Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect Procedia Environmental Sciences 32 (2016) 4 – 11
International Conference – Environment at a Crossroads: SMART approaches for a sustainable future
Indicators for environmental conflict monitoring in Natura 2000 sites Ioan-Cristian Iojă*, Constantina-Alina Hossu, Mihai-Răzvan Niță, Diana-Andreea Onose, Denisa-Lavinia Badiu, Steluța Manolache "University of Bucharest, Centre for Environmental Research and Impact Studies, 1, Bd. Nicolae Balcescu, Bucharest, 010041, Romania"
Abstract The mission of the Natura 2000 network focuses on humans-nature relationships, recognizing that human activities are part of the ecosystem and they should not rival with the nature. However, the implementation of Natura 2000 network has triggered situations where the human interests came into conflict with those of plants and animals or where different political and social underlyings undermine its effective implementation. Therefore, we propose an ACR framework (anticipation-characterizationresolution) to select a set of indicators which can be used to assess the environmental conflicts from the Natura 2000 network. The selected indicators are relevant at European, national and Natura 2000 site scale and might be useful for the administrative process by providing information about stereotypic conflict situations. This could further help in the management of the Natura 2000 sites in order to contribute to the conservation of Europe’s biodiversity. © Published by Elsevier B.V B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license © 2016 2016The TheAuthors. Authors. Published by Elsevier (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of ECOSMART 2015. Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of ECOSMART 2015 Keywords: monitoring, anticipation; characterization; resolution; environmental conflicts, Natura 2000
1. Introduction Understanding the nature-society relations is an important challenge in the Natura 2000 network management, where the boundaries are dynamic, ambiguous, and constantly under pressure [1]. The Future We Want, a Rio+20 strategy, points out the priority of concentrating actions at global, regional and local scale, in order to improve the
* Corresponding author. Tel./fax:+4-0210310-38-72. E-mail address:
[email protected]
1878-0296 © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of ECOSMART 2015 doi:10.1016/j.proenv.2016.03.007
Ioan-Cristian Iojă et al. / Procedia Environmental Sciences 32 (2016) 4 – 11
connection between the communities’ needs and the environment’s carrying capacity, inclusively inside protected areas [2]. This applies to the current protected areas for which is difficult to function as biodiversity oases in an increasing anthropic environment [3]. Due to the increasing pressure on natural resources in protected areas the need for social management solutions is becoming urgent [4]. The Natura 2000 network is considered a visionary and cooperation-generating project [1]. It was implemented in some very complicated conditions, such as the increased fragmentation of the EU territory’s natural habitats, the growing urbanization which influence the lifestyle (74% of European population live in urban areas) [5], the high percentage of natural species and habitats under unfavorable and unknown conservation status (83%) as well as the failure of most of the environmental targets which are formulated in different EU policies for 2010 [6]. The gap between conservation, communities and economic activities stress due to: (a) rapid expansion of the Natura 2000 network based on predominantly scientific arguments, sometimes inconsistent, (b) frustrations related to the unilateral acceptance of the scientific arguments rather then socio-economic ones even on private lands, (c) the disputes related to the interpretation of the concepts that guide the functionality of the network (e.g. significant effect, favorable conservation status, ecological integrity), (d) the pressure on achieving the targets set by the EU in the environmental policies and (e) the increasing number of the public and private projects that are blocked because of conservation actions [7, 8, 9]. Such situations are common across most of the Member States, being ignited by the disinterest of the local officials regarding Natura 2000 network, the scarce public awareness of the networks’ mission, the insufficient human resources to manage the sites, as well as the inadequate monitoring processes for a better understanding of the current environmental conditions [10]. Thus, even if the Birds and Habitats Directives promote an integrative approach, based on science and people inclusion [4], in practice, many problems related to the implementation of the network exist [3] and become visible through conflicts [1]. Within the Natura 2000 network, Young, Watt [11] consider three major categories of triggering events for environmental conflicts: (a) agricultural and forestry practices, (b) sectorial activities (e.g. industrial, commercial, and tourist activities) and (c) conservation policies (e.g. the designation or management of protected areas, protection of different species, and the management of invasive species). Bouwma, van Apeldoorn [12] consider two major categories of causes of conflict: (a) multiple conflicting uses of the sites due to management changes and (b) the management process, including the information, communication and implementation measures. Such conflicts occur at local and regional scale, although most of the time they engage actors that have roles/interests at upper scales. When such conflicts have started to hinder the efficiency of the Natura 2000 network, the need to prevent and assess them has begun to flourish largely. Strategic Environmental Assessment, Appropriate Assessment of Significant Effects and the management process of the Natura 2000 sites are strong administrative processes which favor a participatory approach for the anticipation, assessment, management and/or resolution of environmental conflicts [13]. These processes, especially those at national and regional scale, need detailed information to efficiently manage and solve the environmental conflicts. Several efforts have been devoted to this and several tools using qualitative and quantitative data have emerged in order to assess the environmental conflicts from the Natura 2000 sites. However, it is difficult to agree upon specific methods for conflict monitoring in Natura 2000 sites due to conflict’ complexity and adjacent uncertainties. Environmental indicators are tools used to monitor the current situation or to anticipate some changes [14]. After the implementation of Agenda 21, the environmental indicators have become a core instrument for monitoring the environmental policies performance [15]. Subsequently, Sustainable Development Solutions Network [16], and Millennium Development Goals [17] have promoted global, national, regional and thematic indicators to monitor different aspects related to sustainability [8]. The indicators’ utility is defined by some key features. Thus, Maxwell, Milner-Gulland [18] consider that indicators have to be SMART (specific, measurable, ambitious, realistic, and time-bound), as well as credible, relevant (related to a target, a policy and applicable on an adequate scale) and legitimate [13, 14, 19, 20]. The high number of environmental indicators drove the need to structure them in different systems, such as the DPSIR model [21], Practice-Oriented Ecosystem Services Evaluation – PRESET framework [22], LUCCA [13], cumulative effect assessment [23] or Policy cycle [8]. The large scale applicability of these systems makes them useful for complex processes, phenomena or situations, such as conflict monitoring, which requires more in depth analysis, than isolated indicators.
5
6
Ioan-Cristian Iojă et al. / Procedia Environmental Sciences 32 (2016) 4 – 11
The exponential growth of indicators has favored divergent opinions about their utility. Morse [24] illustrates an obsession for numbers and indicators which do not help the processes for which they are used. However, even if the environmental indicators have important limitations they are the most accessible tool for those responsible with the management of the Natura 2000 sites [3]. For monitoring the environmental conflicts, the selection of some multidimensionality and wholeness indicators which to describe the historic lines, the causes and the magnitude of effects represents a critical step [23] which can greatly improve the environmental conflicts resolution process. Such indicators should use systemic models based on concepts and the description of the real situation, holistic measurement concepts and should be related to the goals and targets of the environmental policies [19]. The Natura 2000 network caused changes that have reactivated, triggered or created conditions for the occurrence of several environmental conflicts. These environmental conflicts create more and more difficulties to institutions, and economic losses by decreasing the land attractiveness or activating social conflicts. Even if each environmental conflict is unique when it comes to its characteristics, an integrated statistics at European, national, and regional scale for each Natura 2000 site becomes a necessity for conflict resolution. The systematic recording of some information related to environmental conflicts using quantitative and semi-quantitative indicators is a useful step both for the management process of Natura 2000 sites and for the optimal functioning of related institutions or stakeholders. Thus, this study aims to propose an ACR framework (anticipation-characterization-resolution) to select a set of indicators which can be used to monitoring the environmental conflicts from the Natura 2000 network. These indicators could extensively be used in the administrative reports in order to better inform the administrative process by providing information about stereotypic conflict situations. This may guide the decisions on certain management issues in Natura 2000 sites at national level.
2. Indicators for monitoring environmental conflicts In the Natura 2000 sites many environmental conflicts occur. Their novelty, diversity, social and cultural features and the complex inter-institutional and interpersonal relationships embedded in them require the use of interrelated indicators. Thus, the defining features of the active environmental conflicts from the Natura 2000 sites have to be known and understood, such as: the triggering events; the spatial (scale, magnitude, and intensity), temporal (duration, frequency, the succession of events, and continuity), ecological (environmental impact, compliance with the environmental politics, strategies and legislation) and socio-economic dimension (mass-media, actors involvement, socio-economic impact, cultural characteristics) [25]. Besides the qualitative characteristics of the environmental conflicts, the quantitative information can be useful for conflict prediction and resolution, especially when similar conflicts have to be compared. 2.1. Indicators for the anticipation of environmental conflicts from Natura 2000 sites Indicators are capable of anticipating the environmental conflicts from the Natura 2000 network by proving information about specific situations that may ignite a conflict [26, 27]. Such indicators that can be used to detect the conflicts in an early phase and may offer information about stereotypic situations where conflicts might occur. This will allow the administrative officials, at national level, to formulate mitigation strategies to prevent what can be later turned into a conflict. However, environmental conflicts are also a social process which involves subjective and emotional issues, making the choice of indicators for conflict anticipation a difficult task. Thus, the indicators that reflect measures of subjective issues have an important role in developing complete information that can help the decision-makers to introduce strategies for conflict resolution. Another challenge is that the standard information provided by the indicators for conflict anticipation may not always indicate the areas prone to conflicts. Although the values of such indicators may show a potential conflict situation, this does not mean that conflicts certainly appear. This is the result of the subjective nature of conflicts, which lead to different outcomes even if the potential triggering events are the same. However, in other areas where the values of such indicators do not indicate a potential conflict situation, conflict can occur on a higher frequency.
Ioan-Cristian Iojă et al. / Procedia Environmental Sciences 32 (2016) 4 – 11
Therefore, in order to deal with all the challenges stated above and to provide comprehensive information about the potential of conflict, the indicators for conflict anticipation in Natura 2000 sites should provide information about: (i) policy oriented issues; (ii) management issues; (iii) the historic context, as well as (iv) the social context of a conflict situation (Table 1). Table 1. Indicators for environmental conflicts anticipation (examples) Category
Indicators for conflict anticipation
Units
Description
Policy oriented issues
The amount of funding for the agrienvironmental schemes.
Monetary
If the funding is insufficient, conflicts may occur.
The percentage of the financial support for conservation purposes.
%
If financing is not available, the potential for conflict may increase.
The number of protected species.
No.
An increase in the number of the protected species can increase the potential for conflicts.
The percentage of the area of conservation interest which overlap with the area of development interest.
%
The conflicts: conservation vs. development occur especially in these areas where interests are conflicting.
Historic context
The percentage of farmers that were deprived by their traditional use of land/traditional activities.
%
The traditional land use and the local culture may come into conflict with the conservation rules.
Social context
The number of stakeholders groups that may have interests in the area.
No.
The more diverse is the group of stakeholders, the higher possibility for conflict.
Management issues
The indicators for the anticipation of the environmental conflicts could provide information on the conditions that contributed to conflict’ increasing or decreasing over time and could allow a better understanding of the natural, social, economic and political hotspots and coldspots. 2.2. Indicators for the characterization of environmental conflicts from Natura 2000 sites The indicators for the characterization of environmental conflicts could refer to Table 2: (a) the triggering event (e.g. the number of petitions, complaints, lawsuits; the number of conflicts caused by different activities), (ii) perceived material or hedonic injury (e.g. the total amount of the injury), (iii) the location (e.g. their distribution within Natura 2000 sites, biogeographic and administrative regions), (iv) an existing political-administrative framework (e.g. the number of regulatory documents affected by the conflict, the status of the management plans for the Natura 2000), (v) protagonists with divergent positions (e.g. the number of involved actors, the number of neutral actors, the number of affected persons/communities, and the number of active NGOs), (vi) mass-media (e.g. the number of articles related to conflicts in the national, regional and local mass-media) [28]. Table 2. Indicators for environmental conflicts characterization (examples) Category
Indicators for conflict characterization
Units
Description
Triggering event
The number of petitions, complaints and lawsuits.
No.
These indicators highlight the areas where different actors react using the administrative system.
The number of conflicts caused by different activities.
No.
The categories of economic activities that cause conflicts highlight typologies of conflict-related activities.
The assessed and perceived dimension of the injury risk.
Monetary
This indicator shows the economic dimension of the environmental conflicts.
The number of affected persons/communities.
No.
This indicator shows the social dimension of the environmental conflicts.
Perceived injury
7
8
Ioan-Cristian Iojă et al. / Procedia Environmental Sciences 32 (2016) 4 – 11
Location
The number of conflicts within Natura 2000 sites, bio-, geographic and administrative regions.
No.
The spatial distribution of environmental conflicts within different regions allows the localization of hotspots.
General framework
The status of the Natura 2000 sites management plans and regulations.
a. No management plan
The sites without an approved management plan are not able to manage conflict situations.
b.
Protagonists
Media
In formation
c.
Approved
An administration for the Natura 2000 site.
a.
Yes
b.
No
The number of species and habitats of priority for conservation.
No.
The number of species and habitats of priority for conservation indicates the interest of the environmental authorities and conservation organizations for a certain site.
The number of regulatory documents affected by the conflict.
No.
Master Plans, Forestry plans and other are often in contradiction with the management plans of the Natural 2000 sites. These are important justifications for the environmental conflicts.
The number of involved institutions in the management of the protected areas.
No.
The number of institutions shows the potential for collaboration regarding the management of the protected area.
The number of affected species and habitats of priority.
No.
The conflict magnitude is given by the number of the protected species and habitats.
The number of actors pros, cons and neutrals.
No.
The total number of the involved actors and their positions indicate the conflict’s complexity.
The number of national, regional and local government institutions, NGOs.
No.
The number of articles in the national/local media.
No.
The control of the administrative process by an institution assumes its role in the management of environmental conflicts within Natura 2000 sites.
The national or local coverage of conflict situations in media shows the interest for resolution and the power of the involved actors.
2.3. Indicators for the resolution of environmental conflicts from Natura 2000 sites Indicators may also offer information that may facilitate the evaluation of the resolution process. As the authors discussed in the previous section, each conflict is unique and therefore each resolution framework must account for specifics, but we can say that there are some common features that can lead the evaluation of the resolution processes. These features can be covered by indicators which refer to (Table 3): (i) public consultation (e.g. within different policy processes), (ii) the involvement of a neutral party (e.g. a facilitator or a mediator could bring an unbiased role and influence the consensus building process), (iii) stakeholders’ profile (e.g. the groups of stakeholders), and (iv) the resolution process.
Ioan-Cristian Iojă et al. / Procedia Environmental Sciences 32 (2016) 4 – 11
Table 3. Indicators for environmental conflicts resolution (examples) Category
Indicators for conflict resolution
Units
Description
Public consultation
The number of public consultation sessions within the EIA and SEA processes.
No.
The public consultation sessions are a measure of collaboration and dialogue.
The number of public consultation sessions related to the management of the protected area.
No.
The number of meetings with the interested stakeholders.
No.
Involvement of a neutral party
The number of neutral parties.
No.
A neutral party can bring stakeholders’ different views together and reach a shared agreement.
Stakeholders’ profile
The number and profile of different key stakeholders (e.g. interests, power).
No.
The identification of all stakeholders’ groups is a measure of informed consensus.
The resolution process
The number of modified and new administrative and legislative measures.
No.
The consequences of a conflict within the society could be emphasized considering some measures.
The number and financial measures (e.g. fines, compensations).
No.
The number of technical and physical measures.
No.
The number of actors who lost in the resolution process.
No.
The number of actors who gained in the resolution process.
No.
The type of implemented Alternative Dispute Resolution Process.
Facilitation Mediation
The outcomes at the end of conflict resolution process illustrate actors’ power and legitimacy.
The types of alternative resolution strategies show how the process moved toward consensus building.
Arbitration
3. Conclusion The set of the indicators proposed within the ACR framework (anticipation-characterization-resolution) is useful to provide information about stereotypic conflict situations. However, their role can be diminished in specific/local situations. If such indicators are embedded within the European and national monitoring systems they could have an important role in highlighting the conflict hotspots from the Natura 2000 network, and identifying the shortcomings of the control system of the socio-economic activities. Some of the proposed indicators are collected by different institutions, but they are not channeled into the monitoring of environmental conflicts. In many studies the environmental conflicts are qualitatively assessed, for reasons such as uniqueness, complexity and difficulty to measure [29, 30]. The monitoring of the environmental conflicts from Natura 2000 site should be based on the context in which they occur, develop and resolve. Using indicators for this purpose will help to highlight, in a simplified form, the complex natural, social, economic and historical circumstances where environmental conflicts arise. Thus, the ACR model is useful to decision-makers to understand and manage the challenges of Natura 2000 areas in terms of conflict anticipation, characterization and resolution. More efforts have to be made to develop a clear methodology for data gathering and databases at different levels, in order to offer a more dynamic and interlinked image about conflicts.
9
10
Ioan-Cristian Iojă et al. / Procedia Environmental Sciences 32 (2016) 4 – 11
Acknowledgments This work was supported by a grant of the Romanian National Authority for Scientific Research and Innovation, CNCS – UEFISCDI, project number PN-II-RU-TE-2014-4-0673 - Methodology for the management and resolution of environmental conflict in Natura 2000 network.
References 1. Kati V, Hovardas T, Dieterich M, Ibisch PL, Mihok B, Selva N. The challenge of implementing the European network of protected areas Natura 2000. Conservation Biology. 2015;29(1):260–70. 2. UN. The Future We Want: United Nations; 2012. Available from: http://www.uncsd2012.org/content/documents/727The%20Future%20We%20Want%2019%20June%201230pm.pdf. 3. Ioja CI, Patroescu M, Rozylowicz L, Popescu VD, Verghelet M, Zotta MI, et al. The efficacy of Romania’s protected areas network in conserving biodiversity. Biological Conservation. 2010;143:2468-76. 4. Popescu VD, Rozylowicz L, Cogălniceanu D, Niculae IM, Cucu AD. Moving into Protected Areas? Setting Conservation Priorities for Romanian Reptiles and Amphibians at Risk from Climate Change. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(1). 5. Breuste J, Artmann M, Li J, Xie M. Special Issue on Green Infrastructure for Urban Sustainability. Journal of Urban Planning and Development. 2015;141(3). 6. EEA. Landscape fragmentation in Europe. Joint EES-FOEN. Luxembourg: 2011. 7. Floor JR, van Koppen CSA, van Tatenhove JPM. Uncertainties in the assessment of ‘‘significant effect’’ on the Dutch Natura 2000 Wadden Sea site – The mussel seed fishery and powerboat race controversies. Environmental Science & Policy. 2016;55:380–92. 8. Hák T, Janousková S, Moldan B. Sustainable Development Goals: A need for relevant indicators. Ecological Indicators. 2016;60:565–73. 9. Tsianou MA, Mazaris AD, Kallimanis AS, Deligioridi P-SK, Apostolopoulou E, Pantis JD. Identifying the Criteria Underlying the Political Decision for the Prioritization of the Greek Natura 2000 Conservation Network. Biological Conservation. 2013;166:103–10. 10. ECNC. Summary Workshop Report. Conflict management in the Natura 2000 network. 2010. 11. Young J, Watt A, Carss D. Pilot review for "Living with Environmental Change". Objective B (Environment). CEH Edinburgh: 2010. 12. Bouwma IM, van Apeldoorn R, Cil A, Snethlage M, McIntosh N, Nowicki N, et al. Natura 2000 - adressing conflicts and promoting benefits. The Netherlands: 2010. 13. Helbron H, Schmidt M, Glasson J, Downes N. Indicators for strategic environmental assessment in regional land use planning to assess conflicts with adaptation to global climate change. Ecological Indicators. 2011;11:90–5. 14. Iojă CI, Niță MR, Vânău GO, Onose DA, Gavrilidis AA. Using multi-criteria analysis in identifying spatial land-use conflicts in the Bucharest Metropolitan Area. Ecological Indicators. 2014;42(1):112-21. 15. UN. Agenda 21: The United Nations Programme of Action from Rio. New York: 1992. 16. SDSN. Indicators and a monitoring framework for Sustainable Development Goals. Launching a data revolution for the SDGs. Paris and New York: 2014. 17. UN. The Millennium Development Goals Report. New York: 2014. 18. Maxwell SL, Milner-Gulland EJ, Jones JPG, Knight AT, Bunnefeld N, Nuno A, et al. Being smart about SMART environmental targets. Science. 2015;347(6226):1074-5. 19. Bodini A. Building a systemic environmental monitoring and indicators for sustainability: What has the ecological network approach to offer? Ecological Indicators. 2012;15:140–8. 20. Tudor CA, Ioja CI, Patru-Stupariu I, Nita MR, Hersperger AM. How successful is the resolution of land-use conflicts? A comparison of cases from Switzerland and Romania. Applied Geography. 2014;47:125-36. 21. Albert C, Galler C, Hermes J, Neuendorf F, von Haaren C, Lovett L. Applying ecosystem services indicators in landscape planning and management: The ES-in-Planning framework. Ecological Indicators. 2016;16:100–13. 22. von Haaren C, Albert C, Barkmann J, de Groot R, Spangenberg J, Schroter-Schlaack C, et al. From explanation to application: Introducing a practice-oriented ecosystem services evaluation (PRESET) model adapted to the context of landscape planning and management. Landscape Ecology. 2014;29(8):1335–46. 23. Sutherland GD, Waterhouse FL, Smith J, Saunders SC, Paige K, Malt J. Developing a systematic simulation-based approach for selecting indicators in strategic cumulative effects assessments with multiple environmental valued components. Ecological Indicators. 2016;61:512–25. 24. Morse S. Bottom rail on top: The shifting sands of sustainable development indicators as tools to assess progress. Sustainability. 2013;5(6):2421-41. 25. Lester L, Hutchins B. Environmental Conflict and the Media. New York: Peter Lang; 2013. 26. Hersperger AM, Ioja CI, Steiner F, Tudor CA. Comprehensive consideration of conflicts in the land-use planning process: a conceptual contribution. Carpath J Earth Environ Sci. 2015;10:5-13. 27. von der Dunk A, Gret-Regamey A, Hersperger AM. Land-use conflicts in a swiss peri-urban landscape: which socio-demographic and environmental variables are associated with their presence and absence? Carpath J Earth Environ Sci. 2015;10(4):39 - 48.
Ioan-Cristian Iojă et al. / Procedia Environmental Sciences 32 (2016) 4 – 11 28. Joerin F, Pelletier M, Trudelle C, Villeneuve P. Analyse spatiale des conflits urbains. Enjeux et contextes dans la région de Québec. Cahiers de Géographie du Québec. 2005;49:319-42. 29. Bonsu NO, Dhubháin AN, O'Connor D. Understanding forest resource conflicts in Ireland: A case study approach. Land Use Policy. 2015;In press, Corrected Proof. 30. Sze MNM, Sovacool BK. Of fast lanes, flora, and foreign workers: managing land use conflicts in Singapore. Land Use Policy. 2013;30(1):167-76.
11
