiiumaa.)

We should have more cooperation with the Department of Regional Development of the County Government; it has not been very good so far. (Mayor, Hiiumaa.) ...for me [HDAP 2010] is pure soap suds! They have received a lot of money and they might write something, and then again they might not - this is a waste of money and brains! For real life they do not have any meaning and they are very far from reality. (Mayor, Hiiumaa.)

In general, the forms of cooperation in strategic planning on district level are not very well-developed. For example, in making the District Development Plan, the planner of the consulting company, district government, and municipalities cooperated in two ways. First, the municipalities were asked to make a list of the planned development projects, which was reviewed by the planner and the district government. However, neither their evaluation nor the preliminary development plan was circulated to the municipalities. In addition, there was a planning committee set up with representatives of the district government and some heads of municipalities, representing the local level. But the committee’s work was not well-structured, so that, as the planning consultant criticized, there was little coordination as the development plan was created. A more structured procedure would have been more beneficial.

On Hiiumaa, the cooperation between the county government and the municipalities was considered as problematic. Representatives of the county government as well as heads of municipalities complained that there is no permanent forum where they could regularly meet and discuss daily problems. Such forums were established within the Hiiumaa Development Action Plan 2010 process, but these meetings were considered to be too future-oriented and too abstract. Some heads of the municipalities were very skeptical about the Hiiumaa Development Action Plan 2010.

Others were more moderate in their criticism, saying that the process should have started from the local level.

168

Analysis and comparison of planning practice on Rügen, Hiiumaa, and the Archipelago Sea On the other hand, according to the Development Action Plan’s project manager, there was no interest in the process at the start, which made the work very frustrating. Many expressed the view that the Regional Planning Department wanted the municipalities to do its work. It seems that the role of the Regional Planning Department in the process was not very clear. One of the heads of municipalities complained that the cooperation with the Tuuru Center should be more continuous and systematic, and that the ideas of Tuuru Center concerning HDAP 2010 are not well-known locally. Even the county government and the biosphere reserve, which are represented in the small working group, were skeptical to some extent about the process. Some representatives of the groups considered that they were only “quite formally” involved in the process (interview).

Cooperation between sectoral agencies On Rügen, intersectoral cooperation has been institutionalized in day-to-day planning and management. The existing level of cooperation between sectoral agencies was by most interview partners considered to be adequate. For example, larger development projects are discussed before the official permit procedure begins. This is done in meetings (Ämterkonferenz) organized by the District government where the developer presents the project and the sectoral agencies respond with their preliminary evaluations. However, this kind of case-to-case exchange of information is no guarantee for successfully harmonizing or integrating sectoral activities, which requires action on the level of strategic planning.

There are currently only a few sectoral planning activities on Hiiumaa, and there is a lack of human and financial resources in the public administration. Many interview partners complained that the flow of information between different actors was generally poor, in both policy-making and day-to-day management. In the Archipelago Sea, mayors particularly criticized the lack of crosssectoral cooperation. According to one: “So often we see the municipalities standing on one side and the state administration on the other. But within the state administration there are many different agencies, not all of whom cooperate or have information about each others’ activities”.

On the other hand, one regional planner did not consider the cooperation of sectoral agencies problematic: “We have quite good cooperation between agencies in Southwest Finland. I have no fear of conflicts. . . . We are in contact all the time, and it seems that we have quite uniform goals.

Of course there are disagreements sometimes, like the timetables for ferries or such specifics”.

Apparently there were two significantly different perceptions of the appropriateness of intersectoral cooperation.

169

Cooperation between both levels of government and sectoral agencies takes place in formal ways, but the informal networks are also important: It is a small society, there are not so many people. This creates interesting networks. Not necessarily negative, but one should know and be aware of them. It is the same everywhere, the informal networks are as important [as the formal ones]. Not necessarily if it comes to decision-making; this is the democratic tradition. (Planning consultant, Hiiumaa.)

Methods used in interagency cooperation The formal methods used in interagency cooperation usually include methods which are similar to those used in public participation. Written statements, meetings and site visits are some methods often used. (See Box 9.)

One method for interagency cooperation is the establishment of regional planning committees to guide planning. For example, in the Archipelago Sea there is a great number of different committees.

These include among others the Archipelago Committee of the Regional Council (Varsinais-Suomen Liiton Saaristotoimikunta) and the Archipelago Sea Advisory Board (Saaristomeren neuvottelukunta).

The latter has two separate sections: one for the national park and one for the biosphere reserve. In addition, there is a delegation for ferry boat issues (Trafikdelegationen), and a delegation of marine agencies (Saariston merellisten viranomaisten toimikunta, METO). On national level there is a Committee for Archipelago Issues (Saaristoasiain neuvottelukunta). But despite the great number of committees, the Archipelago Sea lacks a common framework, strategy, or policy. This underlies the critique presented by several interview partners, which included the following aspects: There are too BOX 9 METHODS USED IN INTERAGENCY COOPERATION

To involve other [mayors] would probably not have been beneficial. Much more beneficial would have been if the whole process would have been made with other forms of cooperation. A very structured formal form of cooperation, [requiring] the writing of a letter, giving time for comments, commenting, sending back impulses and comments, and making it public... (Planning consultant, Rügen.)

When it was time to give comments to the paper — 2-3 hours in the afternoon debating club — everybody said what was on their mind and that was it. It is a completely non-binding situation.

As long as it is not a formal framework, cooperation has a barely tangible non-binding character in east Germany. (Planning consultant, Rügen.)

170

Analysis and comparison of planning practice on Rügen, Hiiumaa, and the Archipelago Sea I think they have been constantly invited to these... meetings. They have had seminars and traveled together to Finland, etc. But once again, there have not been orderly, well-prepared work meetings for these people. If I was managing this work I would set aside special days, require 100% attendance. There has been lots of talk, and not much actual work. (Planning consultant, Hiiumaa.)

There has been little understanding about nature protection and the biosphere reserve in peripheral regions. There are many prejudices and they think about these things among themselves. When they [mayors] come to such a forum they have great need to vent the anger that mounted over the preceding weeks, and what they have read in the newspapers. They let it come out in a very demagogic tone, they hit the table and almost shout... After that they gasp for air, and then after all has been said, it is possible to start discussing. When they come home they tell in the municipal council, «Well goddammit, I did say in plain terms to these state bureaucrats what I was thinking». Well, there is often reason for the anger too... This is the reality - this is the kind of environment in which we work. (Representative of the National Park Administration, Archipelago Sea.) many separate committees. Many of the committees were established to underline the special status of the archipelago (with regard to state subventions) without the benefit of a clear coordinating function.39 Thus the committees often act more as pressure groups, making statements on topical questions (like new fishing laws or ferry schedules). But their work remained disconnected from the administrative process, and did not affect actual practice. In many cases representatives of the committees were selected on a political basis, one consequence of which was that the Archipelago Committee of the Regional Council became too large to be effective.

On the other hand in the Archipelago Sea Advisory Board, not all relevant agencies could be involved, because local representatives wanted to have the majority. The two-part Advisory Committee has to date only had a guiding role regarding the future activities of the national park and the biosphere reserve. Some apparently important actors are not represented: the Regional Council of Southwest Finland (authority responsible for regional development planning), the Road District, the Defense Forces, Coast Guard. and the Archipelago Shipping Authority. On the other hand, the com39

The background of these committees also differ. For example the Archipelago Committee was established as a response of the Swedish speaking municipalities, who considered establishing an own, Swedish speaking regional council. The Archipelago Sea Advisory Board was established to provide an institutionalized form of local people to have impact on the National Park’s management. It was suggested that the committees should themselves find out the potentials for more effective work.

171

mittee is not intended to have an operative role in bringing together different actors (interview). For that reason the committee rarely meets — only two times a year. Many interview partners felt frustrated about the stiffness and unnecessary bureaucracy of the committee. Many suggested that the two separate sections are not necessary, and that the committee should bring all actors together.

There seem to be several forums for cooperation between different levels of government and different sectoral agencies in the Archipelago Sea. Should a problem or conflict between two sectors emerge, it is discussed. However, no efforts are made to anticipate problems that might cross into several sectors. It was also criticized that there has been very little coordination of the activities of the numerous development programs and actors dealing with regional development. Only recently was the Archipelago Development Center established to coordinate and set up a regional development plan.

Cooperation with the biosphere reserve administration The biosphere reserve administration is a new actor in all case study areas. Some agencies may perceive a strong administration as a threat, or municipalities may be reluctant to accept yet another agency interfering with local issues. Although such fears existed in the beginning, in all case study areas the biosphere reserve has quickly been accepted by most agencies and municipalities as a local actor. (See Box 10.)

Cooperation between the biosphere reserve administration (National Park Agency, NPA) and other administrative bodies was, according to the representative of the Rügen NPA, generally good. For example, the policies of the current district government are in accordance with the NPA. The relationships to some municipalities, however, was problematic; communication had nearly come to an end with some heads of municipalities. The main reason behind the conflicts with municipalities was the strong position of the NPA in land-use planning (especially in areas located outside settlements).

For the Hiiumaa Biosphere Reserve Center, the agencies with which cooperation was most important were the Department of Environmental Protection of the County Government, the Forestry Department, and the Tuuru Center. The fact that the Tuuru Center and the Biosphere Reserve Center are located in the same building had a positive impact on cooperation, making cooperation natural and easy (interview). However, some interview partners criticized the lack of a biosphere reserve advisory board: “People thinking the same way hold meetings, but there is no forum that brings together differing views” (planning consultant). At the same time, one representative of the Biosphere Reserve Center complained that municipalities have not realized their role in local and regional development.

172

Analysis and comparison of planning practice on R端gen, Hiiumaa, and the Archipelago Sea BOX 10 COOPERATION WITH THE BIOSPHERE RESERVE ADMINISTRATION

I think it is sufficient from my perspective. We have site visits, and try to get all relevant actors together...We meet often to different plans, have..., negotiations and consultation, and it works in most cases. (Representative of the biosphere reserve, R端gen.) ...there was almost nobody to work with.. When the politically active people on the local level become aware of their role in local development, then it is more easy to work. I hope that after the elections in autumn there will be more change, so we can have more cooperation. It is very difficult to cooperate if you do not have a counterpart. (Representative of the biosphere reserve, Hiiumaa.)

It is my job to create the network. The Advisory Board is so stiff and comes together only two to three times a year. They can only say yes or no to proposals, they cannot initiate any themselves. The most active role is to give statements on certain issues.... The main function of the Advisory Board is to be a forum for contact between municipalities and state agencies. It is good for the transfer of information. (Representative of the biosphere reserve, Archipelago Sea.) For the Archipelago Sea, the biosphere advisory board is an important institution, facilitating cooperation among municipalities, state agencies, and the biosphere reserve administration. It was considered important for the transfer of information, but has no coordinating function. For its part, the biosphere reserve administration has intensive cooperation with municipalities and agencies.

Although conflicts of interests exist between sectoral agencies in all three case study areas, the positions and interests are generally well-known. The same can not be said about individual people or groups, whose objectives are often perceived to be ambiguous or in conflict (interviews).

There are about 200 manor estates on R端gen (Abts 1998). The manor (Rittergut) in Karnitz was built in the first half of 19th century.

Photo: Martin Welp

173

Hiiumaa

Archipelago Sea

between local and re- cooperation in strategic planning not well organized gional level

open conflicts between local and regional level

no regional level administrative body in the area

between sectoral agen- institutionalized channels of intersectoral cooperation cies (positions and interests of different agencies are well known)

flow of information between different public agencies perceived as poor

dissatisfaction towards interagency cooperation (form of communication occasionally criticized)

RĂźgen

Criteria: Cooperation

close cooperation in dayto-day management, strategic sectoral plans prepared independently

local governments and great number of commitlack of sectoral agencies only tees, ÂŤformallyÂť involved in operationalization HDAP 2010 through working groups

with biosphere reserve good cooperation between the biosphere reserve adadministration ministration and the current district government; serious conflicts between biosphere reserve and municipalities on land-use issues

intensive cooperation good cooperation with among biosphere reserve municipalities and agenadministration, county cies government, forestry administration, etc.

biosphere reserve advi- biosphere reserve advisory board

biosphere reserve advisory board seldom meets seldom; considered important, but criticized as too bureaucratic

methods

Figure 21. Cooperation in planning practice in the case study areas.

6.3.4 Feedback The fourth key characteristic, feedback, includes two aspects, namely monitoring and evaluation.

Systematic ways of monitoring are important to the implementation of decisions, to insure that they are upheld in practice, and to learn from past experience. Periodically, the plans and programs themselves should be subject to evaluation as a way of continually improving the processes. This should include an evaluation of the continuity of the collaborative planning arrangements and fairness of the process. (See Box 11.)

174

Analysis and comparison of planning practice on Rügen, Hiiumaa, and the Archipelago Sea Putting plans into practice BOX 11 PUTTING PLANS INTO PRACTICE

There is no such thing as monitoring or evaluation. (Head of the environmental department of the district government, Rügen.)

The main point is how these plans are put into practice. This holds true for all plans made on the district level. We have plenty of concepts. (District planner, Rügen.)

We try to stay on the line in our everyday work. These concepts are a real help for us, but we do not have the means for true evaluation or control. It is always restricted to bits and parts, the holistic picture is more difficult (District planner, Rügen.)

None of the concepts have legal codification. All [municipalities] stick to their planning competence, which they have. They take little notice of the conceptional suggestions of the district.

Nobody cares there anymore. If it fits their ideas, they argue with the paper. If it does not fit, they say, “well it is not binding anyway. It is just a suggestion”. (District planner, Rügen.)

We have abandoned the word ‘planning’ and do only district development... The situation changes, but the plan stays the same, and does later on not fit together. We break out from that dilemma by not doing big plans, and we try to do things in practice... Nobody is interested in big plans and concepts, which really only bring unfruitful discussions and do not help in solving problems. (Representative of the biosphere reserve, Rügen.) ...this is not how plans were once made. There is implementation, evaluation — an iterative process. Well, this is nothing new, that you need to rewrite plans. In practice, however, it has been somewhat different. When the general plan was a new thing, small municipalities sighed, “now it’s done”. I was one of the first to say that this is not the way. They understood that the first one would not be good enough. In part, they were the first steps, but I think a bad plan is better than nothing, if the mistakes are recognized. Recently the better view has been adopted that a plan cannot be valid forever. (Regional planner, Archipelago Sea.) There is no well-developed system of monitoring and evaluating planning on Rügen. The problems associated with the non-binding character of numerous sectoral plans and concepts were pointed out by a regional planner. Because the sectoral concepts, set up on district level, have no legal codification, they are not binding for sectoral agencies or municipalities. Nor were the concepts made in 175

close cooperation with relevant agencies and interest groups so that a voluntary agreement, although having no legally binding character, would have informal power.

Hiiumaa does not possess an elaborate system of monitoring or evaluation in planning practice either. For example, a system of monitoring the implementation of decisions and the effectiveness of action is currently not made explicit in the Hiiumaa Development Action Plan 2010. Nor is the planning process itself evaluated (in terms of continuity or fairness), except for the final reports of the projects results by the funding agency UNDP. One means of evaluation could be taking an opinion survey of the local population on the appropriateness of the public participation procedures and the process itself. The information could then be used for better tailoring future planning activities to the needs of society. By contrast to the 2010 plan, the Käina Bay Integrated Coastal Zone Management Plan was understood as an iterative process, and a system of monitoring certain environmental characteristics was also elaborated.

There is no well developed system of monitoring or evaluation in planning practice in the Archipelago Sea. Some feedback has been given on the socio-economic effects of development programmes and plans by the Regional Council of Southwest Finland in the form of seminars. In the future, the Regional Council will probably have a stronger role in monitoring the impact of development programmes. The Regional Development Centers will do the actual planning and advising (interview).

The Archipelago Sea has no well elaborated system of monitoring in land-use planning either. Each municipality maintains a map of the building permits issued, and the Ministry of the Environment keeps annual statistics about the number and type of permits given. The Regional Environment Center has no direct access to the maps of the municipalities. On the other hand the center is more interested in construction activities which are not done according to the general plan. A national study was made of the extent to which cottages and homes had been built on the coastal strip (Granö et al. 1995), although it was not as a form of monitoring, but was done to simply create a picture of the current situation.

On Rügen, the National Park Agency keeps a list of rejected and recognized building permits.

These numbers are published annually in the local newspapers and in the yearbook of the agency.

Environmental monitoring Extensive monitoring of water quality takes place both on Rügen and in the Archipelago Sea. On Hiiumaa the biosphere reserve center has established an environmental laboratory to carry out monitoring activities. In the Archipelago Sea one problem was that monitoring on water quality is carried out by many different organizations. The Association of Water Protection of Southwest Finland 176

Analysis and comparison of planning practice on Rügen, Hiiumaa, and the Archipelago Sea carries out monitoring in the near vicinity of polluters. Impacts on water quality are reported to the Regional Environment Center, while the impacts on fish grounds are reported to the fishing department of the Rural Development Center. While perhaps inconvenient for the entrepreneur, it has been seen as a problem that insufficient cooperation exists between different administrative bodies. It has also been criticized that the polluters should monitor the impact of their activities themselves. The Southwest Finland Regional Environment Center has a comprehensive net of control sites spread over the Archipelago Sea. Although extensive monitoring is carried out on water quality, the information is usually not distributed and made available to normal citizens.

Perception of biosphere reserve In all three biosphere reserves studies have been carried out on the perception of local people (and on Rügen also visitors) about the perception about the biosphere reserve administration (see Chapter 5.5). Evaluations of the fairness of planning processes have been conducted within the framework of certain scientific studies in the Archipelago Sea. For example, Haverinen (1996; see also Kaskinen 1996) analyzed citizen participation in road planning, interviewing local people for this purpose.

Criteria: Feedback

Rügen

Hiiumaa

Archipelago Sea

putting plans into practice system of evaluation not system of evaluation not system of evaluation not well developed well developed, no com- well developed monly agreed criteria to assess the success of policies (the numerous strategic sectoral plans have an unbinding character) environmental monitoring environmental monitoring biosphere reserve has es- monitoring carried out e.g. tablished an environmental on water quality is done by takes place many different organizalaboratory tions, little information directed towards the public perception on the bio- study on perceptions of peoples’ perception of bio- internal study on peoples’ sphere reserve part of an perception of the national biosphere reserve sphere reserve islandwide social survey, park publicized in local media Figure 22. Feedback in planning practice in the case study areas.

177

6.4 Planning styles in the case study areas Two of the key characteristics of ‘good coastal planning practice’, namely participation and cooperation, are more directly related to the communicative aspects of planning. Based on the two aspects, four planning styles were identified: routine planning, sector-based participatory planning, social and environmental engineering and planning as mutual learning (see Chapter 2.1). The planning styles characterize the degree and intensity of public participation and cooperation in the planning carried out by the public administration.

With reference to Figure 1, ‘dominant styles in planning practice’ in each of the case study areas can be identified. The character of participation is somewhere between informing and consultation (cf. Figure 2, Chapter 2.1). Negotiations and delegated powers are rare in planning practice. In terms of the level of intersectoral cooperation, the range is somewhat broader, moving from fragmented to a certain degree of coordination, while informing and consultation are the most typical (cf. Figure 3, Chapter 2.1).

Rather than making an absolute judgment about each case study area’s planning style, the following paragraphs illustrate the differences among them. Thus, when trying to improve planning practice, emphasis needs to be put on different aspects depending on the area. In addition, planning practice on Rügen, Hiiumaa, or the Archipelago Sea is not identical to planning practice in Germany, Estonia, or Finland. Within each country’s planning system there is room for regional variations, even though national legislation fixes the overall framework. It should also be stressed that there are differences within each case study area between specific planning processes.

The criteria for identifying the dominant styles in planning practice include the following: the perceptions about planning practice held by interview partners (planners and others involved); cooperation and participation as described in the planning documents and newspaper articles; and demands for public participation as expressed in the local media. On Rügen the dominating planning style can be characterized as social and environmental engineering, on Hiiumaa as routine planning, and in the Archipelago Sea as sector-based participatory planning. In no case study area was the ‘planning as learning’ approach dominant. Planning efforts representing this style were rather the exception, and they remained disjointed from other planning. This division is a simplification of what was perceived to be the level and degree of public participation and cooperation in the case study areas. In the following, aspects of the dominant styles in planning practice are briefly discussed.

On Rügen the dominant planning style can be characterized as ‘social and environmental engineering’. The emphasis in regional planning has been on comprehensive sectoral plans. There have 178

Analysis and comparison of planning practice on Rügen, Hiiumaa, and the Archipelago Sea also been various attempts to promote the model region concept, among others through the sectoral concepts, a strategical environmental plan, and a District Development Plan. These are, however, not binding, nor is a consensus being built among actors, or a broad commitment to the stated goals.

The intensity of non-institutionalized participation that emerges in this study does not indicate that public planning is truly participatory.40 There were cases of alternative planning, like the “Proposals for the Economic Development of the Island Rügen” prepared by the People’s Initiative for Rügen, and numerous citizen protests, including those waged against the planned shipyard and the designation of protected landscape areas. These indicate that there is a strong will to participate in environmental and development planning and decision-making. Against the absence of more inclusionary practices, the intensity of non-institutionalized participation also shows that planning practice has not been responsive in a way which would enable constructive negotiations at early stages of planning. Also the biosphere reserve administration has been accused of not taking account of the interests of local citizens.

In Estonia the planning system is not yet well-elaborated. Planning practice on Hiiumaa can often be characterized as routine planning. But the cliché of soviet style ‘command-and-control planning’ is rapidly becoming outdated. The Hiiumaa Development Action Plan 2010 and the Käina Bay Integrated Management Plan are examples of planning with an ambition to involve local people in democratic decision making. It will take time for the precise methods to be developed and a civil society to be established, however. Not many interest groups have organized themselves, and planners find few groups or active individuals with whom they can work with directly. The local press is not yet well developed, so that its role in supporting and critically scrutinizing planning has been limited.

In the particular case of Hiiumaa, the term ‘routine planning’ may not be entirely appropriate, however. Many ‘routines’ were abandoned with the re-establishment of Estonian independence and with the introduction of new legal arrangements. In addition, new and younger people became involved in making public policy. Despite this, the use of the term is largely justified, since most people there still perceive planning as strongly expert-oriented. The process of finding out possibilities for public involvement in planning and decision-making takes some time. Although HDAP 2010 had the ambition to involve Hiiumaa people in a “democratic development process”, the number of those who actually took part in the working was small. They included mainly employees in the 40

That non-institutionalized participation is not taken into consideration here does not indicate that non-institutional participation would be less important or less democratic than institutionalized participation. Planning should however provide alternatives for participation so that people can decide in which way they want to participate. Institutionalized participation may also give an opportunity for interest groups “with a weaker voice” to take part.

179

county government, or members of the tourism association or the farmers’ union. The few representatives of NGOs present (such as the Village Movement and the Educational Societies) were still shaping their role in the process.

Finally, although HDAP 2010 intended to improve intersectoral cooperation and cooperation between the county government and municipalities, most interview partners complained that the flow of information was insufficient. However, the biosphere reserve center and the Tuuru Center have been driving forces for more public participation and better cooperation. Thus the planning style is shifting to the ‘northeast’ towards planning as mutual learning (Figure 1).

Planning practice in the Archipelago Sea can be characterized as sector-based participatory planning. The Road Administration and some other agencies have adopted certain types of public participation. Also, at the municipal level, land-use planning participation has been intensive. There has been no strong pressure for more public participation in planning, except in the designation of protected areas, as in the recent European Union directive, Natura 2000.

On the ‘sectoral-integrated’ axis, planning practice as a whole in the Archipelago Sea cannot be considered integrated. One reason is that land and water areas are in planning considered separately by different administrative bodies. The general absence of cooperation among various government agencies, local governments, and other administrative bodies in Finland has been identified in a number of academic studies and publications (e.g. Temmes 1988; Siirala 1990). This absence has been verified by this research as well, in which the lack of coordination among the number of different actors in a place like the Archipelago Sea emerged as a practical reality. Another difficulty in bringing actors together is the mind-set of certain administrative bodies, like the coast guard or the Seafaring Administration, who are concerned with their strategic mission and remain aloof from local issues (interviews).

The claim that planning practice in the Archipelago Sea is participatory instead of being expertoriented does not hold true for all planning activities. In his national study on public participation in Finland, Paldanius (1994a, 2) identifies the main driving forces against public participation, which are part of the “strongly elitist, expert-dominated and consensus-oriented political and administrative culture”. Paldanius further notes that planners often regard themselves as sectoral experts. Nevertheless, it became clear in this study that public agencies have made considerable advances towards making planning more communicative and open. On many occasions the biosphere reserve administration has stressed that it is open to ideas from people living in the archipelago. Thus the participatory character appears to be more strong than in the other case study areas.

180

Conclusions 7.1 A vision for planning in coastal areas Coastal resource use planning is characterized by complex interrelated issues and frequently conflicting sectoral interests. Therefore the primary goal of any integrated coastal management effort should be to reach agreement about the domain of planning and the issues that should be given priority. Achieving a reasonable level of consensus on priority issues among various stakeholders is a particularly important prerequisite for successful action.

In practice, the public discussion on the environment and development does not follow a step-bystep procedure in establishing which issues are on the agenda and how they are dealt with in the political system. In other words, political debates on the environment and development have a dynamic of their own and often do not engage in a logical sequence of (a) identifying problems, (b) choosing alternatives, (c) making decisions, and (d) implementing decisions. But this does not mean that a more structured approach should not be striven for in the planning system. The intermingling of politics and planning is a part of western democracies. Planning is expected to involve long-term time frames which extend beyond the next elections or political events. We expect the politics to be flexible and responsive, and that the components of the planning system balance each other out.

However this often takes place in a way that is not always comprehended by the individual citizen.

Comprehensive and anticipatory coastal planning provides the opportunity to discuss issues in a more systematic way. It may counteract the impression that issues come to the fore more or less accidentally, too late, or in a disconnected way. Public participation may give weak or disorganized interest groups an opportunity to be involved in planning and decision-making. Planning is futureoriented, which makes it interesting and relevant when speaking about sustainable development in a region. The four criteria, comprehensiveness, participation, cooperation and feedback (Chapter 2.3), can be considered necessary prerequisites for finding sustainable ways and intensities of using coastal resources and to anticipate future problems.

Making suggestions for the improvement of planning practice requires detailed information about administrative procedures, an understanding of a particular nation’s decision-making culture and social structures, and knowledge of issues, actors’ perceptions, and the historical development of institutions. This study proposes a vision of an alternative to sectoralized or expert-oriented plan181

ning practice, which seems to dominate all too often.41 A vision should, however, also be realistic so that it builds on existing structures and capacities. In the case study areas, the biosphere reserve administration is a valuable resource with an internationally supported mission to search for ways of integrating environmental and development policies on the local and regional levels.

Several efforts to improve coastal management have been launched on the European level and in the Baltic Sea Region. The European demonstration programme for integrated coastal zone management, and several other efforts within the EU and the Baltic Sea Region (Chapter 2.2.6) indicate that in recent years there has been a great increase in interest in coastal issues. Despite the long-standing cooperation under the HELCOM Convention and the Baltic Council coastal management issues in the Baltic Sea Region are relatively new fields of international concern and cooperation.

Stronger emphasis should be given to community based coastal management. So far the main focus has typically been on higher levels of planning and policy-making (for example the Trilateral Wadden Sea Convention, or the activities within HELCOM). The link between the international level and local level has been missing. The advantage of biosphere reserves is that the administration is a local actor, but integrated within the international network of biosphere reserves.

In the case study areas, some efforts have been undertaken to coordinate sectoral planning, whether through regional planning, planning committees, or by other means. But essentially, the coastal management system can be characterized as fragmented and not comprehensive. Efforts to introduce more integrated planning, such as pilot management plans and research and development projects, have thus remained disjointed and without a broader framework. At the district level, the only clearly visible political commitment to sustainable regional development was the Rügen model region, a concept which has inherited a ‘vision’ of the island’s sustainable future. Yet Rügen still lacks a coherent framework for planning, decision-making, and implementation, despite numerous studies and plans.

The concept of ICM was not very familiar to most of the interviewed persons in the case study areas.

A representative of WWF, who had promoted the concept of ICM for several years, and representatives of the Biosphere Reserve Hiiumaa Center, who had set up the management plan for Käina Bay, were among those interviewed who were most familiar with this concept. Thus, if ICM is seen as an appropriate concept for drawing attention to current problems in coastal planning practice, there should be considerably more training and education, both for planners and other actors engaged in planning.

41

Defining the best practices which would apply equally in all circumstances, even for a single country, is a difficult task (Edwards et al. 1997). Therefore this study does not assume to have enough local knowledge to be able to make detailed suggestions concerning questions of who should be involved, what techniques should be applied, and who should set up and head a joint planning committee.

182

Conclusions

7.2 The ‘programme’ or the ‘incremental reform’ approach The key characteristics of ‘good coastal planning practice’ were elaborated in Chapter 2.3 with special reference to literature on ‘integrated coastal management’ (ICM) as well as planning theory.

Strengthening comprehensiveness, in terms of both the planning area and the content of planning, citizen participation, cooperation between sectoral agencies and levels of government, and feedback, which enables a continuous iterative learning process, were identified as four issues crucial to the improvement of coastal planning practice. These may take place in different ways. What can broadly be referred to as ‘integrated coastal management’ may thus take different organizational forms and institutional strategies (cf. Chapter 2.2.5).

One may ask what ultimately constitutes integrated coastal management. Is it a programme labeled ICM? Or is ICM a set of management principles? The answer is that it can be both. It might take the form of a particular programme, but given the variety of ways of adopting integrated management principles, ICM becomes much broader. A distinction can be made between a ‘programme approach’ and an ‘incremental reform approach’.

The ‘incremental reform’ approach seeks to strengthen intersectoral cooperation and public participation within existing administrative structures, without launching a separate programme. This may take the form of a joint planning committee or a biosphere reserve advisory board. The incremental reform approach requires that agencies have a better understanding of problems within the planning system, and the will to bring about change from within. Identifying gaps, inconsistencies, and overlaps in the public administration may, however, require outside input. Whether from a nongovernmental organization or the research community, such external aid might be essential.

The ‘programme approach’ implies that a ‘coastal management’ programme is launched. Efforts which may include similar characteristics could equally be a local or regional Agenda 21-process, or an enhanced management plan for a biosphere reserve. Essential to the success of such a programme or plan, irrespective of name, is that it seeks to integrate environmental, economic, and social issues with sectoral activities. Perhaps most critical is that it seeks to involve local residents and to create a partnership for coastal management. The advantage of the programme approach is that its implementation can be well-structured, follow a commonly agreed schedule, and have the potential for greater public interest. Human resources and financial support are needed for the coordination of such an effort, which includes e.g. moderating work groups and informing the public.

In both the programme approach and the incremental reform approach, it is not absolutely necessary for the competencies of agencies to be altered. A single agency may coordinate the programme, 183

or be responsible for improving cooperative and participatory arrangements. Better results can be expected, however, if several agencies have joint responsibility, share costs, and, for example, jointly hire a coordinator. Both approaches differ from the case where one lead agency is assigned control over most coastal resources use issues. Such changes usually require changes in the legal system.

In the literature on coastal management, the ‘programme approach’ is the prevalent means of implementing ‘integrated coastal management’. But it has also been argued that since the planning system in many European countries already is well-developed (unlike that of many developing countries), no coastal management programmes are needed. Why then should an ICM-programme be more successful in tackling complex coastal resources use issues? There are four main advantages of an ICM programme. First, it explicitly addresses the problems caused by the strict sectoral divisions within the public administration. Second, it builds upon public support as a result of intensive consultation and joint planning, by incorporating the involvement of relevant actors and an interested general public. A third advantage of ICM is that it insures that priority issues are selected and strategies elaborated for implementation, then subjected to monitoring and evaluation. Fourth, ICM functions within a worldwide framework of international agreements (Agenda 21) and guidelines. Beyond these advantages, the evolving common vocabulary of ICM provides a good way to facilitate the transfer of knowledge and exchange of experience between countries and regions.

7.3 Potential roles for biosphere reserves in the future The difference between a coastal biosphere reserve and other ‘normal’ coastal regions is that in the former, one administrative body is by definition interested in environmental and development issues in a holistic way. A cross-sectoral view, strongly oriented to the principles of sustainable development, is something which is usually lacking in the traditional administrative structure. The designation of a biosphere reserve can be seen as a first step toward the introduction of more integrated planning. The existence of a biosphere reserve administration, which has a cross-sectoral orientation, can be seen as a chance to make planning more integrated, transparent, and responsive. There are also many parallels between planning for integrated coastal management and planning for biosphere reserves.

The Seville Strategy for biosphere reserves includes 24 implementation indicators which are to be applied on the level of the individual reserve (Biosphere reserves 1996, 15). At least five of the criteria refer directly to the potential role of the biosphere reserve administration as an initiator and coordinator of efforts to make planning more integrated and participatory. The criteria call for the biosphere reserve administration to: make a survey of stakeholder interests; create mechanisms for 184

Conclusions managing, coordinating, and integrating its own programmes and activities; establish a local consultative framework; insure the existence of a local educational and training programme; and involve the local community in planning and managing the biosphere reserve itself.

Biosphere reserve administrations could act as ‘parallel learning organizations’ in introducing ‘good coastal planning’. Parallel organizations are intended to improve the learning capacity of bureaucratic institutions. According to Leskinen (1994) there are two kind of learning organizations: parallel organizations that are set up internally within organizations, and parallel organizations that act as coordinating and learning units between organizations. Biosphere reserves could adopt the second type of parallel organizations. As such, the biosphere reserve would not function primarily as a planning unit; its purpose would be to develop and initiate cooperation among authorities and other actors. Within each relevant agency, structures should be developed to ensure that new experience is passed on from unit to unit.

To achieve more effective cooperation, biosphere reserves could further develop existing institutional structures. For example, in the Archipelago Sea, there is an Archipelago Council and an Archipelago Advisory Committee. However, they are not very well structured internally, they seldom meet, they do not always inform the public about decisions, and they do not always involve all relevant agencies and actors. By launching an integrated coastal management programme, more publicity and input from various actors can be gained. The biosphere reserve advisory boards could steer and coordinate such programmes and provide a forum for making policy recommendations on the regional level. It would be important for these recommendations to be then transferred to upper levels of the civic administration (state agencies, ministries).

In cases in which the biosphere reserve administration has a strong regulative function, as on Rügen, it may be more difficult to adopt a role as a parallel organization. The administration might be too involved in promoting nature and landscape protection interests to be acknowledged by all actors as a legitimate ‘neutral’ partner. Although such a strong formal regulative position makes it possible to hinder unwanted development, the other side of the coin is that the possibilities of acting as a parallel learning organization are limited. On the other hand, in most biosphere reserves, where many agencies are involved in the management of the area, the administration has to adopt some strategies for negotiation. If the biosphere reserve has own interests to promote, but wishes to initiate a consultative forum, outside mediators may be used.

It can be expected that the efforts made by a biosphere reserve administration to coordinate sectoral activities might be viewed with skepticism by other government agencies and local governments.

185

Many actors still perceive the biosphere reserve administration primarily as a nature protection authority. But no other administrative body is currently in a position to take on such a coordinating role that extends beyond its narrow sectoral designation. Therefore, the many advantages of the special status of biosphere reserves as model regions should be acknowledged and used.

Furthermore, it should be possible to carry out pilot projects and experiments in biosphere reserves in a flexible manner. Such pilot projects as the EU demonstration programme on integrated management of the coastal zones can test new cooperation methods and new legislation that is about to be put into practice. In Sweden, the pilot projects in the archipelagos on the west coast and in the Stockholm archipelago have been following a community-based approach to regional development and natural resource planning. On the island of Svartsö, the plan was entitled “Planning from a local perspective” (Skoglund 1997), while on the Koster islands planning was entitled “Lifestyle-oriented planning” (Arén 1994). Although these examples were not carried out in biosphere reserves, such efforts could exploit the special status of biosphere reserves in testing different approaches to a greater extent.

A new role requires strengthening the perception of the biosphere reserve concept internationally and nationally as well as locally. The international network of biosphere reserves is currently not very strong. It can be argued that the many benefits of transferring experience and information about successful and unsuccessful practices between biosphere reserves are not being optimized. Thus, networks of biosphere reserves which share common problems (coastal biosphere reserves, biosphere reserves located close to large urban settlements, etc.) or are located in the same geographic region (e.g. the Baltic Sea) should be strengthened.

The legal codification of biosphere reserves on national level is currently inadequate in the three case study countries. Although a loosely detailed legal framework gives considerable flexibility, it does not strengthen the status of biosphere reserves as model regions. The inclusion of biosphere reserves in legislation on planning and construction, or their designation as special areas within nature conservation legislation, could help insure that government agencies take greater notice of biosphere reserves in the future.

Implementing the biosphere reserve concept is a challenge, especially on the local level. The suggestions mentioned above potentially strengthen the concept of the biosphere reserve at the local level. Public support can be expected only if local people have a sense of ownership of the reserve.

Additionally, an important prerequisite for successfully promoting sustainable resource use is that the many agencies responsible for the area work with the biosphere reserve, not against it. A consultative framework for such partnership can be created by applying the principles of ‘good coastal 186

Conclusions planning practice’. Rather than relying on the approaches of ‘routine planning’, ‘sector-based participatory planning’, or ‘social and environmental engineering’, with the aid of a biosphere reserve administration acting as a parallel learning organization, planning can take on a more learningoriented approach. By this biosphere reserves could become model regions for creating and actively choosing sustainable futures.

Children in the Centre of Kärdla (Hiiumaa).

Photo: Tero Uusitalo

187

The ferry trip between Korpo and Houtskär (Archipelago Sea) Photo: Martin Öhman takes about 30 minutes.

188

Summary Coastal areas worldwide are subject to increasing pressures caused by a wide range of human activities which includes construction, tourism, recreation, marine transport, aquaculture, and industry. The sectoralized planning system has not been able to respond to these pressures in an adequate way. Conflicts on resource allocation are subsequently increasing.

Biosphere reserves provide an international framework for comparative research on the relationships between society and the environment. In October 1997, there were 352 biosphere reserves in 87 countries. On these sites sustainable resource use is intended to be tested and demonstrated.

Three coastal biosphere reserves in the Baltic Sea have been chosen as case study areas. These are: the West Estonian Archipelago (one of its constituent islands, Hiiumaa), Archipelago Sea in Finland and R端gen in Germany. As small islands and archipelagoes, they represent a special type of coastal area. Small islands are often characterized by relative isolation, high ratios of coastline to land area, and a limited resource base. What makes them interesting for social science research is that they also often represent coherent social, cultural, economic, geographic, and administrative units.

The objective of the study is an analysis of current planning practices and the role of the biosphere reserve administration in environmental and development planning. The three case study areas are intended to become model regions for sustainable development. The model character means also a challenge for the planning and decision-making system. Recommendations for the development of planning practice are made.

In all three case study areas, there is a biosphere reserve agency or center, each of which has adopted a particular role shaped by the legal framework, administrative system, and institutionally agreed and individual priorities. The transparency of these roles varies in terms of the public perception. While the biosphere reserve administration on R端gen has a strong formal position as a nature conservation authority, on Hiiumaa it becomes more of an intellectual contributor and project initiator. In the Archipelago Sea the biosphere reserve administration has an exploratory role and among its tasks is the coordination of research. To some extent it acts as a discursive facilitator among various actors.

As potential model regions of sustainable development, the boundaries of the Archipelago Sea Biosphere Reserves and the R端gen Biosphere Reserve cannot be considered appropriate. Although 189

these boundaries are meant to be flexible, the three main islands of the Archipelago Sea have been excluded and the Rügen Biosphere Reserve covers only the southeastern part of the island. Thus for the purposes of this study, the delineation of the case study areas differs somewhat from the delineation of the actual biosphere reserves. However, they are oriented to the geographic area related to the activities of the biosphere reserve administration.

Two of the biosphere reserves were designated during turbulent times of political and social change in the late 1980s/early 1990s. The designation of the Rügen Biosphere Reserve in the former German Democratic Republic (GDR) and of the West Estonian Archipelago Biosphere Reserve in the former Soviet Union, as well as the planning activities in subsequent years, have to be seen in the broader context of a complete change in the political and administrative systems. GDR unified with the Federal German Republic in 1990 and Estonia re-established its independence in 1991. In Finland such dramatic changes did not occur, despite its joining the European Union in 1995.

Such profound and rapid changes in society can be seen as hindering rational planning, because adequate legislation has to be developed, administrative responsibilities need to be clarified and some degree of socio-economic security has to be established. On the other hand, such a situation can be considered an opportunity for introducing innovative planning arrangements. There have been several attempts within Europe to introduce new, more integrated management in coastal areas.

Some pilot projects have been carried out in the case study areas of this study as well. The subject of analysis in this study is, however, ‘normal’ environmental and development planning practice.

‘Integrated coastal management’ (ICM) is a relatively new management approach that addresses a number of key problems related to the sectoralized, competing, and sometimes overlapping competencies of different public agencies. It also promotes the use of scientific knowledge from different disciplines for the purposes of management and the integration of land and water areas in planning.

Although there are many different definitions of ICM, it may be regarded as a distinct management approach. More recently the Agenda 21 Action Plan has given greater prominence to ICM. Because ICM lacks a coherent theoretical basis and a common vocabulary, however, its development has been somewhat hindered.

In this study, a set of key characteristics for ‘good coastal planning practice’ is elaborated with special reference to the literature on ‘integrated coastal management’ (ICM). This is supported by literature on planning theory. While ICM literature usually also stresses the importance of public participation in management, critical planning theory particularly emphasizes the democratic notion of planning. Public participation is not carried out only to improve the quality of planning or speed 190

Summary up planning processes, but in order to make the entire decision-making system more transparent and accountable. The planner can have an active role in supporting weakly or not organized interest groups. In this sense, planning becomes a communicative, attention-shaping action.

The key characteristics for ‘good coastal planning practice’ are: comprehensiveness, participation, cooperation, and feedback. Comprehensiveness refers to the joint planning of land and water areas. The planning area should be based on natural rather than administrative boundaries. In addition, plans and programmes should be characterized by a more comprehensive approach than has been customary in sectoral planning. Participation refers to the possibility of all relevant stakeholders having a say in problem formulation, selection of problem-solving strategies, and the choice of alternatives already in an early phase. Citizens and interest groups should also have clear channels of access to the public administration. Cooperation refers to communication and harmonization between different sectoral agencies and levels of government. Essential for interagency cooperation, as well as participation, is that expert-knowledge is made understandable for non-experts and experts in other fields. Finally, feedback refers to the importance of understanding planning as an iterative process. Plans and programmes should be subject to regular monitoring and evaluation as a way of continually improving the processes. Factors of evaluation should include the continuity of the collaborative planning arrangements and fairness of the process. The criteria above are regarded as necessary prerequisites for substantial and sustained integration of environmental and development planning.

Planning practice in each case study area is analyzed in the study with the help of the abovementioned criteria. Illustrative examples on strategic regional development planning, sectoral planning (forestry), land-use planning, water-use planning, coastal ecosystem management, and biosphere reserve related planning activities are analyzed in detail. About thirty structured interviews of key persons conducted in each of the case study areas as well as newspaper articles, planning documents, and other relevant writings were used as research material.

The first of the illustrative examples concerns strategic regional planning on Rügen. A number of strategic level sectoral plans were prepared after 1990. These were intended to be integrated in the District Development Plan. No broad public participation took place when preparing these plans, however. Eventually the environment and development discussion, already very polarized, culminated in the issue of the designation of protected landscape areas. There was intense public debate in the local media and in the numerous public hearings organized by the county government once the conflict escalated. The discussion was perceived by those involved to have contributed little to establishing consensus about the island’s future development. The District Development Plan was not 191

completed, and instead the district and the biosphere reserve administration became more interested in implementation-oriented negotiations dealing with projects and cases individually.

The second of the illustrative examples also deals with strategic level planning. On Hiiumaa, the Hiiumaa Development Action Plan (HDAP) 2010 was an effort to support a ‘coordinated democratic development process on Hiiumaa’. The process built on active citizens on the island and to some extent also relied on existing social structures on the island such as the Educational Societies and Village Movement. A number of sectoral working groups were created focusing on such topics as tourism, information technology, and education. They worked parallel to local work groups in the municipalities and villages. In practice, quite a small number of active people were involved in the process. The general public was skeptical of the way that funds provided by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) were actually used.

Forestry planning was selected as an example of sectoral planning. On Rügen and on Hiiumaa, close cooperation took place between the forestry administration and the biosphere reserve administration, so that in most cases an agreement on the use and protection of forest resources was found. In contrast to other sectors, like construction activities and traffic, the conflicts were relatively small.

On Rügen the biosphere reserve administration has chosen forestry as a central sector where the sustainable use of local resources for local purposes and employment is demonstrated in an exemplary way. By contrast, in the Archipelago Sea, the forestry sector was not of special concern for the biosphere reserve administration.

Land-use planning on the local level is carried out by municipalities and is regulated by the national planning and building legislation. Construction activities are one of the most controversial coastal resource use issues. Two coastal land-use conflicts on Rügen and Hiiumaa in which the biosphere reserve administration was involved are investigated. On Rügen, land-use planning is the most controversial political issue, and it has caused serious conflicts between the biosphere reserve administration and the municipalities. General planning in the Archipelago Sea is referred to as an example of intensive consultation and negotiation with land owners.

Water-use planning includes various issues ranging from water quality control to sand mining and shipping routes. Fish farming has been a particularly sensitive issue for Rügen as well as the Archipelago Sea, where it is an important source of income for local people. A planned fish farm close to an important bathing resort in the Bay of Prora on Rügen was opposed both by nature conservationists and the tourism sector. Ultimately, as a response to this protest a decision was made to ban the farm. In the Archipelago Sea, fish farming has been discussed in relation to the problem of continu192

Summary ing eutrophication of the coastal waters. In both cases the permitting procedures took place quite independently of land use and other planning decisions.

Only one especially entitled ‘integrated coastal zone management plan’ was prepared in the case study areas. This was a plan for Käina Bay on Hiiumaa, a relatively small and extensively used estuary. Both land- and water-use issues were addressed in this plan, which was based on consultations with various user groups and collection of natural scientific and social data from the area.

The ‘Seville Strategy’ for biosphere reserves suggests the establishing of a consultative framework for each biosphere reserve. Advisory boards were established for the biosphere reserves in the Archipelago Sea and on Rügen. On Rügen serious conflicts with municipalities concerning land-use issues made the process cumbersome. Heads of municipalities made many demands, including the exclusion of NGOs. In the Archipelago Sea, the advisory board is considered inflexible and bureaucratic, but it is still important for communication between the biosphere reserve administration, state agencies, and municipalities. In neither of the cases does the advisory board have a coordinating function for environmental and development planning. There is no corresponding institutionalized consultative framework on Hiiumaa.

Based on the illustrative examples explored, planning practice is then compared with the ideal model of ‘good coastal planning practice’. With regard to the first of the key characteristics, comprehensiveness, it became obvious that issues ranging across municipal borders are seldom adequately addressed. For example, in all case study areas land-use planning in neighboring municipalities is carried out more or less separately, just as land-use and water-use planning were two separated processes in all of the case study areas.

The second key characteristic of participation has an underlying democratic outlook and seeks to improve the quality of planning. There are considerable differences within the general drive for more public participation. On Rügen, citizen protests, alternative planning, and NGO campaigns have forced planning to become more responsive, while on Hiiumaa, support for greater participation comes mainly from international actors (such as the UNDP or the Helsinki Commission). The Hiiumaa Biosphere Reserve Center has been especially interested in developing more communitybased approaches to planning and management. In the Archipelago Sea, by contrast, there have been no loud calls for public participation. However, the narrow definition of stakeholders on the basis of ownership or property rights has been criticized.

Cooperation between sectoral agencies and levels of government takes place in institutionalized ways, both formally and informally. Although conflicts of interests exist between sectoral agencies 193

in all three case study areas, their positions and interests are generally well known. The same cannot be said of individuals or groups whose objectives are often perceived to be ambiguous or controversial. On Rügen, there was close cooperation in day-to-day management, but on a more strategic level the methods of cooperation were not as well developed. On Hiiumaa, the flow of information in the public administration was considered to be poor. In the Archipelago Sea numerous committees exist, but these have not adopted a coordinating role. There is a biosphere reserve advisory board on Rügen and in the Archipelago Sea. Although they also lack a coordinating function, they contribute significantly to the transfer of information.

No well-established system of monitoring and evaluation exists in the case study areas. Planning is not normally viewed as an iterative process, and no agreed criteria have been developed for the success of policies. Studies on public perceptions of the biosphere reserve have been made in all three case study areas.

Four planning styles characterizing the intensity of public participation and intersectoral cooperation can be identified. These are routine planning, sector-based participatory planning, social and environmental engineering, and planning as mutual learning. ‘Routine planning’ characterizes the planning style in which experts of different administrative bodies carry out planning independently without much communication. Participatory elements may be included in sectoral plans (‘sector-based participatory planning’), but the outcome still remains fragmented and incomprehensible. Broader issues ranging across sectors and disciplines cannot be systematically discussed, and different bodies of knowledge (ecological, social, and economic) do not meet. ‘Social and environmental engineering’ represents cases in which administrative bodies cooperate intensively, but where the values and knowledge of local populations are not considered. No attempt is made to use ordinary language to transmit expert knowledge to citizens. ‘Planning as mutual learning’ characterizes the ideal condition for communication so that the activities of different sectors are coordinated, with the goal of regarding participation as a key element from the start of the planning process (problem formulation).

The ‘dominant mode’ of planning practice in each case study area can be identified in some of these categories. This is done on the basis of the illustrative examples, perceptions of the interview partners, and public opinion as recorded in the local media. In no case study area was the ‘planning as learning’ approach dominant. Planning efforts representing this style were rather the exception, remaining disjointed from other planning efforts. On Rügen planning practice can be assigned to the category of ‘social and environmental engineering’. Citizen protests and alternative planning carried out by citizen initiatives indicate that the general perception is that there are too few opportuni194

Summary ties to participate and a general lack of structured forms of public participation. The concept of the Rügen model region has underscored the effort towards harmonization. In day-to-day management, cooperation among various administrative bodies is relatively close.

The planning system on Hiiumaa is not yet well elaborated. The dominant planning style can be characterized as ‘routine planning’. However, efforts like the HDAP 2010 and the management plan for Käina Bay represent efforts to view ‘planning as mutual learning’. Nevertheless, the general perception of planning is that it is largely unresponsive. The lingering traditions of the former political system have strongly influenced people’s willingness to participate.

Planning practice in the Archipelago Sea can be characterized as ‘sector-based participatory planning’. Extensive participation is not carried out in all planning processes, but in land-use planning, for example, intensive consultations did take place. The biosphere reserve administration adopted a very open approach and research was conducted on public participation. Despite numerous planning committees, however, the planning system as a whole remains disjointed. Intersectoral cooperation is mainly carried out on a case-by-case basis.

In making recommendations for the development of planning practice, this study makes a distinction between two approaches, an ‘incremental reform’, and a ‘programme approach’. When applying the ‘incremental reform’ approach, cooperation and public participation are improved within the existing planning system. This may take the form of a joint planning committee or a biosphere reserve advisory board. The programme approach implies that a coastal management programme is launched to coordinate various coastal activities. The advantage of the programme approach is that its implementation can be well structured, follow an agreed time schedule, and potentially benefit from greater public interest.

Finally, the role of a parallel learning organization is proposed for the biosphere reserves administrations. In cases where a biosphere reserve administration does not have a strong regulatory role, it could become an initiator and a mediator of efforts towards improved participation and cooperation.

This has to some extent already been the case in Estonia and in Finland. Also, strengthening the biosphere reserves advisory boards by adding representatives of different interest groups and agencies would institute better cooperation. The use of qualified moderation could improve the effectiveness of cooperative planning arrangements. A further step could be to launch a coastal management programme which would coordinate and make more transparent the numerous sectoral activities.

Widespread public skepticism towards state bureaucracy and ‘all-embracing plans’ makes it important to identify priority issues and monitor activities. Similar processes aimed at making bu195

reaucracies more responsive, like the Local Agenda 21, can serve to launch or become part of an integrated coastal management effort. In all case study areas, the biosphere reserve administration is a new actor which by definition has a holistic view to environmental and development problems.

This unique status has so far been lacking in the administrative system.

A Estonian television crew and the director of the Biosphere Reserve Hiiumaa Centre filming a program about sustainable development («Let’s make a Model out of Wood»).

Photo: Mart Mõniste

196

Summary Keskkonna- ja regionaalplaneerimine kolmel Läänemere ranniku biosfääri kaitsealal Eestis, Saksas, Soomes: Elanike osalemise ja valdkondadevahelise koostöö parandamine rannikualade planeerimisja otsusetegemisprotsessis.

Kokkuvõte (Summary in Estonian language) Rannikualadele terves maailmas avaldab üha rohkem survet inimtegevus oma erinevate valdkondadega, nende hulgas ehitustegevus, turism, meelelahutus, meretransport, veekultuur ja tööstus. Valdkondlik planeerimissüsteem pole suutnud adekvaatselt sellele survele vastata. Konflikt ressursside jaotamise pärast süveneb jätkuvalt.

Biosfääri kaitsealad pakuvad rahvusvahelise raamistu võrdlevale uurimusele ühiskonna ja keskkonna vaheliste suhete alal. 1997. aastal oli 87 riigis 352 biosfääri kaitseala. Neis paigus on eesmärgiks testida ja demonstreerida säästlikku ressursikasutust. Üksikjuhu-uurimusteks on välja valitud kolm rannikul asuvat biosfääri kaitseala Läänemerel. Need on: Lääne-Eesti saared (üks sinna kuuluvatest, Hiiumaa), Saaristomeri Soomes ja Rügen Saksamaal. Väikeste saarte ja saarestikena esindavad need kindlat rannikuala tüüpi. Väikesi saari iseloomustab sageli suhteline isoleeritus, rannikuala suurem osakaal suhtes ja piiratud ressursid. Sotsiaalteadusliku uurimuse jaoks pakub huvi fakt, et tihti esindavad need vastastikku läbipõimunud sotsiaalset, kultuurilist, ökonoomilist, geograafilist ja administratiivset üksust.

Käesoleva uurimuse objektiks on planeerimispraktika hetkeanalüüs ja biosfääri kaitseala administratsiooni rolli hindamine keskkonna- ja arenguplaneerimise vallas. Kolm üksikjuhuna uuritud piirkonda on kavas muuta säästliku arengu mudelpiirkondadeks. Mudeliks olemine tähendab samas ka planeerimise ja otsustusprotsessi ümberkujundamist. Käesolevas töös tehakse ka ettepanekuid planeerimise arendamiseks.

Kõigis kolmes üksikjuhu-uurimuse piirkonnas on olemas biosfäärikaitseala kontor või keskus.

Igaüks neist on omandanud kindla rollid, mille on kujundanud juriidiline raamistu, administratiivne jaotus ning nii institutsionaalselt heaks kiidetud kui individuaalsed prioriteedid. Avalikkusel on omakorda kujunenud oma nägemused keskuste rollidest. Rügeni biosfäärikaitseala keskusel on ametliku looduskaitseasutuse staatus, Hiiumaal aga on kaitsealal rohkem intellektuaalse tugisamba ja projektide läbiviija maine. Saaristomere biosfäärikaitseala administratsioonil teadusasutuse roll, ülesannete hulgas on uurimuste koordineerimine. Teatud määrani on see toiminud huvide kooskõlastajana, eriti turismisektoris.

197

Potentsiaalsete säästliku arengu mudelpiirkondadena ei saa Saaristomere biosfääri kaitseala ja Rügeni biosfääri kaitseala piire võtta sobivatena. Kuigi piirid peaksid olema paindlikud, on Saaristomere kolm peamist saart välja jäetud, samuti katab Rügeni biosfääri kaitseala ainult saare kaguosa. Antud uurimuse eesmärki silmas pidades erineb üksikjuhtumina võetud piirkondade üldjooneline kirjeldus tegelikust biosfäärikaitseala piiritlusest. Siiski on tähelepanu suunatud geograafilisele alale, mis on seotud biosfäärikaitseala administratsiooni tegevusega.

Kaks biosfäärikaitseala moodustati keeruliste poliitiliste ja sotsiaalsete muutuse ajal 1980-ndate lõpus, 1990-ndate alguses. Rügeni biosfääri kaitseala endises Saksa Demokraatlikus Vabariigis ja Lääne-Eesti saari endises Nõukogude Liidus tuleks käsitleda laiemas perspektiivis, arvestades ulatuslikku poliitilis- ja administratiivsüsteemi muutust, samuti planeerimistegevust järgnevatel aastatel. SDV ühines Saksamaa Liitvabariigiga 1990. aastal ja Eesti taastas oma iseseisvuse aastal 1991. Nii dramaatilisi sündmusi Soomes aset ei leidnud, kui ühinemist Euroopa Liiduga 1995. aastal mitte arvestada.

Sellised kiired ulatuslikud muutused ühiskonnas ohustavad ratsionaalsest planeerimist, kuna adekvaatne seadusandlus tuleb alles välja arendada, administratiivsed kohustused peavad selginema ja sotsiaal-majanduslik kindlus peab teatud määrani välja kujunema. Teisalt võib sellist olukorda vaadelda kui võimalust tutvustada innovaatilist planeerimiskorraldust. Euroopas on tehtud mitmeid katseid tutvustada uut, suurema integreeritusega juhtimiskorraldust rannikualadel. Ka käesoleva uurimuse üksikjuhu-uurimuse piirkondades on läbi viidud mõned sellekohased pilootprojektid. Siiski on

käesoleva

uurimuse

analüüsitavaks

teemaks

„normaalne“

keskkonna-

ja

arenguplaneerimispraktika. „Integreeritud rannikuala juhtimine“ (ICM – Integrated coastal management) on suhteliselt uus juhtimiskäsitlus, mis tegeleb mitmete kesksete probleemidega, mis on tingitud erinevate ametiasutuste ülespetsialiseerumisest ja vastandumisest. See propageerib ka teadusliku mõtte kasutamist erinevates valdkondades, eesmärgiks maismaa ja veepiirkondade planeerimise juhtimine ja integratsioon. Kuigi ICM-il on mitmeid erinevaid definitsioone, võib seda siiski käsitleda kui ühte juhtimise viisi. Hiljuti andis Agenda 21 tegevusplaan ICM-ile suurema mõjujõu. Kuna ICM-il puudub kindel teoreetiline baas ja ühtne sõnavara on selle areng olnud omamoodi pärsitud.

Käesolevas uurimuses on välja töötatud „hea rannikuplaneerimise praktika“ põhiomadused, viidates konkreetsele kirjandusele „integreeritud rannikuala juhtimise“ (ICM) vallas. Seda toetab juba olemasolev planeerimisalane kirjandus. Kui ICM-alane kirjandus rõhutab ka avalikkuse osalemist juhtimises, siis kriitiline planeerimisteooria asetab pearõhu just planeerimise demokraatlikule 198

Summary aspektile. Avalikkuse osalemine ei ole ainult selleks, et parandada planeerimise kvaliteeti või planeerimisprotsessi kiirust, vaid selleks, et muuta otsustamissüsteem tervikuna läbipaistvaks ja selgepiiriliseks. Planeerijal võib olla aktiivne roll toetamaks nõrku või mitteorganiseerunud huvigruppe. Selles mõttes muutub planeerimine kommunikatiivseks, kaasahaaravaks tegevuseks. „Hea rannikuplaneerimise praktika“ põhiomadused on: laiahaardelisus, osalus, koostöö ja tagasiside.

Laiahaardelisus märgib vee- ja maismaa-ala ühisplaneerimist. Planeeritav ala peaks lähtuma pigem looduslikest kui administratiivsetest piiridest. Lisaks sellele peaks tegevusplaane ja programme iseloomustama laiem haare kui valdkondlikus planeerimises seni kombeks olnud. Osalus märgib võimalust kõigil osapooltel juba varases staadiumis probleemide formuleerimisel oma sõna sekka öelda, lahendus-strateegiate üle otsustada ja alternatiive valida. Elanikel ja huvigruppidel peaks olema konkreetne ligipääsukanal ametkondadele. Koostöö märgib erinevate sektorite juhtimisüksuste ja valitsustasemete kommunikatsiooni ja nende tegevuse ühtlustamist. Juhtimisgruppide vahelise koostöö, samuti osaluse jaoks on oluline, et ekspert-teadmised on muudetud arusaadavaks ka mitte-ekspertidele ja teiste valdkondade ekspertidele. Ja lõpuks tagasiside, mis märgib planeerimise kui protsessi pidevuse olulisuse mõistmist. Tegevusplaanid ja programmid peaksid olema regulaarse monitooringu ja hindamise teemaks, et saavutada pidevalt arenev protsess. Üheks hindamise faktoriks peaks olema koosplaneerimise korraldamise järjepidevus ja protsessi erapooletus. Ülalnimetatud kriteeriumid on tingimata vajalikud keskkonna- ja arenguplaneerimise põhjapanevaks ja säästlikuks arenguks.

Väitekirjas on iga üksikjuhu-uurimuse piirkonna planeerimistegevust analüüsitud, toetudes ülalnimetatud kriteeriumitele. Detailselt on analüüsitud illustreerivaid näiteid regionaalse strateegilise arenguplaneerimise, valdkondliku planeerimise (metsandus), maakasutuse planeerimise, veekasutuse planeerimise, ranniku ökosüsteemi juhtimise ja biosfääri kaitsealaga seotud tegevuse vallas.

Uurimusmaterjalina oli kasutusel ligi 30 struktureeritud intervjuud, mis on viidud läbi võtmeisikutega üksikjuhu-uurimuse piirkonnas, samuti ajaleheartiklid, planeerimisdokumentatsioon ja teised kohased kirjutised.

Esimene illustreerivatest näidetest käsitleb Rügeni strateegilist regionaalplaneerimist. Pärast 1990. aastat valmistati ette arvukalt strateegilisel tasemel valdkondlikke plaane. Nende eesmärgiks oli sulatada need piirkondlikku arenguplaani. Plaanide ettevalmistamisel ei täheldatud laiemat avalikkuse osalust, mistõttu kulmineerus juba polariseerunud keskkonna- ja arengudiskussioon maastiku kaitsealade moodustamise teema ümber. Kohalikus meedias leidis aset tõsine avalik debatt ning konflikti arenedes korraldati mitmeid avalikke arutelusid omavalitsuse korraldusel. Diskussioonis osalenute meelest ei saavutatud koosolekute abil üksmeelt saare arengukavade üle. Piirkondlikku 199

arenguplaani ei viidud lõpule, selle asemel hakkas biosfääri kaitseala juhtkond ja omavalitsus rohkem huvi tundma konkreetsete projektide ja juhtumite täitmisele orienteeritud läbirääkimiste vastu.

Teine illustreerivatest näidetest tegeleb samuti strateegilisel tasemel planeerimisega. Hiiumaa arengukava 2010 (HDAP – Hiiumaa Development Action Plan) üritas toetada „koordineeritud demokraatlikku arenguprotsessi Hiiumaal“. Protsess, mis oli üles ehitatud saareelaniku kodanikuaktiivsusele, teatud määral toetudes ka olemasolevatele sotsiaalsetele struktuuridele nagu näiteks Haridusselts ja Külaliikumine. Loodi mitmeid temaatilisi töörühmi, mis keskendusid turismile, infotehnoloogiale ja haridusele. Need töörühmad töötasid paralleelselt kohalike töörühmadega omavalitsustes ja külades. Tegelikkuses osales protsessis väike hulk aktiivseid inimesi. Üldsus oli skeptiline selle suhtes, kuidas ÜRO arenguprogrammi (UNDP – United Nations Development Programme) rahalist toetust tegelikkuses kasutati.

Metsanduse planeerimine võeti valdkondliku planeerimise näiteks. Rügenil ja Hiiumaal tegid metsanduse administratsioon ja biosfääri kaitseala administratsioon tihedat koostööd, nii et paljudel juhtudel saavutati kokkulepe metsaressursi kasutamise ja kaitse valdkonnas. Vastupidiselt teistele sektoritele, nagu ehitustegevus ja transport, oli konflikte suhteliselt vähe. Rügeni biosfääri kaitseala juhtkond oli valinud metsanduse keskseks valdkonnaks, kus kohalike ressursside säästlik kasutamine kohalikeks vajadusteks ja tööhõiveks ilmneb eeskujulikul moel. Saaristomere biosfääri kaitseala juhtkonnal aga polnud metsandussektor erilise tähelepanu all.

Kohaliku taseme maakasutuse planeerimine viiakse läbi kohalike omavalitsuste poolt ning seda reguleeritakse riikliku ehitamis- ja planeerimisseadusega. Ehitustegevus on üks kõige vastuolulisemaid ranniku ressursikasutuse teemasid. Juurdlus on algatatud kahe maakasutuse konflikti üle Rügenil ja Hiiumaal, kuhu oli kaasatud biosfääri kaitseala administratsioon. Rügenil on maakasutuse planeerimine kõige vastuolulisem poliitiline teema, mis on põhjustanud tõsiseid konflikte biosfääri kaitseala ja omavalitsuse vahel. Saaristomere üldplaneeringu koostamise protsess tuuakse esile kui intensiivse konsultatsiooni ja maaomanike kaasahaaramise näide.

Veekasutuse planeerimine hõlmab erinevaid teemasid alates vee kvaliteedikontrollist kuni liivakaevanduste ja laevateedeni. Kalakasvatamine Rügenil on väga õrn teema, samuti Saaristomerel, kus see on kohalikele elanikele oluline sissetulekuallikas. Olulise supluskoha lähedale planeeritud kalakasvanduse vastu Prora lahes olid nii konservatiivid kui ka turismisektor. Vastuseks sellele protestile langetati otsus kalakasvandus keelustada. Saaristomerel oli kalakasvatus arutlusel seoses jätkuva rannikuvete eutrofitseerumise probleemiga. Mõlemal juhul langetati keelustav otsus küllalt sõltumatult maakasutusest ja teistest planeerimisotsustest.

200

Summary Üksikjuhu-uuringu piirkondades valmistati ette ainult üks vastavasisuline „rannikuala integreeritud juhtimisplaan“ (integrated coastal zone management plan). See oli Käina lahe jaoks Hiiumaal, mis on suhteliselt väike ja laialdaselt kasutatav estuaar. Plaanis käsitleti nii maa- kui veekasutusteemat, aluseks konsultatsioonid erinevate huvigruppidega ja valik loodusteaduslikku ja sotsiaalset andmestikku kõnesolevast piirkonnast. „Sevilla strateegia“ biosfääri kaitsealadele soovitab konsultatiivse infovõrgu loomist igale biosfääri kaitsealale. Biosfääri kaitsealadel Saaristomerel ja Rügenil moodustati selleks nõuandvad kogud.

Rügenil raskendas protsessi tõsine konflikt omavalitsusega maakasutuse osas. Omavalitsuse juhid esitasid mitmeid nõudmisi, kaasa arvatud valitsusväliste organisatsioonide (NGO-de) väljajätmist.

Saaristomerel peetakse nõustavat kogu jäigaks ja bürokraatlikuks, kuid see on siiski oluline suhtlemislüli biosfääri kaitseala administratsiooni, riiklike struktuuride ja omavalitsuse vahel. Ühelgi neist juhtudest pole nõuandval kogul koordineerivat funktsiooni keskkonna- ja arenguplaneerimises.

Hiiumaal vastavat ametlikku konsultatiivset infovõrku pole.

Tuginedes uuritud illustreerivatele näidetele on võrreldud planeerimist „hea rannikuplaneerimise praktika“ ideaalmudeliga. Pidades silmas esimest võtmeomadust, laiahaardelisust, oli ilmne, et valdkonnad, mis ulatuvad kaugemale kohaliku omavalitsuse piiridest on harva adekvaatse suunitlusega. Näiteks on kõigi uuritavate üksikjuhtumite alal maakasutuse planeerimine naabermaakondades rohkem või vähem eraldiseisev, nagu ka maa- ja veekasutuse planeerimine, mis olid kõigis piirkondades üksteisest lahus seisvad protsessid.

Teisel võtmeomadusel, osalusel, on demokraatiale kalduv maine ja soov parandada planeerimise kvaliteeti. Püüdluses suurendada avalikkuse osalust on arvestatavaid erinevusi. Rügenil on kodanike protest, alternatiivne planeerimismehhanism ja NGO kampaaniad sundinud planeerimist vastavalt muutma, samal ajal kui Hiiumaal tuleb nõudmine suurema rahvaosaluse järele põhiliselt rahvusvahelistelt teguritelt (näiteks UNDP või Helsingi Komisjon). Hiiumaa biosfääri kaitseala keskus on üles näidanud eriti suurt huvi arendada kogukonna-algatuslikke suundumusi planeerimises ja juhtimises. Saaristomerel aga pole avalikkuse osalust valjuhäälselt propageeritud, kuigi on kritiseeritud maaomandusest ja omandiõigusest lähtuvate huvigruppide kitsapiirilist käsitlust.

Koostöö sektoraalsete ametkondade ja valitsustasemete vahel leiab aset institutsionaliseeritud moel, nii formaalsel kui mitteformaalsel alusel. Kuigi sektoraalsete ametkondade vahel eksisteerivad huvide konfliktid kõigis kolmes üksikjuhu-uuringu piirkonnas, on nende positsioonid ja huvid üldiselt teada.

Sama ei saa öelda üksikisikute või gruppide kohta, kelle seisukohad on tihti ambivalentsed või vastuolulised. Rügenil tehti tihedat koostööd igapäevases juhtimises, kuid kõrgemal strateegilisel 201

tasemel polnud koostöömeetodid välja kujunenud. Hiiumaal oli infovoog ametiasutuste vahel kesine.

Saaristomerel eksisteerisid mitmed komiteed, kuid neile pole omistatud koordineerivat rolli. Rügenil ja Saaristomerel on biosfääri kaitseala nõuandev kogu. Kuigi neilgi puudub koordineeriv funktsioon, annavad nad tubli panuse infovahetusse. Üheski üksikjuhu-uuringu piirkonnas pole väljakujunenud monitooringu- ja hindamissüsteemi.

Planeerimist ei nähta tavaliselt pideva protsessina ja üldiselt heaks kiidetud kriteeriume valitud tegutsemisviisi edu kindlustamiseks pole välja kujunenud. Kõigis kolmes uurimispiirkonnas viidi läbi uurimused avalikust arvamusest biosfääri kaitseala suhtes.

Eristada saab nelja planeerimisstiili, mida iseloomustab avalikkuse osaluse intensiivsus ja erinevate sektorite vaheline koostöö. Need neli on: rutiinne planeerimine, valdkondlik osalev planeerimine, ühiskondlik ja keskkondlik korraldus ning vastastikusel õppimisel põhinev planeerimine. Rutiinne planeerimine iseloomustab planeerimisviisi, kus erinevate administratsiooniüksuste eksperdid koostavad plaane ilma omavahelise koostööta. Osalevad elemendid võivad olla kaasa haaratud sektoraalsetes plaanides (‘sector-based participatory planning’), aga tulemus on siiski fragmentaarne ja arusaamatu. Laiemaid teemasid, mis ulatuvad üle erinevate sektorite ja distsipliinide piiride, ei saa süstemaatiliselt arutleda ja erinevad teadmistepagasid (ökoloogiline, sotsiaalne ja ökonoomiline) omavahel kokku ei puutu. Ühiskondlik ja keskkondlik korraldus esindab juhtumeid, kus administratiivsed üksused omavahel aktiivselt suhtlevad, aga kohaliku elanikkonna väärtushinnanguid ja teadmisi ei arvestata. Ei tehta katsetki kasutada tavalist keelepruuki, et ekspertteadmised tavainimeseni jõuaks. Vastastikusel õppimisel põhinev planeerimine iseloomustab ideaalset infovahetuse olukorda, kus erinevate sektorite tegevust koordineeritakse ja eesmärgiks on osaluse kui võtmeelemendiga arvestamine planeerimisprotsessi algusest peale (alates probleemide formuleerimisest).

Kõikides üksikjuhu piirkondades võib leida „valdavale planeerimisviisile“ kohase vaste ühest neist planeerimise kategooriatest. See on läbi viidud tuginedes illustreerivatele näidetele, intervjuupartnerite ettekujutusele ja kohalikus meedias avaldatud avalikule arvamusele. Üheski üksikjuhu piirkonnas polnud „planeerimine kui õppimine“ domineeriv lähenemisviis. Sellelaadsed pingutused olid pigem erandiks, jäädes teistest planeerimispüüdlustest kõrvale. Rügeni planeerimispraktikat võib liigitada „sotsiaalse ja keskkondliku korralduse“ kategooriasse. Kodanike meeleavaldused ja kodanikualgatuslik alternatiivne planeerimine viitab arusaamale, et osalemiseks on liiga vähe võimalusi ning puuduvad struktuursed vormid avalikkuse osalemiseks. Rügeni mudelpiirkonna kontseptsioon rõhutab püüdlust harmoniseerimise poole. Igapäevases juhtimises 202

Summary on koostöö erinevate administratiivsete üksuste vahel piisavalt tihe.

Hiiumaa planeerimissüsteem pole veel lõpuni välja töötatud. Valdavat planeerimisviisi võib käsitleda kui „rutiinset planeerimist“. Hiiumaa 2010 ja Käina lahe juhtimisplaan esindavad püüdlusi „planeerimise kui vastastikuse õppimise“ suunas. Üldiselt on planeerimine siiski nõuetele mittevastav.

Endine poliitiline kultuur on jätnud tugeva mõju inimeste osalemissoovile.

Planeerimispraktikat Saaristomerel võib iseloomustada kui „sektoraalset osalusplaneerimist“.

Ulatuslik osalemine ei leia aset kogu planeerimisprotsessi ulatuses, kuid näiteks maakasutuse planeerimises toimusid intensiivsed konsultatsioonid. Biosfääri kaitseala juhtkond võttis omaks väga avatud lähenemise ja läbi viidi uurimus avalikkuse osalemisest. Hoolimata arvukatest planeerimiskomiteedest ei moodusta planeerimissüsteem tervikut. Sektorite vaheline koostöö leiab aset põhiliselt üksikjuhtumite baasil.

Pakkudes välja soovitusi arenguplaneerimises teeb käesolev uurimus vahet kahel lähenemisel: „kasvaval reformil“ ja „ programmilisel lähenemisel“. Kui kasutada esimest lähenemisviisi paraneb koostöö ja avalikkuse osalus eksisteeriva planeerimissüsteemi raames. See võib võtta ühisplaneerimiskomitee või biosfääri kaitseala nõuandva kogu vormi. Programmiline lähenemine tähendab ranniku juhtimisprogrammi loomist, mis koordineeriks erinevaid tegevusi. Programmilise lähenemise eeliseks on täideviimise hea struktureeritus, ajakavast kinnipidamine ja võimalik kasu avalikkuse suuremast huvist.

Lõpuks soovitatakse biosfääri kaitseala juhtkonnale paralleelse õppiva organisatsiooni rolli.

Juhtudel, kui biosfääri kaitseala administratsioonil puudub tugev regulatiivne roll, võib ta muutuda algatajaks ja vahendajaks, püüdlemaks suurema osalusmäära ja koostöö tihendamise poole. Mõningal määral kehtib see Eesti ja Soome juhtumite kohta. Samuti saavutataks parem koostöö, kaasates biosfääri kaitseala nõuandva kogu tegevusse erinevate huvigruppide ja üksuste esindajaid.

Professionaalse koordinaatori kasutamine aitaks parandada koostööle suunava planeerimiskorralduse tõhusust. Edasine samm võiks olla rannikuala juhtimisprogrammi käivitamine, mis koordineeriks ja muudaks erinevad sektoraalsed tegevused läbipaistvamaks. Üldlevinud avalikkuse skeptitsism riikliku bürokraatia ja „kõikehaaravate plaanide“ suhtes muudab oluliseks prioriteetide paikapanemise ja tegevuse monitooringu. Sarnased protsessid, mille eesmärgiks on bürokraatia tõhusamaks muutmine, nagu näiteks kohalik Agenda 21, saavad aidata käivitada või olla ise osaks integreeritud rannikuala juhtimisest. Kõigis üksikjuhu piirkondades on biosfääri kaitseala administratsioon uus faktor, millel definitsiooni järgi on holistlik lähenemine keskkonna ja arenguprobleemidele. Selline unikaalne staatus on varem administratiivsest süsteemist puudunud.

203

Ympäristö- ja alueellisen kehityksen suunnittelu kolmella Itämeren rannikon biosfäärialueella Virossa, Suomessa ja Saksassa: Viranomaisyhteistyön ja kansalaisten osallistumisen parantaminen rannikkoalueiden suunnittelussa ja päätöksenteossa.

Yhteenveto (Summary in Finnish language) Rannikkoalueet ympäri maailmaa ovat alttiina ympäristön muutoksille, jotka ovat seurausta monista ihmisten toiminnoista, kuten rakentamisesta, turismista, merenkulusta, kalankasvatuksesta ja teollisuudesta. Sektoroitunut suunnittelujärjestelmä ei ole voinut vastata näihin muutospaineisiin toivotulla tavalla. Rannikoiden luonnonvarojen käyttöön liittyvät konfliktit ovat siten kasvamassa.

Biosfäärialueet tarjoavat kansainvälisen kehyksen vertailevalle yhteiskunnalliselle ympäristötutkimukselle. Biosfäärialueita oli lokakuuhun 1997 mennessä perustettu yhteensä 352, kaikkiaan 87 valtiossa. Näillä alueilla on tarkoitus kehittää ja demonstroida kestävän luonnonvarojen käytön malleja. Tapaustutkimuskohteiksi on tässä tutkimuksessa valittu kolme Itämeren rannikon biosfäärialuetta: Länsi-Viron Saaristo (yksi sen saarista, Hiidenmaa), Saaristomeri Suomessa ja Rügenin saari Saksassa. Saaret ja saaristot edustavat erityistä rannikkoalueiden muotoa. Pienten saarten erityispiirteitä ovat usein eristyneisyys, resurssien rajallisuus ja rannikon pituus suhteessa maa-alaan. Yhteiskuntatieteellisen ympäristötutkimuksen näkökulmasta saaret tekee erityisen mielenkiintoisiksi se, että ne usein muodostavat yhtenäisen sosiaalisen, kulttuurisen, taloudellisen, maantieteellisen ja hallinnollisen yksikön.

Tutkimuksen tavoitteena on analysoida ympäristö- ja alueellisen kehittämisen suunnittelua sekä biosfäärialueiden hallinnon roolia siinä. Tapaustutkimusalueiksi valituilla saarilla on tavoitteena tulla kestävän kehityksen mallialueiksi. Tämä merkitsee haastetta koko suunnittelu- ja päätöksentekojärjestelmälle. Tutkimuksessa tehdään suosituksia suunnittelukäytäntöjen kehittämiseksi.

Kaikilla kolmella tapaustutkimusalueella on biosfäärialuekeskus, joilla kullakin on erityinen rooli riippuen lainsäädännöstä, hallintojärjestelmästä sekä sovituista ja henkilökohtaisista kiinnostuksen kohteista. Jotkut roolit ovat julkisuudessa voimakkaammin esillä kuin toiset. Rügenin biosfäärialuekeskus on selkeä viranomaistaho (luonnonsuojelusta vastaava yksikkö), kun taas vastaava keskus Hiidenmaalla on uusien ideoiden ja projektien kehittäjä. Saaristomeren biosfäärialuekeskus etsii vielä rooliaan ja se mm. osaltaan koordinoi alueella tehtävää tutkimusta.

Saaristomeren ja Rügenin biosfäärialueiden rajat eivät vastaa niille asetetun kestävän kehityksen mallialueen haasteeseen. Vaikka rajat ovat biosfääritoiminnan näkökulmasta joustavat, ei kahden 204

Summary kunnan, Nauvon ja Korppoon pääsaarien poissulkeminen ole mielekäs rajaus. Vastaavasti Rügenin biosfäärialue kattaa vain saaren kaakkois-osan. Tässä tutkimuksessa tapaustutkimuskohteiden rajaus poikkeaa siten jonkin verran varsinaisten biosfäärialueiden rajoista. Rajaus vastaa kuitenkin maantieteellisesti aluetta, jossa biosfäärialueen hallinto on aktiivinen toimija.

Kaksi biosfäärialueista perustettiin suurten poliittisten ja yhteiskunnallisten muutosten aikana 80luvun lopussa ja 90-luvun alussa. Rügenin biosfäärialueen perustaminen entisessä DDR:ssä ja Länsi-Viron saariston biosfäärialueen perustaminen entisessä Neuvostoliitossa, sekä suunnittelu tätä seuraavina vuosina on nähtävä laajemmassa kontekstissa, jota leimaa poliittisen ja hallinnollisen järjestelmän perusteellinen muutos. DDR ja Saksan Liittotasavalta yhdistyivät 1990 ja Viro sai itsenäisyyden takaisin 1991. Suomessa ei tapahtunut yhtä dramaattisia muutoksia, joskin Suomi liittyi Euroopan Unioniin 1995.

Yllämainittujen suurten ja nopeiden yhteiskunnallisten muutosten voidaan katsoa vaikeuttavan rationaalista suunnittelua, koska lainsäädäntö on kehitettävä, viranomaisten vastuualueet selvitettävä ja taloudellinen perusta varmistettava. Toisaalta tällainen tilanne voidaan nähdä mahdollisuutena innovatiivisten suunnittelukäytäntöjen kehittämiselle. Euroopassa on tehty eräitä yrityksiä yhtenäisen rannikkoalueiden suunnittelun edistämiseksi. Pilottiprojekteja on tehty myös yllämainituilla tapaustutkimusalueilla. Tutkimuksen kohteena on ensisijaisesti kuitenkin ‘normaali’ ympäristön ja alueellisen kehittämisen suunnittelukäytäntö.

‘Rannikoiden yhtenäinen suunnittelu’ (englanniksi: integrated coastal management, ICM) on verraten uusi suunnitteluote. Se kiinnittää huomiota moniin perinteisen suunnittelun ongelmiin, jotka johtuvat sektoroituneista, keskenään kilpailevista ja usein päällekkäisistä viranomaisten vastuualueista. Se painottaa myös eri tieteenalojen tuottaman tutkimustiedon käyttöä maa- ja vesialueiden suunnittelussa. Vaikka rannikoiden yhtenäisen suunnittelun käsitteestä on monta eri määritelmää, voidaan sitä silti pitää omana suunnitteluotteenaan. Erityisesti Agenda 21 on viime vuosina tuonut käsitteen yleiseen tietoisuuteen. Rannikoiden yhtenäisen suunnittelun kehitystä on kuitenkin vaikeuttanut yhteisen teoreettisen pohjan ja sanaston puuttuminen.

Tässä tutkimuksessa on ‘rannikkoiden yhtenäisen suunnittelun’ käsitteen pohjalta luotu joukko avainkriteereitä rannikoiden hyvälle suunnittelulle. Kriteerit on luotu tarkastelemalla rannikoiden yhtenäisen suunnittelun periaatteita eri suunnitteluteorioiden näkökulmasta. ICM koskevassa kirjallisuudessa painotetaan usein kansalaisten osallistumisen merkitystä, mutta kriittinen suunnitteluteoria painottaa erityisesti osallistumista osana demokraattisen päätöksenteon kehittämistä. Kansalaisten osallistumisen tavoitteena ei ole vain suunnittelun laadun parantaminen tai sen nopeuttami205

nen vaan koko päätöksentekojärjestelmän kehittäminen avoimemmaksi ja vastuullisemmaksi.

Suunnittelijalla voi olla aktiivinen rooli heikkojen tai organisoitumattomien ryhmien tukemisessa.

Suunnittelun tulee olla luonteeltaan vuorovaikutteista.

Hyvän rannikkoalueiden suunnittelun kriteerit ovat: kattavuus, osallistuminen, viranomaisyhteistyö ja palaute. Kattavuus merkitsee maa- ja vesialueiden yhteissuunnittelua.

Suunnittelualueen tulee vastata luonnonrajoja hallinnollisten rajojen sijaan. Lisäksi suunnitelmien tulee olla sisällöltään kattavampia kuin yleisesti sektorisuunnittelussa. Osallistuminen viittaa kansalaisten mahdollisuuksiin osallistua ongelmien määrittelyyn, niiden ratkaisustrategioiden sekä vaihtoehtojen valintaan jo aikaisessa vaiheessa. Kansalaisilla ja eri ryhmillä tulee myös olla selkeät kanavat tiedon ja mielipiteiden vaihtamiseen viranomaisten kanssa. Viranomaisyhteistyö puolestaan merkitsee yhteistyötä sekä eri sektoreiden että myös eri hallinnon tasojen välillä. Tärkeää sekä osallistumiselle että viranomaisyhteistyölle on käytetyn kielen ymmärrettävyys niin maallikoille kuin muiden alojen erityisasiantuntijoille. Neljäs kriteeri, palaute, merkitsee suunnittelun ymmärtämistä iteratiivisena prosessina. Suunnitelmia ja kehittämisohjelmia tulee jaksottain arvioida tavoitteena prosessien asteittainen parantaminen. Arvioinnin kohteena tulee olla ennenkaikkea vuorovaikutteisen suunnittelun jatkuvuus ja prosessien reiluus. Yllä mainittuja kriteereitä voidaan pitää edellytyksinä sisällöllisen ja jatkuvan ympäristöä ja kehitystä koskevan suunnittelun yhdentämiseksi.

Kunkin tapaustutkimusalueen suunnitteluprosesseja analysoidaan käyttäen apuna yllämainittuja kriteereitä. Esimerkinomaisesti analysoidaan seuraavia suunnitteluprosesseja: strateginen aluekehityksen suunnittelu, metsäsuunnittelu, maankäytön suunnittelu, vesien käytön suunnittelu, rannikkoekosysteemien hoidon suunnittelu sekä biosfäärialueihin liittyvä suunnittelu. Tutkimusmateriaali koostuu kullakin tapaustutkimusalueella tehdyistä noin 30 avainhenkilön haastattelusta sekä sanomalehtiartikkeleista, suunnitteludokumenteista ja muusta kirjallisesta materiaalista.

Ensimmäisessä esimerkissä käsitellään strategista aluesuunnittelua Rügenin saarella. Vuoden 1990 jälkeen tehtiin Rügenillä monta strategisen tason sektorikohtaista suunnitelmaa. Tavoitteena oli yhdistää nämä Rügenin kehityssuunnitelmaksi (Kreisentwicklungsplan). Suunnitelmien valmistelussa ei tehty laajaa kansalaisten osallistumista. Keskustelu saaren ympäristö- ja kehityskysymyksistä oli jo ennestään hyvin polarisoitunutta. Se kulminoitui lopulta kysymykseen uusien maisemasuojelualueiden perustamisesta. Paikallismedioissa käytiin asian tiimoilta kiivasta keskustelua ja viranomaisten taholta järjestettiin suuria yleisötilaisuuksia, kuitenkin vasta konfliktin jo kärjistyttyä.

Keskusteluun osallistuneiden mielestä tämä ei johtanut yhteisen näkemyksen löytymiseen saaren 206

Summary kehittämissuunnasta — pikemminkin päinvastoin. Rügenin kehityssuunnitelmaa ei koskaan viety loppuun asti, vaan aluehallinnon viranomaiset ja biosfäärialuekeskus siirtyivät projekti- ja asiakohtaisiin neuvotteluihin eri tahojen kanssa.

Toinen esimerkki käsittelee myös strategisen tason suunnittelua. Hiidenmaan kehittämissuunnitelman (Hiiumaa Development Action Plan 2010) tavoitteena oli «koordinoitu demokraattinen aluekehitys Hiidenmaalla». Suunnittelussa olivat keskeisellä sijalla saaren «aktiiviset kansalaiset» ja jossain määrin tukeuduttiin myös olemassaoleviin yhdistyksiin, kuten sivistysseura (Haridusselts) ja kyläliike.

Temaattisia työryhmiä perustettiin aiheiden, kuten matkailu, informaatiotekniikka ja opetus käsittelemiseksi. Nämä työskentelivät rinnakkain kuntien ja kylien paikallistyöryhmien kanssa. Käytännössä vain pieni joukko aktiivisia henkilöitä otti osaa prosessiin. Hiidenmaan asukkaat olivat skeptisiä Yhdistyneiden kansakuntien kehitysohjelman (UNDP) myöntämien varojen käytöstä.

Kolmas esimerkki, metsäsuunnittelu edustaa sektorikohtaista suunnittelua. Rügenillä ja Hiidenmaalla metsäviranomaiset ja biosfäärialueen hallinto toimivat tiiviissä yhteistyössä, ja useimmissa tapauksissa löytyi yhteisymmärrys metsien käytöstä ja suojelusta. Verrattuna muihin sektoreihin kuten rakentamiseen tai liikenteeseen konfliktit olivat näillä tapaustutkimusalueilla verraten pieniä.

Rügenillä biosfäärialueen hallinto on valinnut metsätalouden keskeisiksi talouden sektoriksi, jonka on tarkoitus demonstroida paikallisten luonnonresurssien kestävää käyttöä. Saaristomeren biosfäärialueella metsätalous ei sen sijaan ollut erityisen kiinnostuksen kohteena.

Maankäytön suunnittelu paikallistasolla on kuntien vastuulla ja sitä ohjaa kansallinen rakennuslainsäädäntö. Rakentaminen on yksi kiistellyimpiä teemoja rannikoiden käytössä. Esimerkinomaisesti on valittu kaksi rantarakentamiseen liittyvää konfliktia, yksi Rügenin ja yksi Hiidenmaan saarella.

Molemmissa tapauksissa biosfäärialueen hallinto oli tavalla tai toisella osallisena. Rügenillä rakentaminen on kiivaiten käsitelty poliittinen kysymys ja se on aiheuttanut suuria konflikteja biosfäärialueen hallinnon ja kuntien välillä. Hiidenmaalla rakentamiseen liittyvien konfliktien katsotaan vasta olevan tulossa, kunhan maanomistuskysymykset on selvitetty. Rantaosayleiskaavoitukseen Saaristomerellä viitataan esimerkkinä intensiivisestä konsultoinnista ja osallistumisesta paikallisten asukkaiden kanssa.

Vesien käytön suunnittelun piiriin kuuluvat esimerkiksi veden laatu, hiekannosto merenpohjasta ja laivaväylät. Kalanviljely on ollut erityisen herkkä aihe Rügenillä, kuten myös Saaristomerellä, jossa sillä on elinkeinona suurta merkitystä alueen asukkaille. Suunnitteilla olevaa kalankasvatuslaitosta Proran lahdella Rügenillä vastustivat niin luonnonsuojelun kuin matkailunkin edustajat. Protestien seurauksena laitoksen perustaminen lopulta kiellettiin. Saaristomerellä kalankasvatus 207

on jo kauan ollut esillä vesien rehevöitymiskeskustelun yhteydessä. Kummassakin tapauksessa lupakäytäntö oli erillään maankäytön- ja muusta suunnittelusta.

Tapaustutkimusalueilla tehdyistä suunnitelmista vain yksi oli erityisesti nimetty «rannikoiden yhtenäiseksi suunnitteluksi». Tämä oli Hiidenmaalla Käina lahdelle tehty hoito- ja käyttösuunnitelma. Suunnittelualue on verraten pieni, eikä sillä ole suuria käyttöpaineita. Sekä maa- että vesialueet kuuluivat suunnitelman piiriin ja se tehtiin tiiviissä yhteistyössä alueen eri toimijoiden kanssa. Tutkimustiedon koordinointi lahden luonnonoloista sekä sosio-ekonomisesta tilasta oli osa suunnitelman tekoa. Käina lahdelle tehty hoito- ja käyttösuunnitelma voidaan nähdä pilottihankkeena, jonka pohjalta voidaan aloittaa vastaavanlainen suunnittelu laajemmalla alueella.

Biosfäärialueiden verkoston kehitystä viitoittava «Sevilla strategia» suosittaa, että kullakin biosfäärialueella perustetaan toimintaa ohjaava yhteistyöelin. Tälläinen toimikunta on perustettu Saaristomeren ja Rügenin biosfäärialueilla. Rügenillä maankäytön suunnittelua koskevat konfliktit tekivät toimikunnan perustamisen vaikeaksi. Kunnanjohtajat vaativat esim. kansalaisjärjestöjen poissulkemista toimikunnasta. Saaristomerellä toimikuntaa pidetään epäjoustavana ja byrokraattisena, mutta sillä on silti tärkeä merkitys biosfäärialueen hallinnon, valtion viranomaisten ja kuntien välisessä kommunikaatiossa. Kummassakaan tapauksessa toimikunnalla ei ole koordinoivaa roolia ympäristö- ja kehityssuunnittelussa. Vastaavaa yhteistyöelintä ei ole Hiidenmaalla.

Yllä lyhyesti kuvattujen esimerkkien valossa verrataan suunnittelukäytäntöjä rannikoiden suunnittelun ideaalimalliin. Ensimmäisen kriteerin, kattavuuden valossa kävi ilmi että kuntien suunnittelu tehdään pääsääntöisesti erillään naapurikuntien suunnittelusta. Myös maa- ja vesialueiden suunnittelu on erillistä.

Toisen avainkriteerin, kansalaisten osallistumisen tavoite on kehittää demokraattista päätöksentekoa ja parantaa suunnittelun laatua. Vaatimukset kansalaisten osallistumismahdollisuuksien parantamiseksi ovat eri tapaustutkimusalueilla tulleet eri tahoilta. Rügenillä kansalaisten protestit, vaihtoehtosuunnittelu ja kansalaisjärjestöjen kampanjat ovat pakottaneet viranomaiset vuorovaikutteisempaan suunnitteluun. Sen sijaan Hiidenmaalla kansainväliset toimijat kuten UNDP tai Helsingin komissio ovat tukeneet ja edistäneet parempaa kansalaisten osallistumista suunnittelussa. Myös Hiidenmaan biosfäärialuekeskus on ollut erityisen kiinnostunut kehittämään osallistumismahdollisuuksia paikallistasolla. Sen sijaan Saaristomerellä ei ole kuuluvasti vaadittu parempia osallistumismahdollisuuksia. Esimerkiksi kuntatason maankäytön suunnittelussa on intensiivisesti konsultoitu maanomistajia. Kritiikin kohteena on kuitenkin ollut asianosaisuuden rajaaminen pitkälti omistusoikeuden perusteella.

208

Summary Viranomaisyhteistyö eri sektoreiden ja hallinnon tasojen välillä on institutionalisoitu, ja se tapahtuu sekä muodollisia että epämuodollisia kanavia pitkin. Vaikka viranomaisten välillä on konflikteja ovat intressit yleisesti hyvin tiedossa. Samaa ei voi sanoa yksittäisistä kansalaisista tai ryhmistä, joiden tavoitteet usein tulkitaan epäselviksi tai jopa keskenään ristiriitaisiksi. Rügenillä on viranomaisten päivittäinen yhteistyö tiivistä, mutta yhteistyön muodot strategisessa suunnittelussa eivät ole riittäviä. Hiidenmaalla informaation vaihdon katsotaan olevan riittämätöntä.

Saaristomerellä on lukuisa joukko viranomaisten yhteistyöelimiä, joilla ei kuitenkaan ole selkeää koordinoivaa roolia.

Kaikkien tapaustutkimusalueiden suunnittelujärjestelmästä puuttuu palaute eli päätösten käytäntöönpanon seuranta ja suunnitteluprosessien arviointi. Suunnittelua ei nähdä iteratiivisena prosessina, eikä toimenpiteiden menestyksellisyyden arvioimiseksi ole kehitetty kriteerejä. Kullakin biosfäärialueella on kuitenkin tehty tutkimuksia asukkaiden käsityksestä biosfäärialuetoiminnasta.

Kahden keskeisen kriteerin, osallistumisen ja viranomaisyhteistyön perusteella voidaan määritellä neljä suunnittelutyyliä. Nämä ovat rutiinisuunnittelu, sektorikohtainen osallistava suunnittelu, yhdennetty asiantuntijasuunnittelu ja suunnittelu vuorovaikutteisena oppimisprosessina. Rutiinisuunnittelu edustaa suunnittelutyyliä, jossa eri alojen asiantuntijat tekevät suunnittelua ilman vuorovaikutusta muiden alojen asiantuntijoiden tai kansalaisten kanssa. Sektorikohtaisessa osallistavassa suunnittelussa kansalaisilla on mahdollisuus osallistua suunnitteluun, mutta lopputulos ei ole yhtenäinen eikä kattava. Laajemmista, sektorirajat ylittävistä kysymyksistä ei voida keskustella systemaattisesti ja eri tiedonalat (ekologinen, sosiaalinen ja taloudellinen) pysyvät erillisinä. Yhdennetty asiantuntijasuunnittelu edustaa suunnittelutyyliä jossa viranomaistahot ovat tiiviissä yhteistyössä, mutta jossa asukkaiden paikallinen tieto ja arvot jäävät huomiotta. Suunnittelussa käytetty kieli ja käsitteistö ei ole maallikolle ymmärrettävää, eikä asiantuntijakieltä pyritä kääntämään kaikille ymmärrettäväksi.

Suunnittelu vuorovaikutteisena oppimisprosessina edustaa ideaalitilannetta, jossa eri sektoreiden toiminta on koordinoitua ja jossa osallistumisella on keskeinen merkitys jo ongelmien määrittelyssä.

Kullakin tapaustutkimusalueella hallitseva suunnittelutyyli voidaan sijoittaa yllämainittuihin kategorioihin. Tämä tehdään suunnitteluesimerkkien, haastateltujen näkemysten ja paikallismedioissa heijastuvan yleisen mielipiteen perusteella. Millään tapaustutkimusalueista ei suunnittelua voinut luonnehtia vuorovaikutteiseksi oppimisprosessiksi. Yksittäisiä esimerkkejä löytyi, mutta ne jäivät suunnittelujärjestelmässä irrallisiksi ja olivat poikkeustapauksia. Rügenillä hallitseva suunnittelutyyli edustaa lähinnä yhdennettyä asiantuntijasuunnittelua. Kansalaisten protestit ja vaihtoehtoinen 209

suunnittelu ovat merkkejä siitä, että osallistumismahdollisuuksia on liian vähän. Poliittisella tasolla muodostunut ajatus Rügenistä mallialueena on vahvistanut yrityksiä harmonisoida eri sektoreiden toimintaa. Päivittäisessä hallintotyössä viranomaisyhteistyö on verraten tiivistä.

Hiidenmaalla suunnittelujärjestelmä ei ole vielä hyvin vakiintunut. Hallitseva suunnittelutyyli edustaa rutiinisuunnittelua. Hiidenmaalla on kuitenkin esimerkkejä yrityksistä kehittää suunnittelua vuorovaikutteisempaan suuntaan. Näitä ovat esimerkiksi Hiidenmaan kehittämissuunnitelma sekä Käina lahdelle yhtenäinen suunnitelma. Silti suunnittelun ei katsota vastaavan paikallisten asukkaiden tarpeisiin. Aikaisempi poliittinen kulttuuri vaikuttaa edelleen ihmisten valmiuteen osallistua.

Saaristomerellä vallitsee sektorikohtainen osallistava suunnittelu. Kaikissa suunnitteluprosesseissa ei ole kattavia osallistumisjärjestelyjä, mutta esimerkiksi maankäytön suunnittelu on ollut vuorovaikutteista.

Biosfäärialuekeskus on omaksunut hyvin avoimen roolin. Myös osallistuvaa suunnittelua arvioivaa tutkimusta on tehty. Huolimatta lukuisista suunnittelukomiteoista suunnittelujärjestelmä on epäyhtenäinen.

Eri sektoreiden välinen yhteistyö on pääosin tapaus- ja asiakohtaista.

«Inkrementaalinen reformi» ja «ohjelmallinen reformi» ovat kaksi eri strategiaa suunnittelun kehittämisessä. Inkrementaalisen reformin tietä kuljettaessa viranomaisyhteistyötä ja kansalaisten osallistumista pyritään parantamaan olemassa olevan suunnittelujärjestelmän puitteissa. Käytännössä tämä voi tapahtua suunnittelukomiteoiden tai esimerkiksi biosfäärialueneuvoston kautta. Ohjelmallinen reformi puolestaan merkitsee, että rannikkoalueiden toimintojen koordinoimiseksi käynnistetään rannikoiden yhtenäisen suunnittelun ohjelma. Jälkimmäisen vaihtoehdon etuna on, että se voidaan toteuttaa hyvin strukturoituna, sovitulla aikataululla ja suuremmalla kansalaisten kiinnostuksella.

Biosfäärialuekeskuksille ehdotetaan paralleeliorganisaation roolia, jonka tavoitteena on parantaa viranomaisyhteistyötä ja osallistumista. Tällainen rooli on mahdollinen mikäli biosfäärialueiden hallinnolla ei ole ennalta vahvaa viranomaisasemaa. Paralleeliorganisaation roolin ovat osin jo omaksuneet Hiidenmaan ja Saaristomeren biosfäärialuekeskukset. Myös biosfäärialueiden komiteoiden asemaa voidaan vahvistaa laajentamalla osallistuvien listaa. Ammattitaitoisen ulkopuolisen neuvottelijan avulla voidaan myös parantaa yhteissuunnittelun tehokkuutta.

Yleinen skeptisyys julkista hallintoa ja kaikenkattavia suunnitelmia kohtaan tekee tärkeäksi priorisoida käsiteltäviä kysymyksiä ja monitoroida toimintoja. Paikallisagenda 21 ja muut samankaltaiset yritykset tehdä viranomaistoimintaa avoimemmaksi voivat käynnistää tai olla osa rannikoiden yhtenäistä suunnittelua. Kaikilla tapaustutkimusalueilla biosfäärialueen hallinto on uusi toimija, jolla on holistinen näkökulma ympäristö ja kehityskysymyksiin. Tämä ainutlaatuinen status on hallinnollisessa järjestelmässä tähän asti puuttunut.

210

Summary Planungspraxis in drei Küstenbiosphärenreservaten in Estland, Finnland und Deutschland: Behördenzusammenarbeit und Bürgerbeteiligung in der Planung und Entscheidungsfindung in Küstengebieten

Zusammenfassung (Summary in German language) Küstengebiete werden weltweit durch wachsende menschliche Aktivitäten beeinflußt. Diese sind z.B. Industrie, Tourismus, Fischerei und Aquakultur. Diesen Herausforderungen wird das herkömmliche sektorale Planungssystem nicht gerecht. Dies kann zu wachsenden Konflikten in der Ressourcenallokation in Küstengebieten führen.

Die von der UNESCO anerkannten Biosphärenreservate bieten einen internationalen Rahmen für vergleichende Forschung zu sozial-ökologischen Fragestellungen. Im Oktober 1997 gab es weltweit 352 Biosphärenreservate in 87 Ländern. In diesen Gebieten sollen Wege zur nachhaltigen Ressourcennutzung entwickelt und ausprobiert werden. Drei Küstenbiosphärenreservate in der Ostsee wurden als Fallstudiengebiete ausgewählt: Die West-Estnischen Schären (die Insel Hiiumaa), das Schärenmeer in Finnland und Rügen in Deutschland. Als Inseln stellen sie einen Spezialtyp von Küstengebieten dar. Interessant für sozialwissenschaftliche Forschung sind sie, da sie zusammenhängende soziale, kulturelle, wirtschaftliche, geographische und administrative Einheiten bilden.

Die untersuchten Gebiete sollen Modellregionen für nachhaltige Entwicklung werden. Dieser Modellcharakter beinhaltet eine Herausforderung für die Planung. Die Ziele der Untersuchung sind es, die Planungspraxis sowie die Rolle der Biosphärenreservatsverwaltungen in der Umwelt und Entwicklungsplanung zu untersuchen. Es werden Empfehlungen für die Verbesserung der Planungspraxis gemacht.

In allen drei Biosphärenreservaten gibt es eine Biosphärenreservatsverwaltung, die in den einzelnen Gebieten unterschiedliche Aufgaben und Funktionen wahrnimmt. Die Rolle der Biosphärenreservatsverwaltung wird jeweils bestimmt durch den gesetzlichen Rahmen, das administrative System sowie durch die institutionell vereinbarten und individuellen Prioritätensetzungen.

Die Biosphärenreservate haben verschiedene Rollen, von denen einige stärker und andere weniger in der Öffentlichkeit wahrgenommen werden. Während die Biosphärenreservatsverwaltung auf Rügen als untere Naturschutzbehörde eine starke hoheitliche Rolle hat, ist die entsprechende Verwaltung auf Hiiumaa eher ein Initiator für neue Ideen und Projekte. Im finnischen Schärenmeer ist die Rolle der Verwaltung noch nicht abschließend bestimmt. Zu ihren Aufgaben gehört die Koordinati211

on von Forschungsaktivitäten in dem Gebiet. Sie nimmt somit in einigen Bereichen die Rolle eines diskursiven Fazilitators ein.

Als potentielle Modellgebiete für nachhaltige Ressourcennutzung können die Außengrenzen der Biosphärenreservate auf Rügen und im Schärenmeer in Finnland nicht als adäquat betrachtet werden. Obwohl die Außengrenzen flexibel gehandhabt werden, sind drei Hauptinseln des finnischen Gebietes nicht im Biosphärenreservat und das Biosphärenreservat Südost-Rügen umfaßt nur ungefähr 10% der Insel. Die Außengrenzen der Fallbeispielgebiete wurden somit zum Teil ein wenig abweichend von denen der Biosphärenreservate definiert. Sie beziehen sich jedoch auf die Gebiete, die durch die Aktivitäten der Biosphärenreservatsverwaltungen beeinflußt werden.

Zwei der Biosphärenreservate wurden Ende der Achtziger / Anfang der Neunziger Jahre, in Zeiten großer gesellschaftlicher und politischer Umbrüche, gegründet. Die Gründung des Biophärenreservats Südost-Rügen in der ehemaligen DDR und die Gründung des Biosphärenreservats Estnische Schären in der ehemaligen Sowjet Union sowie die Planungen, die danach durchgeführt wurden, müssen im Zusammenhang mit einer tiefgreifenden Veränderung des politischen und administrativen Systems gesehen werden (Estland hat 1991 die Selbständigkeit wiedergewonnen und die DDR wurde 1990 mit der BRD wiedervereinigt). In Finnland fanden keine so dramatischen Veränderungen statt, eine Ausnahme ist der Beitritt Finnlands zur Europäischen Union.

Tiefgreifende und schnelle Veränderungen können rationale Planung erschweren, da die Gesetzgebung entwickelt werden muß, behördliche Zuständigkeiten geklärt werden müssen und soziale Sicherung hergestellt werden muß. Gleichzeitig kann eine solche Situation die Möglichkeit bieten, innovative Planungsansätze zu erproben. Auf europäischer Ebene gibt es mehrere Versuche, einen integrierten Ansatz für Küstenplanung zu fördern. Einige dieser Pilotprojekte wurden auch in den Fallbeispielgebieten durchgeführt. Forschungsschwerpunkt in dieser Studie ist jedoch die ‚normale‘ Planungspraxis in der Umwelt- und Entwicklungsplanung.

Integriertes Küstenmanagement (im Englischen ‚integrated coastal management‘, ICM) ist ein relativ neuer Ansatz, der auf mehrere Schlüsselprobleme der herkömmlichen Planung eingeht und nach Verbesserungen sucht. Eines der bedeutendsten Probleme sind die sektoralen, konkurrierenden und gelegentlich überlappenden Kompetenzen der verschiedenen Behörden. Wichtige Ansätze des integrierten Küstenmanagements sind es, wissenschaftliche Erkenntnisse für Planungs- und Managementprozesse zu nutzen und Land- und Wassernutzungsplanung miteinander zu verknüpfen. Obwohl es viele verschiedene Definitionen für integriertes Küstenmanagement gibt, kann es als ein eigener Planungs- und Managementansatz verstanden werden. Die Bedeutung dieses Ansatzes 212

wurde durch das UN Aktionsprogramm Agenda 21 befördert. Die Weiterentwicklung dieses Ansatzes wird bislang dadurch erschwert, daß es keine gemeinsame theoretische Grundlage für integriertes Küstenmanagement gibt und sich das Vokabular noch entwickelt.

In dieser Studie werden Schlüsselcharakteristika für “gute Küstenplanung” aus der Literatur zu “Integriertem Küstenmanagement” abgeleitet. Dieses wird durch Literatur zur Planungstheorie, insbesondere zur kritischen Planungstheorie unterstützt. In der Literatur zur kritischen Planungstheorie wird besonders der demokratische Ansatz in der Planung betont; die Literatur zu integriertem Küstenmanagement mißt Bürgerbeteiligung ebenfalls eine Bedeutung bei. Während jedoch ICM mit Bürgerbeteiligung das Ziel verfolgt, die Qualität der Planung zu verbessern oder Planungsprozesse zu beschleunigen, hat kritische Planungstheorie den Anspruch, das gesamte Planungs- und Entscheidungsfindungssystem transparenter und verantwortungsvoller zu gestalten. Der Planer kann eine aktive Rolle übernehmen, indem er z.B. schwach- oder nicht-organisierte Interessensgruppen unterstützt. In dieser Bedeutung wird Planung zu einem kommunikativen, interesse-richtenden Prozeß.

Die Schlüsselkriterien für ‚gute Planung‘ sind: umfassende Betrachtung, Bürgerbeteiligung, Kooperation zwischen Behörden und Feedback. Umfassende Betrachtung (comprehensiveness) bedeutet u.a. integrierte Planung von Land- und Wassergebieten. Da Küstengebiete in den seltensten Fällen Verwaltungs- oder Planungseinheiten entsprechen, sollte sich das Planungsgebiet an den natürlichen Ökosystemen orientieren. Pläne und Programme sollten durch einen breiteren Ansatz gekennzeichnet sein, als es bei sektoraler Planung üblich ist. Bürgerbeteiligung bedeutet, daß alle relevanten Akteure die Möglichkeit haben, sich bei der Problemdefinition, der Auswahl der Problemlösungsstrategien und der Auswahl von Alternativen zu äußern. Bürger und Verbände sollten klare Anlaufstellen in der öffentlichen Verwaltung haben. Kooperation bedeutet Kommunikation und Abstimmung zwischen verschiedenen Fachbehörden und Verwaltungsebenen. Wichtig für zwischenbehördliche Zusammenarbeit, sowie Bürgerbeteiligung ist, daß Expertenwissen für Nichtexperten und Experten in anderen Bereichen übersetzt wird. Feedback zielt darauf, daß Planung als iterativer Prozeß verstanden wird. Die Auswirkungen der Pläne und Programme sollten regelmäßig evaluiert werden. Ebenso sollten die Planungsprozesse evaluiert werden, hierbei sollte die Kontinuität der gemeinsamen Planung und die Fairneß der Prozesse untersucht werden. Die erläuterten vier Kriterien werden als notwendige Voraussetzungen für eine nachhaltige Nutzung der Ressourcen der Küstengebiete betrachtet.

Auf Grundlage dieser Kriterien erfolgt eine Analyse von exemplarischen Planungsprozessen. Beispiele strategischer Regionalentwicklungsplanung, sektoraler Planung (forstliche Planung), Landnutzungplanung, Wassernutzungsplanung, Planung von Küstenökosystemen und sonstiger Pla213

nung im Biosphärenreservat werden detailliert analysiert. Als Untersuchungsmaterial dienen insgesamt ca. 90 strukturierte Interviews, die in den Beispielgebieten durchgeführt wurden, sowie schriftliches Material in Form von Planungsdokumenten und Zeitungsartikeln.

Das erste der Beispiele ist strategische Regionalentwicklungsplanung auf Rügen. Eine Vielzahl sektoraler Fachkonzepte wurden nach 1990 auf Rügen erstellt. Ziel war es, diese Konzepte zu einem Kreisentwicklungsplan zu integrieren. Bei der Erstellung der Pläne gab es wenig Bürgerbeteiligung.

Die öffentliche Diskussion um Umwelt und Entwicklung, die ohnehin sehr polarisiert war, spitzte sich in der Diskussion um die Ausweisung neuer Landschaftsschutzgebiete zu. Nach der Eskalation des Konfliktes wurden zahlreiche öffentliche Anhörungen durchgeführt und in den lokalen Medien fand eine intensive Diskussion statt. Die geführten Diskussionen haben nach Ansicht der Beteiligten wenig dazu beigetragen, einen Konsens über die Zukunft der Insel zu finden. Der Kreisentwicklungsplan wurde nicht verabschiedet, statt dessen bemühen sich die Kreis- und die Biosphärenreservatsverwaltung, umsetzungsorientierter zu agieren.

Das zweite Beispiel behandelt strategische Planung auf der Insel Hiiumaa. Der Hiiumaa Development Action Plan (HDAP) 2010 war ein Versuch einen „koordinierten demokratischen Entwicklungsprozeß einzuleiten“. Der Prozeß wurde durch aktive Bürger der Insel und durch die wenigen organisierten Gruppen unterstützt. Fünf thematische Arbeitsgruppen mit den Themen Tourismus, ländliche Entwicklung, Informationstechnologie, Bildung und Kultur wurden gegründet. Zusätzlich wurden lokale Arbeitsgruppen in den Gemeinden und Dörfern eingerichtet. Nur eine kleine Zahl von Inselbewohnern war in den Prozeß involviert, während die meisten dem Prozeß und dem Einsatz der finanziellen Mittel, die vom United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) zur Verfügung gestellt wurden, skeptisch gegenüber standen.

Als Beispiel für sektorale Planung wurde forstliche Planung ausgewählt. Auf Rügen und auf Hiiumaa fand intensive Zusammenarbeit zwischen den Forstbehörden und der Biosphärenreservatsverwaltung statt. Somit konnte in der Regel ein Konsens über die Nutzung und am Schutz der Wälder hergestellt werden. Im Gegensatz zu vielen anderen Sektoren, wie z.B. Bauen oder Verkehr, waren die Konflikte relativ gering. Auf Rügen hat die Biosphärenreservatsverwaltung die Forstwirtschaft zu einem Schlüsselthema bestimmt, um zu demonstrieren, wie lokale Ressourcen für lokale Bedürfnisse mit lokaler Beschäftigung genutzt werden können. Im Schärenmeer in Finnland nahm die Forstwirtschaft keinen zentralen Stellenwert in den Aktivitäten des Biosphärenreservats ein.

Landnutzungsplanung auf lokaler Ebene wird von den Gemeinden durchgeführt. Der gesetzliche Rahmen wird durch die nationale Bau- und Planungsgesetzgebung vorgegeben. Bauen im Küstenge214

biet ist eines der kontroversesten Themen im Küstenzonenmanagement. Es werden zwei Konflikte untersucht, in denen die Biosphärenreservatsverwaltungen involviert waren. Auf Rügen hat das Thema Bauen zu erheblichen Konflikten zwischen einigen Gemeinden und der Biosphärenreservatsverwaltung geführt und ist politisch intensiv debattiert worden.Als Beispiel für intensive Konsultation mit Landbesitzern wird die gemeindliche Planung in den finnischen Schären geschildert.

Planung der marinen Gebiete umfaßt eine Bandbreite von Themen wie Wasserqualität, Schiffahrtsrinnen und Nutzung von Bodenschätzen im Meeresboden. Fischzucht war eines der besonders strittigen Themen auf Rügen und insbesondere im finnischen Schärenmeer, wo Fischzucht eine wichtige lokale Einkommensquelle ist. Eine geplante Fischzuchtanlage in der Nähe von Binz wurde sowohl von der Tourismusindustrie als auch von Vertretern der Naturschutzverbände angegriffen. Nach starken Protesten waren die zuständigen Behörden gezwungen, die bereits erteilte Genehmigung zurückzuziehen. Im Schärenmeer wurde Fischzucht im Zusammenhang mit der fortschreitenden Eutrophierung der Küstengewässer heftig debattiert. In beiden Fällen wurden die Genehmigungsverfahren unabhängig von anderen Planungen wie z.B. Landnutzungsplanung durchgeführt.

In den Fallbeispielgebieten fand nur ein ausdrücklich als „integriertes Küstenmanagement“ benannter Prozeß statt. Dieses war ein Plan, der für die Käina Bucht auf Hiiumaa erstellt wurde. In diesem Plan wurden sowohl Fragen der Land- als auch der Wassernutzung behandelt. Er wurde in enger Konsultation mit verschiedenen Nutzergruppen erstellt. Zur Erstellung des Planes wurden Daten über das Ökosystem sowie die sozialen Strukturen erhoben und ausgewertet.

Die „Seville Strategy“ der UNESCO empfiehlt die Gründung eines Beirates bzw. eines Kuratoriums für die Biosphärenreservate. Beiräte wurden im finnischen Schärenmeer und in Südost-Rügen eingerichtet. Auf Rügen wurde die Gründung (die erst 5 Jahre nach der Biosphärenreservatsgründung in Angriff genommen wurde) durch die Konflikte zwischen der Biosphärenreservatsverwaltung und einigen Gemeinden erschwert. Einige Bürgermeister stellten besondere Forderungen an den sogenannten ‚Biosphärenrat‘, unter anderem forderten sie den Ausschluß von Verbänden. In den finnischen Schären wurde der Beirat durch einen Erlaß gegründet, dies geschah fast gleichzeitig mit der Gründung des Biosphärenreservats. Obwohl viele Interviewpartner den finnischen Beirat als inflexibel und bürokratisch einschätzten, waren sich alle einig, daß er für die langfristig angelegte Kommunikation zwischen der Biosphärenreservatsverwaltung, verschiedenen Behörden und Gemeinden von Bedeutung ist. Auf Hiiumaa existiert kein entsprechender Beirat.

Basierend auf den obengenannten Beispielen wird die Planungspraxis in den jeweiligen Gebieten mit den Kriterien der „guten Küstenplanung“ verglichen. Im Hinblick auf umfassende Betrachtung 215

wurde deutlich, daß Fragen, die über die gemeindlichen Grenzen hinausgehen, selten adäquat behandelt werden. Zum Beispiel wird gemeindliche Landnutzungsplanung in allen Fallbeispielgebieten getrennt von den Nachbargemeinden durchgeführt; ebenso zeigt sich eine deutliche Trennung zwischen Land- und Wassernutzungsplanung.

Zwischen den Fallbeispielgebieten zeigen sich große Unterschiede in den treibenden Kräfte für mehr Bürgerbeteiligung. Auf Rügen waren es vor allem Bürgerproteste, von Bürgerinitiativen durchgeführte alternative Planung und Kampagnen der Verbände, die dazu führten, Planung bürgerorientierter auszurichten. Demgegenüber kam die Unterstützung für mehr Bürgerbeteiligung auf Hiiumaa hauptsächlich von internationalen Akteuren wie z.B. UNDP oder Helsinki Commission.

Die Biosphärenreservatsverwaltung auf Hiiumaa war besonders daran interessiert, Planungsansätze zu fördern, die mehr Bürgerbeteiligung beinhalteten. In den Finnischen Schären hat es im Gegensatz zu Rügen keine lauten Forderungen nach mehr Bürgerbeteiligung gegeben. Ausnahmen sind die Ausweisungen von Schutzgebieten, bei denen Landbesitzer fehlende Beteiligung kritisierten. An den gemeindlichen Landnutzungsplänen wurden die Landbesitzer intensiv Beteiligt. Die starke Ausrichtung auf Interessen der Landbesitzer wurde von einigen Interviewpartnern kritisiert.

Kooperation zwischen Fachbehörden und Verwaltungsebenen findet sowohl formell als auch informell statt. In allen drei untersuchten Gebieten gibt es Konflikte zwischen den Behörden, die unterschiedlichen Interessen und Positionen sind jedoch den Beteiligten bekannt. Dies gilt nicht für einzelne Bürger oder Gruppen, deren Ziele oftmals unklar oder widersprüchlich erscheinen. Auf Rügen gab es enge Kooperation in der täglichen Zusammenarbeit, während auf mehr strategischer Ebene die Methoden der Kooperation weniger entwickelt waren. Auf Hiiumaa hielten die meisten Interviewpartner den Informationsfluß für unzureichend. Im Schärenmeer in Finnland gibt es mehrere Komitees, die aber keine klare koordinierende Funktion übernommen haben.

In keinem der drei Gebiete existiert ein ausgearbeitetes System für Evaluation und Monitoring (Feedback). Planung wird generell nicht als iterativer Prozeß verstanden und es gibt weder Verfahren noch Kriterien, um den Erfolg von Planung zu beurteilen. In allen drei Gebieten sind die Biosphärenreservatsverwaltungen darum bemüht, Rückkopplungen z.B. in Form von Akzeptanzstudien zu erhalten.

Es können vier Planungsstile unterschieden werden, die die Intensität der Bürgerbeteiligung und der Zusammenarbeit zwischen Behörden charakterisieren: expertendominierte sektorale Planung (routine planning), bürgerbeteiligungsorientierte sektorale Planung (sector-based participatory planning), expertendominierte integrierte Planung (social and environmental engineering) und Pla216

nung als wechselseitiger Lernprozeß (planning as mutual learning). Expertendominierte sektorale Planung meint, daß die verschiedenen Fachbehörden Planungen unabhängig voneinander durchführen. Bei bürgerbeteiligungsorientierter sektoraler Planung findet Bürgerbeteiligung zwar statt, breitere Themen, die über Grenzen der Fachplanung hinausgehen, werden jedoch nicht systematisch behandelt und verschiedene Wissensbereiche (ökologisch, sozial und ökonomisch) werden nicht integriert betrachtet. Expertendominierte integrierte Planung bezeichnet den Fall, daß die Behörden intensiv miteinander zusammenarbeiten, aber die Werte und das Wissen der lokalen Bevölkerung nicht beachten. Es finden keine Bemühungen statt, Expertenwissen in allgemeinverständlicher Sprache an die Bürger zu vermitteln. Planung als wechselseitiger Lernprozeß entspricht der optimalen Situation, daß die Aktivitäten der verschiedenen Behörden durch Kommunikation koordiniert werden und frühzeitige Bürgerbeiteiligung schon in der Phase der Problemdefinition stattfindet.

Die vorherrschenden Planungsstile in den Beispielgebieten können in diese Kategorien eingeordnet werden. Diese Einordnung basiert auf den obengenannten Beispielen und der Wahrnehmung der Interviewpartner sowie der öffentlichen Meinung (wiedergegeben in lokalen Medien). In keinem der Gebiete überwiegt der Ansatz ‚Planung als wechselseitiger Lernprozeß‘. Beispiele für diesen Planungsstil wurden vereinzelt festgestellt, blieben aber unzusammenhängend. Auf Rügen kann der vorherrschende Planungstil als ‚expertendominierte integrierte Planung‘ betrachtet werden. Bürgerproteste und die von Bürgerinitiativen durchgeführte alternative Planung deuten darauf hin, daß es zu wenig Möglichkeiten gibt, Einfluß auf Planungen zu nehmen und mitzuwirken. Demgegenüber ist die Zusammenarbeit zwischen verschiedenen Behörden intensiv.

Auf Hiiumaa ist das Planungssystem noch nicht sehr weit entwickelt, jedoch herrscht der Planungsstil ‚expertendominierte sektorale Planung‘ vor. Es gibt aber deutliche Versuche wie den HDAP 2010 unf den Management Plan für die Käina Bucht die in Richtung des Ansatzes ‚Planung als Lernprozeß‘ zeigen. Dennoch wird Planung von den meisten Inselbewohnern als eine expertendominierte Tätigkeit empfunden. Die unterschwelligen Traditionen des ehemaligen politischen Systems haben die Bereitschaft zur Bürgerbeteiligung stark beeinflußt.

Im

finnischen

Schärenmeer

kann

die

vorherrschende

Planungspraxis

als

‚bürgerbeiteiligungsorientierte sektorale Planung‘ betrachtet werden. Bürgerbeteiligung findet nicht in allen Planungsprozessen statt, aber in einzelnen Prozessen wie z.B. in gemeindlichen Landnutzungsplanungen findet intensive Konsultation statt. Die Biosphärenreservatsverwaltung verfolgt einen kommunikativen und offenen Ansatz. Trotz der zahlreichen Planungskomitees bleibt das Planungssystem unzusammenhängend. Kooperation zwischen den Behörden findet teilweise statt.

217

Für die Verbesserung der Planungspraxis werden zwei Ansätze vorgeschlagen: eine graduelle Reform und ein programmatischer Ansatz. Der graduelle Ansatz zielt darauf, Kooperation und Bürgerbeteiligung innerhalb des existierenden Planungssystems zu verbessern. Dieses kann in Form eines Planungsbeirates oder z.B. eines Biosphärenrates stattfinden. Der programmatische Ansatz versucht, die verschiedenen sektoralen Nutzungsaktivitäten im Rahmen eines Programms zu koordinieren.

Vorteile des programmatischen Ansatzes sind, daß er gut strukturiert ist, mit einem festgelegten Zeitplan und mit potentiell mehr öffentlichem Interesse durchgeführt werden kann.

Die Biosphärenreservatsverwaltungen sollten stärker als bisher einen wechselseitigen Lernprozeß unterstützen und als parallele Lernorganisationen fungieren. In Fällen, in denen Biosphärenreservatsverwaltungen keine starke regulierende Rolle haben, könnten sie als Initiator und Mediator für die Verbesserung von Bürgerbeteiligung und Zusammenarbeit fungieren. Diese Funktion nehmen die Biosphärenreservatsverwaltungen in Estland und Finnland ansatzweise bereits ein. Bessere Kommunikation könnte durch die Stärkung und die Erweiterung der Biospärenreservatsräte um Interessensgruppen und Organisationen erreicht werden. Ein neutraler Moderator kann eingesetzt werden, um die Zusammenarbeit praktisch zu unterstützen. Weiterhin könnte ein Küstenmanagementprogramm initiiert werden, um die zahlreichen sektoralen Planungen zu koordinieren und um die Transparenz zu erhöhen.

Auf Grund von Skepsis gegenüber Bürokratie und allumfassenden Plänen ist es wichtig, sich auf ausgewählte Fragestellungen zu konzentrieren und Planung als iterativen Prozeß zu verstehen. In allen drei Gebieten ist die Biosphärenreservatsverwaltung ein neuer Akteur der per Definition eine ganzheitliche Sicht auf Fragen der Umwelt und Entwicklung hat. Dieser einzigartige Status hat im administrativen System bisher gefehlt.

218

Acknowledgements The encouragement and support of my academic supervisor Prof. Dr. Johannes Küchler (Institute for Management in Environmental Planning, TU Berlin) was of utmost importance for the research project. Also Prof. Dr. Bernhard Glaeser (Human Ecology Section, Göteborg University, Social Science Research Center Berlin) as the second supervisor gave me valuable support. Representatives of the biosphere reserves who supported me during the field visit include Coordinator Martin Öhman (Archipelago Sea), Reserve Manager Ruuben Post and Reserch Director Toomas Kokovkin (Hiiumaa) and Director Dr. Michael Weigelt (Rügen), to whom I am grateful for making my work in the case study areas pleasant.

Many Finnish colleagues provided me with material and comments on drafts on my paper. Maisa Siirala (Finnish Environment Institute) supported the research project and provided valuable material on earlier integrated coastal management efforts in Finland. I am indebted to Marjatta Hytönen at the Finnish Forest Research Institute, for introducing me to the concept of ‘integrated coastal management’ (ICM). Prof. Markku Turtiainen (University of Helsinki, Department of Economics and Management) helped me to put together the theoretical framework of the study.

In Germany Prof. Dr. Volkmar Hartje (TU Berlin) kindly provided me with valuable comments on chapters on ICM. Dr. Waltina Scheumann (TU Berlin) gave me valuable critique in the final phase of my writing and urged me to sharpen my analysis. Andreas Kannen (University of Kiev) made important observations on the first two chapters. Stefanie Schwemmler located a number of language inconsistencies and mistakes in my manuscripts.

It was pleasant to work with Terhi Ahde and Sonja Pekkola who conducted sub-studies on Hiiumaa and in the Archipelago Sea. Mari Jüssi helped me with the translations and transcriptions on Hiiumaa.

The opportunity to present ideas and preliminary results at various international seminars, conferences and workshops (in Germany, Finland, Estonia, Sweden, Spain and Russia) were of great importance to the research project. Interesting discussions with numerous colleagues were stimulating for the study. Esther Hoffmann supported my work along the final phases of my work. Francesca Rogier did a good job in improving my English manuscript (I am responsible for the additions made at the very final stage).

219

The Finnish Academy and the Maj and Tor Nessling Foundation provided the necessary funding for making this Ph. D. study. The Berlin Technical University supplied the necessary facilities as well as room and board.

My sincere thanks to all!

Berlin, February 1999 Martin Welp

220

References 1 Kreisentwicklungsplan 1994-1998. Landkreis

Armitage, D. 1995. An Integrative Methodological Framework for Sustainable Environmental Planning

Rügen.

Abfallwirtschaftskonzept Landkreis Rügen. 1995.

and Management. Environmental Management 19(3): 469-479.

Landkreis Rügen. 89 p. + annexes.

Albrecht, J. 1985. Planning as Social Process. The

Arnstein, S.R. 1969. A Ladder of Citizen Participa-

Use of Critical Theory. Democracia experimentalis.

tion. Journal of the American Institute of Planners

Schriften zur Planungsbeteiligung. Band 6. Verlag

XXXV(4): 216-224.

Peter Lang. Frankfurt am Main, Bern, New York.

Ballinger, R.C., Smith, H.D. & Warren, L.M. 1994.

The Management of the Coastal Zone of Europe.

114 p.

Ahde, T. 1998. Metsätalouden suunnittelu Viron

Ocean & Coastal Management 22(1): 45-85.

Hiidenmaalla (Forestry Planning on Hiiumaa in Es-

Bass, S.M.J. 1993. Ecology and economics on small

tonia). Helsingin yliopisto, metsäekonomian laitos.

islands: constructing a framework for sustainable

(Master’s thesis). 63 p.

development. In: Barbier, E.B. (ed.) 1993. Econom-

Ahonen,

P.

1985.

lähestymistapoja.

arvioinnin

ics and Ecology: New frontiers and sustainable de-

Valtiovarainministeriö,

velopment. Chapman & Hall, London. 198 p. + in-

Hallinnon

järjestelyosasto. Valtion painatuskeskus (VAPK).

Helsinki. 151 p.

Alestalo, M. 1992. European Integration And Comparative Research. In: Kosonen, Pekka (ed.) 1992.

dex.

Batisse, M. 1982. The Biosphere Reserve: A Tool for Environmental Conservation and Management.

Environmental Conservation 9(2): 101-111.

Changing Europe And Comparative Research. Pub-

Batisse, M. 1986. Developing and focusing the bio-

lications of the Academy of Finland. VAPK-Pub-

sphere reserve concept. Nature and Resources

lishing, Helsinki. 102 p. Appendix 11 p. 21-30.

XXII(3): 2-11.

Andersson, K. 1997. Skärgårdspolitiken växer fram.

Skärgård 20(2): 12-15.

Applying the Biosphere Reserve Concept to the LandWater Interface. 1994. Biosphere Reserves. Bulletin of the international network. 94(1): 16.

Belfiore, S. 1996. The role fo the European Communitty in the Mediterranean coastal zone management. Ocean & Coastal Management 31(23): 219-258.

Better Management of Coastal Resources. A Euro-

Arén, H. 1994. Allt är möjligt. Planering utifrån lokala

pean programme for integrated coastal zone man-

livsformer. Byggforskningsrådet. Stockholm. 143

agement. 1997. European Commission. (Bro-

p. (ISBN 91-540-5681-0)

chure.) 47 p.

221

Biosfäärialueiden perustaminen Suomeen. 1989.

Biosfäärialuetyöryhmän

tainable Development and Environmental Manage-

mietintö.

ment of Small Islands. Man and the Biosphere Se-

Ympäristöministeriö, ympäristönsuojeluosasto.

ries. Volume 5. UNESCO & The Parthenon Pub-

Mietintö 46. Helsinki. 91 p. + appendix 2 p.

lishing Group. Paris, Carnforth & New Jersey. 414

Biosphere reserves: The Seville Strategy and the Statutory Framework of the World Network. 1996.

UNESCO. Paris. 18 p.

p. + index. 23-33.

Brunckhorst, D.J. (Ed.). 1994. Marine Protected Areas and Biosphere Reserves: ‘Towards a New Paradigm’.

Biosphärenparke. Perspektiven für den Schutz der

Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on

Kulturlandschaft. 1993. Position-paper of the

Marine and Coastal Protected Areas. Canberra, Aus-

Naturschutzbund Deutschland. 4 p.

tralia. August 1994. Australian Nature Conservation

Biosphärenreservat Südost-Rügen, Das 1994.

Nationalparkamt Mecklenburg-Vorpommern.

(Leaflet.)

Biosphärenreservate in Deutschland. Leitlinien für

Agency, Canberra. 96 pp. ISBN-0-642-16815-5.

Brösse, U. 1994. Dauerhafte und umweltgerechte Raumentwicklung. In: Dauerhafte, umweltgerechte Raumentwicklung.

1994.

Akademie

Schutz, Pflege und Entwicklung. 1995. Ständige

Raumforschung

Arbeitsgruppe der Biosphärenreservate in

Arbeitsmaterial Nr. 212. 306 p. 24-42.

Deutschland. Springer Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg.

371 p. + index 5 p.

Björn, I., Eistö, I. & Rannikko, P. 1995.

und

für

Landesplanung.

Burghoff, C. 1993. Stilleben mit Schafen und Touristen. Das Biosphärenreservat Rhön wird zu einer

ökologischen

Modellregion

mit

Tieteidenvälinen ympäristötutkimus: esimerkkinä

wirtschaftlichen Impulsen entwickelt. Die

biosfäärialueiden tutkimus UNESCOn MAB-

Tageszeitung 3.4.1993.

ohjelmassa. Alue ja Ympäristö 24(1): 35-46.

Carroll, M.S. and Hendrix, W. G. 1992. Federally

Born, S.M. & Sonzogni, W.C. 1995. Integrated Envi-

protected rivers. The need for effective local in-

ronmental Management: Strengthening the

volvement. Journal of the American Planning As-

Conceptualization. Environmental Management

sociation. 58(3): 346-352

(19)2: 167-181.

Cicin-Sain, B. 1993a. Introduction to the Special Is-

Bourne, L.S. 1984. Cross national planning studies.

sue on Integrated Coastal Management: Concepts,

Commentary. Town Planning Review 55(2): 150-

Issues and Methods. Ocean & Coastal Management

151. (Comment on the article of Masser, I. in the

21(1-3): 1-9.

same issue.)

Brookfield, H.C. 1990. An Approach to Islands. In Beller, W., d’Ayala, P and Hein, P. (eds.) 1990. Sus-

222

Cicin-Sain, B. 1993b. Sustainable Development and Integrated Coastal Management. Ocean & Coastal Management 21(1-3): 11-43.

References Clark, J.R.1992. Integrated management of coastal

Cortner, H.J. & Moote, M.A. 1994. Trends and Is-

zones. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 327. Food

sues in Land and Water Resources Management:

and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

Setting the Agenda for Change. Environmental

Rome. 167 p.

Management 18(2): 167-173.

Clark, J.R. 1995. Coastal Zone Management Handbook.

CRC Press. Boca Raton, Florida. 720 p.

Coastal Area Resource Development: Energy in Small Islands. 1988. United Nations. Department of International Economic and Social Affairs. New York.

94 p.

Crawford, B.R., Cobb, J.S. & Friedman, A. 1993.

Building Capacity for Integrated Coastal Management in Developing Countries. Ocean & Coastal Management 21(1-3): 311-337.

Crawford, B.R., Cobb, J.S. and Ming, C.L. (eds.)

1995. Educating Coastal Managers. Executive sum-

Coastal Zone Management. Integrated Policies. 1993.

mary. Proceedings of the workshop, March 4-10,

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and De-

1995, Alton Jones Campus, University of Rhode

velopment (OECD). Paris. 125 p

Island.

Coastal Zone Management. Selected Case Studies.

1993. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Paris. 310 p.

Communication from the Commission to the Council and European Parliament on the integrated management of the coastal zones. 1995. COM(95)511. 35 p.

[http://brooktrout.gso.uri.edu/

vii_xi_Exec_Sum.html]. 10.1.1997.

Crosby, N., Kelly. J.M. & Schaefer, P. 1986. Citizen Panels: A New Approach to Citizen Participation.

Public Administration Review 46(2): 170-178.

Development Concept for Hiiumaa 1993. Hiiumaa Research and Education Center Tuuru. 61 p.

Community Inititative concerning Transnational Co-

Dorcey, A.H.J. 1993. Sustainable Development of the

operation on Spatial Planning. INTERREG II C

Fraser River Estuary, Canada: Success Amidts Fail-

Baltic Sea Region. Operational Programme 1997-

ure. In: Coastal Zone Management. Selected Case

1999. 97/321/EG.

Studies. 1993. Organisation for Economic Co-op-

Conclusions and Recommendations of the EUROMAB workshop on Societal Dimensions of Biosphere Re-

eration and Development (OECD). Paris. 310 p.

27-39.

serves - Biosphere Reserves for People in

Dutton, I. & Saenger, P. 1994. Expanding the

Königswinter, January 23-25, 1995. In: Kruse-

Horizon(s) of Marine Conservation: The Challenge

Grauman, L. (ed.). 1995. Societal Dimensions of Bio-

of Integrated Coastal Management. In: Brunckhorst,

sphere Reserves - Biosphere Reserves for People. Pro-

D.J. (Ed.). 1994. Marine Protected Areas and Bio-

ceedings of the EUROMAB workshop, 23-25 Janu-

sphere Reserves: ‘Towards a New Paradigm’. Pro-

ary 1995, Königswinter. Deutsches Nationalkomitee.

ceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Ma-

MAB-Mitteilungen 41.157 p. 9-11.

rine and Coastal Protected Areas. Canberra, Aus-

223

tralia. August 1994. Australian Nature Conservation Agency, Canberra. p. 18-27.

Forester, J. 1982. Planning in the Face of Power. Journal of American Planning Association 48(1): 67-80.

Edwards, S.D, Jones, P.J.S. & Nowell, D.E. 1997. Par-

Forester, J. 1985. Critical Theory and Planning Prac-

ticipation in coastal zone management initiatives: a

tice. In: Forester, J. (ed.) 1985. Critical Theory and

review and analysis of examples from the UK. Ocean

Public Life. The MIT Press. Massachusetts. 337 p.

and Coastal Management 36(1-3): 143-165.

202-227.

Energiekonzept der Insel Rügen. 1993. Landratsamt Rügen. Bergen. (Kurzfassung). 79 p.

Forester, J. 1993. Critical Theory, Public Policy and Planning Practice. Toward a Critical Pragmatism.

Erdmann, K.-H. & Frommberger, J. 1998. Neue Naturschutzkonzepte für Mensch und Umwelt.

State University of New York Press, Albany. 200 p. + indexes.

Biosphärenreservate in Deutschland. Springer. 150 p.

Friedman, J. & Abonyi, G. 1976. Social learning: a

Erdmann, K. H. & Nauber, J. 1995. Der Deutsche

model for policy research. Environment and Plan-

Beitrag zum UNESCO-Programm „Der Mensch und die Biosphäre“ (MAB) im Zeitraum Juli 1992 bis

Juni

1994

mit

einer

ning A. Vol 8. pp. 927-940.

Fuavao, V.A. 1995. Coastal Management in Small Is-

englischen

land Developing States. In: Small Islands, Big Is-

Zusammenfassung. Deutsches Nationalkomitee für

sues. Crucial Issues in the Sustainable Develop-

das UNESCO-Programm ,Der Mensch und die

ment of Small Developing Islands. UNU World

Biosphäre” (MAB). 295 p.

Institute for Development Economics Research

Erste Rügener Holzmesse. Internal documention of the Wood Exhibition 31 May to 1 June 1997.

Nationalparkamt Rügen.

(UNU/WIDER). World Development Studies 1.

156 p. 84-111.

Fünf Jahre Nationalparkprogramm an der Ostseeküste

Erstes Landesraumordnungsprogramm Mecklenburg-

Mecklenburg-Vorpommerns. Der WWF zieht Bilanz.

Vorpommern. 1993. Der Wirtschaftsminister des

Nationalpark Vorpommersche Boddenlandschaft,

Landes

Nationalpark Jasmund, Biosphärenreservat Südost-

Mecklenburg-Vorpommern.

Landesplanungsbehörde. Schwerin. 87 p.

Estonian Review, No. 6, February 01-07, 1998.

(Internet mailing list.)

First European Conference on Sustainable Island Development. 1997. Agreements, Minorca Com-

Rügen. 1995. Umweltstiftung WWF-Deutschland, Fachbereich Meere & Küsten, Projektbüro Ostsee.

Stralsund. 64 p.

Förordningen om delegationen för Skärgårdshavet.

8.12.1994

mitments and European Island Agenda agreed on

Godschalk, D.R. & Cousins, K. 1985. Coastal Man-

the European conference in Menorca, 23-26 April

agement: Planning on the Edge. Journal of the

1997. 179 p.

American Planning Association 51(3): 263-265.

224

References Gommes, R., du Guerny, J., Nachtergaele, F. and

Hahtola, K. 1986. Alue ja ympäristöpolitiikka

Brinkman, R. 1998. Potential Impacts of Sea-Level

filosofisessa umpikujassa. Kanava (14)9: 560-562.

Rise on Populations and Agriculture. Food and Ag-

Hahtola, K. 1990a. Pragmatic-hermeneutical human

riculture Organization of the United Nations, Sus-

action model for environmental planning. Hallinnon

tainable Development Department. Web site: ‘Sus-

tutkimus 94(4): 272-288.

tainable Development Dimension’, http:// www.fao.org/sd/EIdirect/EIre0045.htm, posted 22 March 1998.

Hahtola, K. 1990b.Ympäristöpolitiikka päätöksenteossa.

Ympäristö ja Terveys 21(3): 194-198.

Hartig, J.H. & Law, N. 1994. Institutional Frame-

Graham, B. & Pitts, D. 1996. Good Practice Guide-

works to Direct Development and Implementation

lines for Integrated Coastal Planning. The Royal

of Great Lakes Remedial Action Plans. Environ-

Australian Planning Institute. 32 p. + appendix.

mental Management 18(6): 855-864.

Granö, O., Laurila, E. & Roto, M. 1995. Rakennetut meren

rannat:

Suomen

Hartman, M. 1994. Public Participation Information

merenrannikon

Initiative: Country Study: Public Participation in

sulkeutuneisuus.Ympäristöministeriö, alueidenkäytön

the Federal Republic of Germany. European Bank

osasto. Helsinki. (ISBN 951-37-1837-9.)

for Reconstruction and Development. 24 p.

Griffith, M.D. & Ashe, J. 1993. Sustainable Devel-

Haverinen, R. 1996. Citizen Participation in Road

opment of Coastal and Marine Areas in Small Is-

Planning. A Case of Local Archipelago Commu-

land Developing States: A Basis for Integrated

nity. In: Konttinen, Annamari (ed.) Green Moves,

Coastal Management. Ocean & Coastal Manage-

Political Stalemates. Sociological Perspectives on

ment 21(1-3): 269-284.

the Environment. University of Turku. Department

Großschutzgebiete als strukturpolitische Chance und

of Sociology. 134 p. 106-119.

kulturelle Verpflichtung. 1995. Föderation der

Healy, R.G. & Zinn, J.A. 1985. Environmental and De-

Natur- und Nationalparke Europas, Sektion

velopment Conflicts in Coastal Zone Management.

Deutschland e.V. - FÖNAD. Tagungsbericht (2.-4.

Coastal Management: Planning on the Edge. Journal

November 1994). 99 p. (ISBN 3-9803475-7-5).

of the American Planning Association 51(3): 299-311.

Guidelines for Integrated Management of Coastal and

Hein, P.L. 1993. Economic Problems and Prospects

Marine Areas. 1995. UNEP Regional Seas Reports

of Small Islands. In: Beller, W., d’Ayala, P and Hein,

and Studies No. 161.

P. (eds.) 1990. Sustainable Development and Envi-

Guidelines for the Protection, Maintenance and De-

ronmental Management of Small Islands. Man and

velopment of the Biosphere Reserves in Germany.

the Biosphere Series. Volume 5. UNESCO & The

1995. Standing Working Group of the Biosphere

Parthenon Publishing Group. Paris, Carnforth &

Reserves in Germany. Bonn. 99 p.

New Jersey. 414 p. + index. 35-42.

225

Helle, E. 1990. Research in Future Finnish Biosphere

Hudson, B.H. 1979. Comparison of Current Planning

Reserves. In: Sippola, A.-L. & Roots, E. F. (eds.)

Theories: Counterparts and Contradictions. Journal

1990. Northern Sciences Network. Report on the

of American Planning Association 45(4): 387-398

Meeting in Rovaniemi, Finland 25-27 September

Hägerhäll, B. 1994. A way to ensure the best possible

1990. Artctic Centre Publications 3. 140 p + Attachments 8 p. 123-127.

use of coastal areas. WWF Baltic Bulletin 94(1): 2-7. WWF International Baltic Programme.

Hellström, K. 1993. Hiiumaa maastikud ajas

Hägerhäll, B. 1995. Coastal Lagoons and Wetlands -

inimestes ja omaette. Lääne-Eesti Saarestiku

WWF-International Baltic Programme. In: Lamp,

Biosfääri Kaitseala Hiiumaa Keskus. Kärdla.

J. (ed.) 1995. “Gemeinsam für die Ostsee”. Gesunde

20 p.

Küste - Lebendes Meer. Tagungsbericht 9.

Hellström, E. & Welp, M. 1996. Environmental Forest

Fachtagung anläßlich des 13. Internationalen

Conflicts in Germany: From National to International

Küstentages 1993 in Stralsund. Umweltstiftung

Concern. European Forest Institute. Working Paper

WWF-Deutschland. 299 p. 107-127.

No. 11. Joensuu. 53 p.

Imperial, M.T., Hennessey, T. & Robadue Jr., D. 1993.

Hess, A.L. 1990. Overview: Sustainable Development

The Evolution of Adaptive Management for Estua-

and Environmental Management of Small Islands.

rine Ecosystems: the National Estuary Program and

In: Beller, W., d’Ayala, P and Hein, P. (eds.) 1990.

ist Precursors. Ocean & Coastal Management 20:

Sustainable Development and Environmental Man-

147-180.

agement of Small Islands. Man and the Biosphere

Integrated planning of coastal areas: its role in Com-

Series. Volume 5. UNESCO & The Parthenon Pub-

munity environment policy. 1986. Communication

lishing Group. Paris, Carnforth & New Jersey. 414

from the Commission to the Council and the Euro-

p. + index. 3-14.

pean Parliament. COM(86)571, Brussels.

Hiiumaa Development Action Plan 2010. Seminars

International Co-ordinating Council of the Programme

on regional planning and development. 1997. Final

on Man and the Biosphere (MAB). 1993. Twelft

report. 17 p. + annexes.

Session. MAB Report Series 63. UNESCO.

Hiiumaa - getting to know. Kärdla. 1995. 48 s.

Hirsijärvi, S. & Hurme, H. 1991. Teemahaastattelu.

5. Painos. Yliopistopaino. Helsinki. 144 p.

Hokka, S. 1992. Saaristomeren kansallispuiston yhteistoiminta-alueen väestö- ja elinkeinorakenne.

Turun Yliopisto. Saariston kehittämisprojekti.

Julkaisu 11/1992. 17 p.

226

Island and Mainland Views - how to Identify and Balance the perceived Needs of Local Population and Guests. 1995. Eco-islands Newsletter (European Natural Heritage Fund, EURONATURE). No.2: 4-9.

Jahresbericht (Annual report of the National Park Agency) 1994. Nationalparkamt Mecklenburg-

References Vorpommern. Biosphärenreservat Südost-Rügen.

the Environment. University of Turku. Department

23 s.

of Sociology. 134 p. 94-105.

Jahresbericht (Annual report of the National Park Agency) 1996. Nationalparkamt Rügen. 67 p.

Kenchington, R. & Crawford, D. 1993. On the Meaning of Integration in Coastal Zone Management.

Jansson, A.-M. & Zucchetto, J. 1978. Energy, Eco-

Ocean & Coastal Management 21(1-3): 109-127.

nomic and Ecological Relationships for Gotland,

Kestävän kehityksen suunnitelma Saaristomeren

Sweden -a Regional Sytems Study. Ecological Bul-

biosfäärialueelle. 1995. Projektinhallintakurssi.

letins (Swedish Natural Science Research Coun-

Turun yliopiston täydennyskoulutuskeskus. 104 p.

cil, Stockholm), No 28, 154 pp.

+ appendix.

Johansson, L. 1995. Coastal Area Management in Sweden. Report on comprehensive coastal planning

Key facts about the Baltic Islands. 1995. The Baltic Islands Environmental Data Group. 18 s.

in the Municipality of Lysekil. Swedish Environ-

Knecht, R.W. & Archer, J. 1993. ‘Integration’ in the

mental Protection Agency. Swedmar (A unit within

US Coastal Zone Management Program. Ocean &

the National Board of Fisheries). 56 p. (ISSN 1400-

Coastal Management 21(1-3): 183-199.

7738).

Kokovkin, T. 1993. Biosphere Reserve and Develop-

Järventaus, K. 1995. Euroopan rannat suojeltu selkeillä laeilla. Suomi erottuu joukosta. Helsingin Sanomat 9.10.1995.

ment Options on the Baltic Island of Hiiumaa. Insula 2(2): 43-48.

Kokovkin, T. 1995. Biosphere reserve as a model re-

Kaether, J. 1994. Großschutzgebiete als Instrumente

gion for sustainable development. In: Ihermann, A.

der Regionalentwicklung. Pilotstudie im Auftrag

& Lüsi, M. (eds.). 1995. Hiiumaa Aastaraamat. A.D.

der Akademie

1994. Hiiumaa Teadus- ja Hariduskeskus Tuuru. 105

für

Raumforschung

und

Landesplanung (ARL).

p. 44.

Kapp, K.W. 1993. Environmental disruption: General

Kokovkin, T. (eds) 1996. Integrated Coastal Zone

issues and methodological problems. Julkaisussa

Management: Käina Bay, Estonia. HELCOM PITF

Ullman, J.E. (ed.). Social Costs, Economic Devel-

MLW, Käina Bay Area Task Team, Biosphere Re-

opment and Environmental Disruption. University

serve Hiiumaa Centre. Kärdla.

Press. Lanham - New York - London. 208 p. 39-56.

Konfliktregelung

im

Umweltschutz.

Das

Kaskinen, J. 1996. Definition of Environmental In-

Mediationsverfahren als neue Form der

formation in Road Planning. A Case of the Plan-

Konsensfindung und als innovativer Beitrag zur

ning a Fixed Road Connection in Turku Archi-

Lösung von Umweltproblemen. 1995. Regionale

pelago. In: Konttinen, Annamari (ed.) Green Moves,

Umwelt-Veranstaltung der Arbeitsgemeinschaft für

Political Stalemates. Sociological Perspectives on

Umweltfragen e.V. in Sellin/Rügen, 20.10.1995.

227

Transscription of presentations and discussions. pp.

Königswinter. Deutsches Nationalkomitee. MAB-

63-127. (Unpublished manuscript.)

Mitteilungen 41.157 p. 1-5.

Konzeption zur Entwicklung der Agrarwirtschaft und

Lehtilä, K. 1994. Saaristomeren biosfäärialue - mistö

Küstenfischerei Rügens. 1992. Landratsamt Rügen.

on kyse? Julkaisussa Lehtilä, K. & Brown, M

(Entwurf: August 1992). 120 p. + annexes.

(toim.). Saaristomeren biosfäärialue. Saaristomeren

Kooperationskonzept für die Großschutzgebiete in

biosfäärialueseminaari. Turun Yliopisto 1993.

Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. 1994. Deutsches

Tiivistelmät. Saaristomeren tutkimuslaistos. Turku.

Wirtschaftswissenschaftliches Institut für

36 p. 8-10.

Fremdenverkehr e.V. an der Universität München.

Leschine, T.M. 1990. Setting the Agenda for Estua-

Projektberichte Sozioökonomie. 156 p. + Annex .

rine Water Quality Management: Lessons from

Kosola, M. (ed.) 1990. Kokemuksia osallistumisesta

Puget Sound. Ocean & Shoreline Management 13(3-

ja vaikutusten arvioinnista vesiensuojelun

4): 295-313.

suunnittelussa. Vesi ja ympäristöhallinnon

Leskinen, A. 1994. Environmental Planning as Learn-

julkaisuja, Sarja A. Helsinki. 126 p. [Absract:

ing: The Principles of Negotiation, the

Project for participatory planning and impact analy-

Disaggregative Decision-making Method and Par-

sis for water pollution control, p. 5].

allel Organization in Developing the Road Admin-

Kosola, M., Leskinen, A., Saastamoinen, V.-L. &

istration. University of Helsinki. Department of

Vuorela, P. 1990. Kokemuksia osallistuvan

Economics and Management. Publications No. 5,

suunnittelun ja erittelevän vertailun kehittämisestä

Land Use Economics. Helsinki 1994. 162 p.

vesiensuojelussa. Yhteiskuntasuunnittelu 28(3-4): 32-37.

Kriterien für Anerkennung und Überprüfung von Biosphärenreservaten der Unesco in Deutschland.

Lichtenberg, T. & Wolf, A. 1998. Akzeptanzstudien in zwei Großschutzgebieten auf Rügen.

Geographisches Institut, Humboldtuniversität zu Berlin. Arbeitsberichte Heft 25. 104 p.

1996.Deutsches Nationalkomitee für das Unesco-

Limnell, H. 1994a. Saaristomeren kansallispuiston

Programm “Der Mensch und die Biosphäre”

yhteistoiminta-alueen väestön mielipiteitä ja

(MAB). Bundesamt für Naturschutz. Bonn. 72 p.

mielikuvia Saaristomeren kansallispuistosta kesällä

Kruse-Graumann, L. 1995. An Introduction to the

1993. In: Lehtilä, K. & Brown, M (eds.) Saaristomeren

EUROMAB workshop in Königswinter, January

biosfäärialue. Saaristomeren biosfäärialueseminaari.

23-25, 1995. In: Kruse-Grauman, L. (ed.) 1995.

Turun Yliopisto 1993. Tiivistelmät. Saaristomeren

Societal Dimensions of Biosphere Reserves - Bio-

tutkimuslaistos. Turku. 36 p. 30-31.

sphere Reserves for People. Proceedings of the

Limnell, H. 1994b. Saaristomeren kansallispuiston

EUROMAB workshop, 23-25 January 1995,

yhteistoiminta-alueen väestön mielipiteitä ja

228

References mielikuvia Saaristomeren kansallispuistosta kesällä

Management. 1997. UNESCO, IOC Manuals and

1993. Pro gradu -työ.

Guides No. 36.

Lindblom, C.E. 1959. The science of muddling through.

Public Administration Review. 19(2): 79-88.

The American Political Science Review 67(2): 470-

Lützenkirchen, M. (ed.) 1995. Wasser zwischen Land und

Meer

Flußmündungen

481.

unter

Moilanen, T. & Roponen, S. 1994. Kvalitatiivisen

Druck.Tagungsbericht 10 der Umweltstiftung

aineiston analyysi ATLAS/ti-ohjelman avulla.

WWF-Deutschland. Bremen. 417 p.

Kuluttajatutkimuskeskus. Menetelmäraportteja ja

Lääne-Eesti

-

Mohr, L.B. 1973. The Concept of Organisational Goal.

saarestiku

biosfääri

kaitseala

käsikirjoja 2/1994. 84 p + appendix 6 p.

põhimääruse kiinnittamine (The Ordinance of the

Muhr, T. 1993. ATLAS/ti. Computerunterstützte

rules of the West-Estonian Archipelago Biosphere

Textinterpretation. Manual zur Version 1.0 D. 190

Reserve) 1994. (In Estonian.)

p. + indexes.

Macelli, A. 1990. Sustainable Development and Environmental Management: The Case of the Small

Nature Conservation in Estonia 1994. Estonian Ministry of Environment. Huma. Tallinn. 48 p.

Mediterranean Island of Gozo. In Beller, W.,

Noordwijk Guidelines for Integrated Coastal Zone Man-

d’Ayala, P and Hein, P. (eds.) 1990. Sustainable

agement. 1993. The World Bank, Environment De-

Development and Environmental Management of

partment, Land, Water and Natural Habitat Division.

Small Islands. Man and the Biosphere Series. Vol-

Distributed at the World Coast Conference, 1-5 No-

ume 5. UNESCO & The Parthenon Publishing

vember 1993. Noordwijk, the Netherlands. 20 p.

Group. Paris, Carnforth & New Jersey. 414 p. + index. 169-181.

Nordberg, L. 1994. Baltic Coastal Conservation. General Legal Protection of the Coastal Strip and

Margoluis, R., Salafsky, N. & Symington, M. 1997.

Coastal Habitats in the Baltic Sea States and Nor-

Linking Project Design, Management and Moni-

way. Ministry of the Environment, Finland. Memo-

toring in ICM Projects. Intercoast Network, Inter-

randum 1. 12 p.

national Newsletter of Coastal Managament. Fall 1997, #29.

Masser, I. 1984. Cross national comparative planning studies. Town Planning Review 55(2): 137-149.

Nurmela, L. (ed.) 1994. Ympäristön tila VarsinaisSuomessa.

Vesi-

ja

ympäristöhallitus.

Ympäristötietokeskus. Alueelliset tilaraportit 4.

Helsinki. 120 p. (ISBN 951-47-9277-7).

McElroy, J.L. & de Albuquerque, K. 1990. Managing

Olsen, S.B. 1993. Will Integrated Coastal Manage-

small-island sustainability: towards a systems de-

ment Programs be Sustainable; the Constituency

sign. Nature & Resources 26(2): 23-30.

Problem. Ocean & Coastal Management 21(1-3):

Methodological Guide to Integrated Coastal Zone

201-225.

229

Olsen, S., Lowry, K., Tobey, J., Burbridge, P., &

Pekkola, S. 1998. Metsätalouden suunnittelun

Humphrey, S. 1997. Current Purposes and Methods

arviointi Saaristomeren biosfäärialueella (Evalua-

for Evaluating Coastal Management Projects and

tion of Forestry Planning in the Archipelago Sea

Programs Funded by International Donors: Univer-

Biosphere Reserve). Helsingin yliopisto,

sity of Rhode Islands’s Coastal Resources Center.

taloustieteen laitos, ympäristöekonomia. (Master’s

Osallistuminen ja yhteiskunnallisten vaikutusten arvioiminen vesiensuojelun suunnittelussa. 1986.

Vesihallitus, monistesarja Nro. 418. Helsinki. 103 p. + appendix 12 p.

thesis). 42 p.

Petschull, J. 1993. Der Sommer der Spekulanten.

GEO 93(9): 136-154.

Post, R. 1994. Solving Environmental and Devel-

Ostermann, O. 1994. Großschutzgebiete in der

opment Problems on the Micro-Regional Scale.

Diskussion. Drei Jahre Nationalparkamt

In the proceedings of the Symposium: Land and

Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. Natur und Landschaft

Soil Protection. Ecological and Economic Conse-

69(9): 420-423.

quences. 6-12 June 1994, Tallinn, Estonia. 265 p.

Our Sea, Our Future. Major findings of the state of

23-30.

the marine environment report for Australia 1995.

Post, R. 1995: Hiiumaa is part of a biosphere re-

Ocean Rescue 2000 program. Department of the

serve. - In: Hiiumaa - getting to know. Kärdla.

Environmen, Sport and Territories. 112 p. (ISBN 0

1995. 48 s. 17-23.

642 17391 5).

Post, R. 1998. Local participation in the West-Esto-

Paldanius, J. 1994a. Public Participation Information

nian Archipelago Biosphere Reserve: the case of

Initiative: Country Study: Public Participation in

Hiiumaa. In: Hytönen, M. (ed.). Social

Finland. European Bank for Reconstruction and De-

sustainability of forestry in the Baltic Sea Region.

velopment. 47 p. + Annex 1 p.

Proceedings of workshops organised by the Nor-

Paldanius, J. 1994b. Katsaus osallistuvan suunnittelun

dic Research Programme on Social Sustainability

kehittämiseen Suomessa 70 p. (Non-published

of Forestry (NORSUFOR) 30-31 January 1997 in

manuscript.)

Helsinki, Finland and 10-12 September 1997 in

Paldanius, J. 1997. Vuorovaikutteisen suunnittelun kokemuksia Suomessa. Ympäristöministeriö, ympäristöpolitiikan osasto. Suomen ympäristö 107.

Helsinki. 67 p.

Kärdla, Estonia. Finnish Forest Research Institute, Research Papers 704. 354 p. 309-314.

Post, J.C. & Lundin, C.G. (eds.) 1996. Guidelines for Integrated Coastal Zone Management. The

Pank, M., Eelma, K., Nelis, R., & Tork, A. 1996. Es-

World Bank, Environmentally Sustainable Devel-

tonia’s Islands. Past and present. Kuressaare: In-

opment Studies and Monographs Series No. 9.

stitute for Islands Development. 64 p.

Washington, D.C. 16 p.

230

References Preller, M. 1993. Monopoly oder Modellregion auf

The. 1993. The International Project Management

Rügen? Zwischenbilanz der „Bürgerinitiative für

Course. Centre For Extension Studies. University

Rügen“. Naturschutz heute 93(2): 26-27.

of Turku. (Second corrected edition). 78 p.

Price, M.F. 1995. People and Biosphere Reserves: The

Protection of the oceans, all kinds of seas including

Evolution of a Concept. In: Kruse-Grauman, L.

enclosed and semi-enclosed seas, coastal areas and

(ed.). 1995. Societal Dimensions of Biosphere Re-

the protection, rational use and development of their

serves - Biosphere Reserves for People. Proceed-

living resources 1992. United Nations Conference

ings of the EUROMAB workshop, 23-25 January

on Environment and Development. Agenda 21,

1995, Königswinter. Deutsches Nationalkomitee.

Chapter 17. 14.6.1992. 39 p.

MAB-Mitteilungen 41. 157 p. 131-138.

Rajasärkkä, A. (Ed.) 1987. Establishing a Biosphere

Price, A.R.C. & Humphrey, S.L. (eds.). 1993. Appli-

Reserve in Finland - Report of the Symposium.

cation of the Biosphere Reserve Concept to Coastal

(Biosfäärialueiden perustaminen Suomeen -

Marine Areas: Papers Presented at the UNESCO/

seminaariraportti). MAB Finland. Unesco Report

IUCN San Francisco Workshop, 14-20 August,

10 b. 92 p. + appendix 22 p.

1989, Marine Conservation and Development Report, IUCN, Gland. 114 p.

tavoitteista. 31.12.1997. (WWW-page of the Envi-

Priscoli, J. D. 1993. Öffentliche Beteiligung bei technologie-

und

Rakennuslakitoimikunnan muistio lakiuudistuksen

umweltpolitischen

ronmental administration: http://www.vyh.fi/raken/ sisalto.htm; 22.5.1998.)

Entscheidungsprozessen in hochentwickelten

Rannikko, P. & Schuurman, N. (eds.) 1997. Elämisen

Industriestaaten - Ein Überblick. In: Zilleßen, H.

taika taigalla. Ihminen ja luonto Pohjois-Karjalan

(ed.) 1993. Die Modernisierung der Demokratie:

biosfäärialueella. University of Joensuu. Publica-

internationale Ansätze. Westdeutscher Verlag.

tion of the Karelian Institute. N:o 120. Joensuu.

Opladen. 328 p. 40-58.

183 p. [Summary: The Art of Living in the Taiga.

Priscoli, J. D. 1997. Participation and Conflict Management in Natural Resources Decision-Making.

Human Beings and Nature in the North Karelia Biosphere Reserve.]

In: Solberg, B. & Miina, S. (eds.) 1997. Conflict

Reed, M.G. 1994. Locally Responsive Environmen-

Management and Public Participation in Land Man-

tal Planning in the Canadian Hinterland: A Case

agement. Proceedings of the International Confer-

Study in Northern Ontario. Environmental Impact

ence. Joensuu, Finland, 17-19 June 1996. European

Assessment Review 94(14):245-269

Forest Institute Proceedings No. 14. 339 p. 61-87.

Rentsch, G. 1988. Die Akzeptanz eines Schutzgebietes

Programme of Sustainable Development of the Bio-

untersucht am Beispiel der Einstellung der lokalen

sphere Reserve of the West-Estonian Archipelago,

Bevölkerung zum Nationalpark Byrischer Wald.

231

Münchener Geographische Hefte Nr. 57. Verlag Michael Laßleben. Kallmünz/Regensburg. 87 p.

Ricken,

C.

1995.

Nationaler

Politikstil,

Saaristomeren biosfäärialueen nykytila. 1994.

Esitutkimusraportti.

Turun

Yliopiston

Täydennyskoulutuskeskus. 78 p. + appendix 22.

Netztwerkstrukturen sowie ökonomischer

Saaristomeren kansallispuiston runkosuunnitelma.

Entwicklungstand als Determinanten einer

1994. Metsähallituksen luonnonsuojelujulkaisuja.

effektiven Umweltpolitik - Ein empirischer

Sarja B, No 21. Vantaa. 41 p. + annexes 22 p.

Industrieländervergleich.

Zeitschrift

für

Umweltpolitik & Umweltrecht 4/95: 481-501.

Rigg, K. 1997. European Code of Conduct for Coastal

Sairinen, R. 1994. Ympäristökonfliktit kuntien suunnittelussa ja päätöksenteossa. Suomen Kuntaliitto. Acta-sarja 31. 280 p.

Zones. Bureau of the Committee for the Activities

Scherer, B. 1995. Nationalparke, Biosphärenreservate

of the Council of Europe in the Field of Biological

und Naturparke neuer Prägung: zwei Ziele - ein

and Landscape Diversity. Strasbourg, 14 October

Anspruch.

1997, draft 3. PE-S-CO (97) 4. 85 p.

strukturpolitische Chance und kulturelle

In:

,Großschutzgebiete

als

Rijsberman, F. 1993. The Effectiveness of the Hel-

Verpflichtung”. Föderation der Natur- und

sinki Convention as a Tool for the Integrated Coastal

Nationalparke Europas, Sektion Deutschland e.V. -

Resources Management of the Baltic Sea. In:

FÖNAD. Tagungsbericht (2.-4. November 1994).

Coastal Zone Management. Selected Case Studies.

99 p. 25-29.

1993. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 310 p. 285-301.

Rinken, S. 1990. Von der Bewegung zur Behörde:

Schröder, Peter C. 1993. The need for International Training in Coastal Management. Ocean & Coastal Management 21(1-3): 303-310.

Institutionalisierung von Umweltschutzinteressen.

Selin, S. & Chavez, D. 1995. Developing a Collabo-

Das Beispiel der California Coastal Commission.

rative Model for Plannning and Management. En-

Leviathan. Zeitschrift für Sozialwissenschaften.

vironmental Management 19(2): 189-195.

Jahrgang 1990. Heft 4: 536-550.

Siirala, M. (ed.) 1990. Tammisaaren saaristoprojekti.

Röchert, R. & Lamp, J. 1995. The thoughtless - or

Vesi-ja ympäristöhallituksen julkaisuja 37. 187 s.

malicious - elimination of a ministry. WWF Baltic

[English summary: Tammisaari Archipelago

Bulletin 1/95:23-24.

Project. Development and protection of an

Rose, R. 1973. Comparing Public Policy: An Overview. European Journal of Political Research 1(1): 67-94.

Rose, R. 1991. What is lesson-drawing? Journal of Public Policy 11(1): 3-30.

232

archipelagic area for the purpose of coastal management. p. 177-179.]

Skoglund, K. 1997. Planering ur ett lokalt perspektiv.

En studie av ett pilotprojekt i Stockholms mellanskärgård. 74 p. (Unpublished manuscript.)

References Small Islands, Big Issues. Crucial Issues in the Sus-

Takahashi, P.K. & Woodruff, J.L. 1993. The Devel-

tainable Development of Small Developing Islands.

opment of Alternative Energy Systems for Island

1995. UNU World Institute for Development Eco-

Communities. In Beller, W., d’Ayala, P and Hein,

nomics Research (UNU/WIDER). World Develop-

P. (eds.) 1990. Sustainable Development and Envi-

ment Studies 1. 156 p.

ronmental Management of Small Islands. Man and

Social Sciences in the Man and the Biosphere Pro-

the Biosphere Series. Volume 5. UNESCO & The

gramme, The. Report on seven seminars held in

Parthenon Publishing Group. Paris, Carnforth &

Asia: Bangladesh, India, Malaysia, Nepal, Pakistan,

New Jersey. 414 p. + index. 103-116.

Philippines, Thailand. 1979. Unesco. Office of the

Temmes, M. 1988. Reviiriajattelu suomalaisessa

Regional Adviser for for Social Sciences in Asia

hallintokoneistossa. Hallinnon tutkimus 7(3): 183-188.

and Oceania. 121 p. + annexes 26 p.

Sorensen, J. 1993. The International Proliferation of Integrated Coastal Zone Management Efforts.

Ocean & Coastal Management 21(1-3): 45-80.

Thia-Eng, C. 1993. Essential Elements of Integrated Coastal Zone Management. Ocean & Coastal Management 21(1-3): 81-108.

Tiirinen, M. 1991. Hiidenmaan alueellisen rakenteen

Sorensen, J. 1997. National and International Efforts at

kehitys feodalismista väistyvän kolhoositalouden

Integrated Coastal Management: Definitions,Achieve-

aikaan. Helsingin yliopisto, Maantieteen laitos.

ments, and Lessons. Coastal Management 25: 3-41.

(Master’s thesis). 130 p.

Sorensen, J.C. & McCeary, S.T. 1990. COASTS: Insti-

Timmel, K. 1995. Modellregion Rügen: ein

tutional arrangements for managing coastal resources

realistischer

and environments. Coastal Publication No 1.

“Großschutzgebiete als strukturpolitische Chance

Weg

oder

Vision?

In:

Stauch, M. 1992. Natural Science, Social Science and

und kulturelle Verpflichtung”. Föderation der Natur-

Democratic Practice. Philosophy of the Social Sci-

und Nationalparke Europas, Sektion Deutschland

ences 22(3): 337-356.

e.V. - FÖNAD. Tagungsbericht (2.-4. November

Strukturkonzept Rügen. 1991. Landkreis Rügen. Überarbeitete Fassung (Mai 1991). 105 p.

Support to the Coordination of the Development Process on Hiiumaa (Draft). 1995. Hiiumaa Research and Education Centre “Tuuru”. Kärdla. 14 p. (not published).

1994). 99 p. 35-42.

Tourismus-Konzeption

Rügen.

1993.

Forschungsinstitut für Tourismus. Heilbronn/ Rügen. 319 p.

Turtiainen, M. 1996. Ympäristöristiriitojen

Susskind, L. & McCreary, S. 1985. Techniques for

sovittelumenettely

Resolving Coastal Resource Management Disputes

yhdysvaltalaisista

Through Negotiation. Journal of the American Plan-

ympäristökeskuksen moniste 40. Helsinki. 39 p.

ning Association. 51(3): 365-374.

-

kirjallisuuskatsaus

kokemuksista.

Suomen

Uljas, J., Hellström, K. & Sagara, K. 1996. Hiiumaa

233

ja hiidlane. Sotsioloogiline uurimus. Biosfääri Kaitseala Hiiumaa Keskus. Kärdla. 76 p.

Umweltbeitrag zur Regionalplanung für das Gebiet der Insel

Rügen.

1995.

Welp, M. 1997. The Concept of Integrated Coastal Management - definition, methods and applicability in a research project on three biosphere reserves

Umweltbundesamt.

in Estonia, Finland and Germany. Proceedings of

Abschlußbericht (Entwurf: September 1995). 221 p.

the International Nordic Conference in Human Ecol-

Umweltbericht. 1994. Ministerium für Bau,

ogy. On Northern Shores and Islands: Human Well-

Landesentwicklung und Umwelt des Landes

Being and Environmental Change, 16-18 August

Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. Schwerin. 80 p.

1996, Strömstad, Sweden.

Vallega, A. 1993. A Conceptual Approach to Integrated

Welp, M. 1998a. Kan hållbar utveckling planeras -

Coastal Management. Ocean & Coastal Manage-

biosfärområdets

ment 21(1-3): 149-162.

utvecklingsplanering (Can Sustainable Develop-

roll

i

miljö-

och

Vallejo, S.M. 1993. The Integration of Coastal Zone

ment Be Planned - the Role of the Biosphere Re-

Management into National Development Planning.

serve Administration in Environmental and Devel-

Ocean & Coastal Management 21(1-3): 149-162.

opment Planning). Nordenskiöld-samfundets

van der Weide, J. 1993. A Systems View of Integrated Coastal Management. Ocean & Coastal Management 21(1-3): 129-148.

Varsinais-Suomen saaristo-ohjelma. 1994. VarsinaisSuomen liitto. Turku. 155 p.

tidskrift, Helsingfors. 57: 49-65.

Welp, M. 1998b. Forestry planning in three coastal biosphere reserves in Estonia, Finland and Germany.

In: Hytönen, M. (ed.) 1998. Social sustainability of forestry in the Baltic Sea Region. The Finnish For-

Weigelt, M. 1995: Biosphärenreservate als neue

est Research Institute, Research Papers. Proceedings

Schutzgebietskategorie - eine Chance für

of the Nordic-Baltic Workshop on Social

Deutschland. - Nationalpark 2/95: 13-16.

Sustainability of Forestry Kärdlä, Hiiumaa, Estonia,

Weiland, U. 1996. Systemtheorie und Umweltplanung - ein historischer Abriß. In K. Mathes, Breckling,

10-12 September 1997. pp. 123-456 Verordnung

über

die

Festsetzung

von

B. & Ekschmitt, K. (Ed.), Systemtheorie in der

Naturschutzgebieten

Ökologie Landsberg: ecomed. 128 p. 115-128.

Landschaftsshutzgebiet von zentraler Bedeutung

Weiland, U. & Lustig, S. 1997. Local Agenda 21 proc-

mit der Gesamtbezeichnung Biosphärenreservat

esses and Integrated Urban Development Planning -

Südost-Rügen. Gesetzesblatt der Deutschen

Learning from Past Experience?, The 1997 Interna-

Demokratischen Republik. Berlin, 1. Oktober 1990.

tional Sustainable Development Research Confer-

Sonderdruck Nr. 1471.

ence. Manchester, United Kingdom: ERP Environment. p. 316-321.

234

und

einem

Vickholm, M. 1986: Biosfäärialueiden perustaminen Suomeen - taustaa ja ehdotuksia. UNESCO Report

References 10a. Suomen MAB-toimikunta. Suomen akatemia.

125 s.

Yin, R.K. 1994. Case Study Research. Design and Methods. Sage Publications, London. 170 p.

View from the lighthouse - six self-portraits of Euro-

Ympäristöä

säästävän

matkailun

pean island partners i nalternative tourism. 1995.

kehittämissuunnitelma Länsi-Viroon. 1994.

Eco-islands newsletter (European Natural Heritage

Kansainvälinen projektinhallintakurssi. Turun

Fund, EURONATURE). No.1: 3-12.

yliopiston täydennyskoulutuskeskus. (Interna-

Wirtschaftliche Entwicklung auf Rügen Dimensionierung, Widerspruch und Perspektive (Die).

1992.

Schriftenreihe

des

Wirtschaftsfördervereins Rügens e.V. Heft 1. 30 p.

Wirtschaftskonzept des Landkreises Rügen. 1992.

Landkreis Rügen. 54 p. + annexes.

Vision and Strategies around the Baltic Sea 2010. Towards a Framework for Spatial Development in the

tional Project Management Course. Centre For Extension Studies. University of Turku.). 73 p. Öhman,

M.

1996:

Verksamhetsplan

för

Skärgårdshavets biosfärområde 1997-1999. 18 s. (draft 2.10.1996). Ökologisch orientiertes Verkehrskonzept für Rügen.

1993. Landratsamt Rügen. Bergen. (Kurzfassung, Ergebnisbericht). 156 p.

Baltic Sea Region. 1994. Third Conference of Min-

Newpapers

isters for Spatial Planning and Development. Tallinn

(abbreviations used in the study in brackets)

December 7-8, 1994. 96 p.

Wolfenden, J., Cram, F. & Kirkwood, B. 1994. Marine Reserves in New Zealand: A Survey of Community Reactions. Ocean & Coastal Management 25: 31-51.

Vorschläge zur wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung der Insel

Ostseezeitung (OZ) Rüganer (RÜ) Deutsche Presseagentur (dpa) Hiiumaa (HI) HiiuLeht (HL)

Rügen. Eine Aufforderung zum Handeln. 1993.

Hiiu Teataja (HT)

Bürgerinitiative für Rügen. 79 p.

Åbo Underrettelsär (ÅU)

235

236

Annex Annex 1 List of interviewees Rügen •Director of the Landwirtschaftsamt Stralsund •Representative of the Fremdenverkehrsverband Rügen •Vice-president of the Rügen Business Association •Officer, the State Office for Nature and Environmental Protection, Stralsund •Two staff members of Ministry of Building, Land Development and Environment, Schwerin •Director of the Chamber of Industry and Commerce in Stralsund •Planner, the Building and Planning Department of the Office of the District Councillor •Representative of the Alliance for Rügen •Staff member, the Rügen National Park Agency

•Chairman, Christian Democratic Union (CDU), Bergen •District Councillor •Staff member of theAmt für Wirtschaftsförderung und Tourismus, Bergen (Office for Economic Development and Tourism) •Representative of the environmental NGO 'Naturschutzbund Deutschland', Samtens •Mayor of the town of Putbus •Mayor of the town of Binz •Director of the Forestry Department, Werder •Officer of the Strassenbauamt Stralsund (Office of Road Construction) •Officer of the Ministry of Building, Land Development and the Environment, Schwerin

•Head of the municipality of Middelhagen

•Deputy Director of Bergamt Stralsund

•Director of the International Academy of Na-

•Director of the Rügen National Park Agency

ture Protection, Isle of Vilm •Head of the municipality of Göhren

•Officer, the Ministry of Agriculture, Schwerin •Planning Consultant, Potsdam

•Reporter, Ostseeanzeiger •Project leader, World Wide Fund for Nature, Stralsund

Hiiumaa •Chief Editor and reporter, Hiiumaa

•Staff member, the Rügen National Park Agency

•Fisherman, Kärdla

•Head of the municipality of Baabe

•Officer, the Regional Development Department

•Director of the Environmental Department of the Office of the District Councillor •Researcher, International Academy of Nature Protection, Isle of Vilm

of the Hiiumaa County Government •Director of the Environmental Department of Hiiumaa County Government •Planning Consultant, Kärdla 237

•Chairman of the Union of Hiiumaa Local Governments

• Town

planner, Kärdla

• Executive

•Research Director of the Hiiumaa Biosphere

Hiiumaa • Director

Reserve Center

Director of the Farmers Union of

of the Hiiumaa Museum

• Representative of the Kassari Educational Society

• Two

• Head

• Director

of Palade Museum

• Tourism

Developer, Hiiumaa County Govern-

of the Economic Department of the

Hiiumaa County Government • Planning

Consultant, Kärdla

• Member

of the Estonian Green Movement,

Kärdla • Head

tourism entrepreneurs

ment • Head

of the municipality of Käina

• Three representatives of the Hiiumaa Forest De-

of the Land Department of Hiiumaa

County Government • Head analyst of the Regional Development De-

partment • Planner, • Peace

Hiiumaa Biosphere Reserve Center

Corps volunteer, Kärdla

partment of Hiiumaa County Government • Director

of the Tuuru Research and Education

Center • Head

• Head

of the municipality of Körgessaare

• Mayor

Archipelago Sea

of the town of Kärdla

• Representative

of the Village Movement

of municipality of Houtskär

• Director

of Scanfish ltd., Houtskär

• General

secretary of the environmental NGO

Natur och Miljö, Helsinki

• Chief

Editor, HiiuTeataja

• Head

of municipality of Dragsfjärd

• Head

of the Municipality Council of Käina

• Chief

inspector, Regional Environment Centre

• Director

of the Institute for Island Develop-

ment, Kuressaare, Saaremaa • Project

Leader, Jobs and Society Hiiumaa En-

terprise Agency, Kärdla • Director of the Hiiumaa Biosphere Reserve Center • President

of the Hiiumaa Association of Small

Scale Entrepreneurs • Teacher, • Head

Kärdla High School

of the Department of Nature Conserva-

tion and Wildlife Management, Ministry of the Environment 238

of South-West Finland • Executive

Director, Archipelago Sea Develop-

ment Agency • Regional

Planning Architect, Regional Coun-

cil of South-West Finland • Chief Inspector, Archipelago Shipping Author-

ity • Park Director, Archipelago Park District Office • Researcher,

Department of Sociology, Univer-

sity of Turku • Chief

editor, Åbo Underrettelser

Annex • Two

chief inspectors, Regional Environment

Centre of South-West Finland • Professor,

Department of Biology, Å bo

Akademi University

the Environment, Environmental Policy Department • Project worker, Archipelago Sea Biosphere Re-

serve

• Head

of municipality of Nagu

• Chairman

• Head

of municipality of Korpo

• Archipelago

• Agent

for Archipelago, Regional Council of biologist, Turku Rural Development

Agency, Fishing Department • Environmental

Research Institute, University of

Turku • Biosphere reserve coordinator, Archipelago Sea

South-West Finland • Fishing

of the municipal council of Korpo

Councellor of the Ministry of

Biosphere Reserve, Regional Environment Centre of South-West Finland • Land

use planner, Hangö

Annex 2 List of interview themes 1) Background Brief history and fields of activities of the or-

Regional actors and interest groups:

ganization problems to which planning is ad-

• actors

actively involved in the region (adminis-

dressed to type of planning carried out by the

trative units, political parties, enterprises, NGOs,

organization:

initiatives, scientists, intellectual supporters etc.)

• regulatory • policy

or promotional

and/or project level planning

• unorganized

or weakly-organized interest

groups • role

of the groups in planning

Legal and institutional framework in which planning takes place:

Biosphere reserve:

• national

• expectations and fears concerning the designa-

legislation (are biosphere reserves an-

chored in national legislation, implications on planning in the biosphere reserve) • relevant

national programmes

• relevant

international agreements

• recent or expected changes (e.g. laws expected

to be amended) • do

sectoral policies on the national level give

special attention to coastal areas?

tion of the biosphere reserve • administration of the biosphere reserve as a new

actor • role

of the biosphere reserve

• impacts

of the biosphere reserve (e.g. on local

agenda, planning and management) • integration

of the biosphere reserve into re-

gional/local planning 239

Polarization between “environmentalists” and type (mild difference, disagreement,

dispute, campaign, litigation, war) • orientation

of ecosystem or watershed approach

in planning

“developers”: • conflict

• adoption

to each other (competitors, antago-

nists, enemies)

• activities

of administrative and natural boundaries being different (cooperation, new planning territory) • reasons

• goals of groups in relation to each other (to in-

clude, exclude, or eliminate other)

intending to overcome the problem

for choosing a certain planning area

• adequacy

of the size and zonation of the bio-

sphere reserve

2) Comprehensiveness in planning practice

Comprehensiveness in planning:

Regional environmental and development

• ecological

nomic/development planning

agenda: • issues

considered to be most important on the

regional environmental and development agenda • important

forums for articulating positions

(newspapers etc.) terest groups, national interest groups, biosphere reserve, local media, national media, international media, research) • recognition

• EIAs

(Environmental Impact Assessment) car-

ried out on project level planning • EIAs

carried out on strategic level planning

• social

• actors influencing agenda setting (e.g. local in-

of regional issues in planning and

policy making

issues incorporated in sectoral / eco-

nomic/development/environmental planning • SIAs

(Social Impact Assessment) carried out

on project level planning • SIAs

carried out on strategic level planning

• other methods used to incorporate environmen-

tal and social issues in sectoral/economic/de-

• reasons for some issues not entering the agenda • reasons

issues incorporated in sectoral/eco-

for selecting or ignoring certain issues

in planning

velopment planning • integration of EIAs and SIAs into proper plan-

ning and decision-making processes

• issues of “sustainable development” in relation

to regional issues

3) Planning and decision-making processes General characteristics:

Spatial units:

• is the planning system uniform and understandable?

• planning

• is

area (territory) of the organization

• administrative

boundaries in general

(landbound and seawards) 240

there a clear access point for individual citi-

zens and citizens groups concerning the use of coastal resources?

Annex • was

the approach for solving environmental and

• Surveys, questionnaires, interviews, exhibitions

development problems corrective or anticipatory?

with mailboxes, telephone hotlines, field trips,

• were

conflicts involved in the planning issue

or was the process characterized by consigns and cooperation?

• forms • were

of conflict resolution

the interests and opinions of citizens and

citizen groups known when planning was

site visits) • Citizen

advisory committees, joint planning

groups, negotiation committees, structured workshops, unassisted negotiation, mediation assisted negotiations, citizen panels) • objectives of public participation (e.g. to inform

people, educate people, to initiate public inter-

started?

• were the interests and opinions of other sectoral

est and discussion about values, to improve the

administration known when planning was

quality of planning and decision-making by col-

started?

lecting and exchanging information, to gain

• identification

of potential actors (organized or

weakly-organized interest-groups) • was

needed majority and acceptance for a plan, empowerment etc.) (Were objectives of public par-

there a systematic inquiry/survey of dif-

ticipation discussed together with different ac-

ferent interests and opinions? (Were the alter-

tors? Were the objectives explicitly defined?)

natives based on such a survey? Was this a part of planning routines?)

• type

of planning and decision-making method

used in planning

• existence

of a structured plan for the planning

process and participation • selection of participants (e.g. planners selected,

anyone could participate) • discussions

Public participation: • direct

institutional participation included in

project planning • direct

institutional participation included in

strategic planning • methods

and techniques used in public partici-

pation • Written

about the playing rules

• timing of public participation (early in the plan-

ning process, in a late phase) • how

was on the content of the plans decided

(problem setting)?

• citizens role in formulating planning alternatives • regularity

and continuity of public participa-

tion (e.g. newsletters) announcements, newsletters, direct

mail, newspaper articles, radio and TV announcements or programmes, exhibitions), public hearings

• demands

for more institutionalized participa-

tion (who expressed such demands and when?)

• non-institutionalized

participation (alternative

planning, protests, campaigning, etc.).

241

• driving forces for non-institutional participation • driving

forces for and against institutional par-

for participatory arrange-

ments in the planning organization (public funding)

ticipation • relations

• budget/guidelines

between direct and indirect institu-

tional participation (was the work of representative political bodies integrated into direct institutional participation?)

• involvement

of politically elected decision-

• other • was

sources of funding (e.g. sponsoring)

there enough knowledge in the organiza-

tion to organize public participation?

• outside

consultants involved in participatory

planning

makers in participatory procedures • reasons

for a group or actor choosing to par-

ticipate or not to participate in a planning proc-

Evaluation: • how

well were the organized interest groups

reached?

ess?

• how

Information/knowledge: • access

to relevant planning information

• language

used in the dialogue (was it under-

standable for citizens and non-experts?)

• were

the issues highly technical, biological, or

economic?

• education

on the subject

• education

in planning and group-working

• attempts to translate expert knowledge into lan-

guage more familiar non-experts • independent community based projects reviews,

investigations and alternative planning

well were the unorganized or weakly-or-

ganized interest groups reached?

• were

people involved in planning able to esti-

mate how their participation influenced planning and decision-making (e.g. views and proposals in a table format)?

• problems that occurred in the course of partici-

pation • reasons

for missing participation

• prerequisites • was

for successful participation

a possible joint planning procedure an in-

tegral part of planning and decision-making?

• have

different groups been satisfied with pub-

lic participation arrangements?

Resources: • resources for public participation (information,

education, support for travel, preparations, producing information) • existence

of a funding program for public par-

ticipation (e.g. on district/regional level) 242

• did

participation enhance communication be-

tween different sectors?

• were the methods and techniques appropriate for

meeting the objectives of public participation?

• how

do you personally see the role of public

participation in planning?

Annex • what

methods of participation do you consider

suitable (direct participation in a hearing, par-

• informal

ciplines (personal contacts and discussions)

ticipation through representatives, surveys, in-

• timing

terviews, etc.)?

• problems

Cooperation between authorities Vertical cooperation • cooperation between different levels of govern-

ance • conflicts

involved between local, regional and

national levels • level

in which coordination with other sectors

primarily takes place • sufficiency

of provided information (national-

local, local-national) • coordination

between policy- and project level

planning and decision-making Horizontal cooperation: • sectors (agencies) that are most important from

your organization point of view • need

for coordination with other related plans

and programmes • sectors with which cooperation is problematic/

cooperation between sectors and dis-

of cooperation that occurred in the course of coop-

eration (e.g. flexibility of cooperative arrangements) • reasons

for missing cooperation (e.g. lack of

awareness, powerful planning authorities, fear of loosing power, increased amount of work, insufficient resources) • prerequisites

for successful cooperation

• attempts to translate expert knowledge into lan-

guage more familiar non-experts and experts in other fields • parallel organizations or projects enhancing co-

operation • impact

of cross-sectoral cooperation on public

participation • was

cooperation between sectors and levels of

government carried out simultaneously with participatory procedures?

• were

politically elected decision-makers in-

volved?

insufficient • conflicts • are

between administrative bodies

conflicts between different authorities out-

spoken/made public • sectors • forms

with which cooperation is sufficient

of institutionalized cooperation (written

4) Outcome and implementation of the plan/ programme • monitoring

and evaluation concerning the im-

plementation of plans and programs (are the results presented in the public?)

statements, multi-agency steering group or

• was the planning process (implementation) suc-

working group, working groups, joint planning

cessful in tackling the problem to which it was

groups, negotiation committees or councils)

addressed?

243

• were

conflicts resolved satisfactorily?

• reason

for the success/failure in implementa-

• was

the process dominated by powerful inter-

est groups?

tion (e.g. lack of commitment of certain groups,

• agencies/interest groups acting against compre-

situation changed, problem was no longer con-

hensive, cooperative or participate planning ar-

sidered relevant)

rangements (reasons for this)

• did

participation encourage unorganized inter-

est groups to organize themselves?

• was

participation introduced in later planning

processes?

• impact

(resource power, structural power, symbolic power) • has

of the experiences on later planning

possible movement towards integrated ar-

rangements involved more centralization of power or unification of authority?

processes • impacts

• main sources of power used by different groups

on citizen and community awareness

concerning environmental and development

• citizen

influence on the contents of the plans

and on decision-making

problems • influence

on the regional environment and de-

velopment agenda • decisions contrasting the goals of biosphere re-

serves • challenges

• did planners take an active role in dealing with

inequalities in the distribution of power (e.g. provide information for citizens initiatives)?

to the legal and institutional frame-

work • challenges

Role of planner:

• were citizen and NGO involvement encouraged

by planning agencies? to international agreements

• was

the message of planners: a) “You can de-

pend on me”, “You needn't get involved”, “I'll 5) Use of power

consult you when appropriate”, or b) “We

• legitimacy

and fairness of the planning process

would welcome and support you in participa-

use of expert knowledge/language/position

tion”, or “We are interested in your opinions

• the

as a source of power • who

244

produced and who used the information?

and information”?

• other important issues that were not discussed?

Maps

Map 1 Location of the case study areas in the Baltic Sea

245

Map 2 R端gen

Map 3 Hiiumaa

246

Maps

Map 4 Archipelago Sea

Legend for maps 2-4:

0

10km Outer boundary of biosphere reserve

Cities and municipalities: > 50.000 inhabitants 10.000 - 50.000 3.000 - 10.000 < 3.000

247

Map 5 Biosphere Reserves in Germany

MIDDLE ELBE (GER 1) VESSERTAL-THURINGIAN FOREST (GER 2) BAYERISCHER WALD (GER 3) BERCHTESGADEN ALPS (GER 4) WADDENSEA OF SCHLESWIG-HOLSTEIN (GER 5) SCHORFHEIDE-CHORIN (GER 6) SPREEWALD (GER 7) RÜGEN (GER 8) RHÖN (GER 9) PFÄLZERWALD (GER 10) WADDENSEA OF LOWER SAXONY (GER 11) WADDENSEA OF HAMBURG (GER 12) OBERLAUSITZER HEIDE- UND TEICHLANDSCHAFT (GER 13)

248

Maps

Map 6 Biosphere Reserves in Estonia WEST ESTONIAN ARCHIPELAGO (ENA 1)

249

Map 7 Biosphere Reserves in Finland

NORTH KARELIAN (FIN 1) ARCHIPELAGO SEA (FIN 2)

250

Maps

Map 8 Biosphere Reserves in western Europe

251

252

Contents Foreword from the Secretary of the Man and Biosphere Programme .......................

5

Preface ......................................................................................................................................

7

1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................

1.1 Coastal resources under pressure and the need for new planning approaches ......

1.2 Objectives of the study ...............................................................................................

1.3 Applying the results ...................................................................................................

9 9 12 13

2. Framework of the study ....................................................................................................

2.1 Four styles of environmental and development planning .......................................

2.2 The concept of «integrated coastal management» (ICM) ........................................

2.2.1 ICM - a response to sectoralized management ..............................................

2.2.2 Evolution of the concept ..................................................................................

2.2.3 Main dimensions of integration ......................................................................

2.2.4 Definition of the management area .................................................................

2.2.5 Alternative methods and strategies for introducing ICM ..............................

2.2.6 Efforts to introduce ICM within the European Union and the Baltic Sea Region ................................................................................

2.2.7 ICM from the perspective of planning theory ...............................................

2.3 A set of criteria for «good coastal planning practice» .............................................

2.4 Research approach and outline of the study .............................................................

2.5 Research methods .......................................................................................................

2.6 Validity and reliability of the case studies.................................................................

15 15 18 18 19 20 25 26

3. Biosphere reserves as model areas for sustainable resource use ..............................

3.1 Origins and transformation of the concept ...............................................................

3.2 Biosphere reserve — a local partner or an «outside intervention»? .......................

3.3 Deficits in research ......................................................................................................

51 51 54 55

4. Key characteristics of the case study areas ...................................................................

4.1 Selection and delineation of case study areas ...........................................................

4.2 The case study areas ...................................................................................................

4.2.1 The island of Rügen in Germany .....................................................................

4.2.2 The island of Hiiumaa in Estonia ..................................................................

4.2.3 Archipelago Sea in Finland ..............................................................................

4.3 Comparability of the case study areas .......................................................................

57 57 59 59 65 70 76

5. The biosphere reserves of Southeast Rügen, the West Estonian Archipelago, and the Archipelago Sea ........................................................................................................

5.1 Designation of the biosphere reserves .......................................................................

5.2 Structure and tasks of the administration .................................................................

81 81 86

30 34 37 41 44 48

253

5.3 Adequate zonation?...................................................................................................... 93 5.4 Biosphere reserves in national legislation ................................................................ 96 5.5 Comparison of the biosphere reserve’s roles ........................................................... 100 6. Analysis and comparison of planning practice on Rügen, Hiiumaa, and the Archipelago Sea .....................................................................................

6.1 Selection of illustrative examples ..............................................................................

6.2 Examples of planning practice 6.2.1 Strategic regional planning and the designation of protected lands cape areas on Rügen .........................................................................................

6.2.2 The Hiiumaa Development Action Plan 2010 ................................................

6.2.3 Sectoral planning: Forestry planning on Rügen, Hiiumaa and Archipelago Sea ..........................................................................

6.2.4 Two coastal land-use conflicts on Rügen and Hiiumaa ................................

6.2.5 Water-use planning with special reference to fish farming on Rügen and in the Archipelago Sea ............................................................

6.2.6 Käina Bay Integrated Coastal Management Plan (Hiiumaa) ........................

6.2.7 The establishment of an advisory board for the biosphere reserve on Rügen and Archipelago Sea ........................................................................

6.3 Planning practice in comparison to the ideal model ................................................

6.3.1 Comprehensiveness .........................................................................................

6.3.2 Participation .....................................................................................................

6.3.3 Cooperation .......................................................................................................

6.3.4 Feedback ...........................................................................................................

6.4 Planning styles in the case study areas ......................................................................

103 103 106 106 112 119 125 132 138 140 146 146 152 167 174 178

7. Conclusions ..........................................................................................................................

7.1 A vision for planning in coastal areas .......................................................................

7.2 The «programme» or the «incremental reform» approach ......................................

7.3 Potential roles for biosphere reserves in the future ..................................................

181 181 183 184

Summary ..................................................................................................................................

Estonian Summary ...................................................................................................................

Finish Summary .......................................................................................................................

German Summary ....................................................................................................................

189 197 204 211

Acknowledgements.................................................................................................................. 219 References................................................................................................................................. 221 Annex 1 List of interviewees................................................................................................... 237 Annex 2 List of interview themes........................................................................................... 239 Maps 1-8..................................................................................................................................... 245 254