EN
GR
1.2. Governance, communication and conflict resolution at local level
Dr Vivi Roumeliotou
Society for the Protection of Prespa
A little bit of theory on governance…
- Governance of protected areas
During the last 50 years in both our region and the wider world more and more institutions have been established, and laws and policies for the conservation of wetlands have been adopted and evolved, but their implementation has in most cases been inefficient and does not ensure effective protection and management. International discussion on the factors that determine this reality focusses on the so-called “governance of protected areas”, looking for models of “good governance”, which are nowadays considered crucial for the protection and management of nature in the long run.
During this session we will introduce these concepts and discuss why “good governance” is important. We will also look into the basic types of governance that have been developed and are practiced in protected areas around the world.
- The central role of local societies and stakeholders in the governance of protected areas
In past times, in the developed world the authority and jurisdiction for the management of protected areas, and especially wetlands, lay with the central state, with only a few powers decentralised to regional authorities. But, as nature conservation has traditionally been a low priority for governments and the competent public services, the latter were usually weak and therefore this model had limited effectiveness and results. Gradually new models of governance have appeared and become widespread, with increasing participation of non-state actors (local stakeholders and civil society). In contemporary thinking it is believed that the conservation and management of ecosystems, and especially wetlands around which local communities live, is best achieved through the building of trust and the sharing of responsibility between as many local actors, interest groups and stakeholders as possible. During this session we will explore why this is so, and present basic elements of best participatory governance that works to reach viable compromises for conservation and sustainable development.
The practice of wetland governance in Prespa, Greece
- Before the Wetland Management Committee (1974-2007)
From the 1970s until the early 2000s the old model was practiced in the wetland of Lesser Prespa Lake in Prespa, Greece. The forestry service was responsible for wardening the protected area, while the local society was de facto managing the wetland in order to meet the needs of the primary sector activities, without taking ecosystem needs into account in a systematic way. During the last years of that period there was intensive discussion on the optimum fluctuation of the water level of Lesser Prespa Lake and the ground was cultivated for the establishment of a mature system of participatory governance for the wetland.
- The Wetland Management Committee (WMC)
This multi-stakeholder body was established in 2007, following a proposal by the SPP, in order to enable decision-making on the management of the sluice gate regulating the water level of Lesser Prespa Lake by the Management Body of the Prespa National Park (MBPNP) which had been constructed a few years earlier. The water level has since been managed, to the extent that the climatic conditions permit, in a way that serves both the needs of agriculture and of the wetland ecosystem to the maximum extent possible. The WMC is an advisory body to the Board of the MBPNP, and is composed of representatives of the various branches of the primary sector in Prespa, local and regional authorities, the ministry of environment and the SPP.
From 2008 until today its scope has expanded, it currently convenes at the beginning of the hydrological year to evaluate the management actions carried out the previous year regarding the handling of the sluice gate, the cutting and grazing of the vegetation of the littoral zone, and the measures for the protection of waterbirds and fish. It then discusses and makes recommendations for the management to be carried out during the current hydrological year. During this session, we will look more closely at how this body operates, what steps it follows to deliberate on the matters on the table and reach consensus. We will also discuss how, during the last few years, it entered into a more complex phase of organising wetland management, with the primary sector producers taking an active part not only in decision-making, but also in actual management activities on the ground. It is characteristic of the value and potential for replicability of this governance scheme that in 2014 it was one of the six finalists for the EU NATURA 2000 award in the category of “reconciling interests and perceptions”.
From 2008 until today its scope has expanded, it currently convenes at the beginning of the hydrological year to evaluate the management actions carried out the previous year regarding the handling of the sluice gate, the cutting and grazing of the vegetation of the littoral zone, and the measures for the protection of waterbirds and fish. It then discusses and makes recommendations for the management to be carried out during the current hydrological year. During this session, we will look more closely at how this body operates, what steps it follows to deliberate on the matters on the table and reach consensus. We will also discuss how, during the last few years, it entered into a more complex phase of organising wetland management, with the primary sector producers taking an active part not only in decision-making, but also in actual management activities on the ground. It is characteristic of the value and potential for replicability of this governance scheme that in 2014 it was one of the six finalists for the EU NATURA 2000 award in the category of “reconciling interests and perceptions”.
As always in real life, however, there are also difficulties and risks that are worth highlighting in relation to this model, as well as efforts to inform and involve a wider group of stakeholders in the management of the Lesser Prespa Lake wetlands – those of the neighbouring countries sharing the lakes, Albania and North Macedonia.
Lessons learnt & further reading
Lessons learnt
We lastly present conclusions and lessons from the theory and practice previously discussed. Basic elements to be considered include:
- Conservation and management of wetlands requires a cohesive and all-inclusive approach and not an one-sided perception of people as “protectors” or conversely “enemies” of nature;
- Community-based participatory conservation of wetlands as a continuous process of flexible and adaptive management is the best practice to be followed;
- Scientific ecological knowledge and socio-economic benefits, including non-financial ones, should be combined for the optimum management of wetlands;
- The Prespa model can inspire others, but is not a recipe to duplicate;
- The core elements of an effective wetland management scheme are the understanding by all participants of their shared responsibility and of the concrete interest of each stakeholder in conserving the wetland, and the admission that success and tangible results do not come overnight, but require time and long-term targets and effort.
Further reading:
For more details on the Wetland Management Committee and the history of stakeholder involvement in the Prespa protected area in Greece, see NATURA 2000 award Application 2014 and
Myrsini Malakou, «Traditional ecological knowledge, conservation and socio-ecological perspectives in the Prespa transboundary Park», Chapter 5.2, page 329 in Papayannis, T. and Pritchard, D. E. (2011), Culture and Wetlands in the Mediterranean: an Evolving Story, Athens, Med-INA.
For a general introduction on the systems of protected areas in the region of SE Europe, see
For further reading on the governance of protected areas worldwide, see
G. L. Worboys, M. Lockwood, A. Kothari, S. Feary and I. Pulsford (eds) (2015) Protected Area Governance and Management, ANU Press, Canberra (Chapter 14. Engagement and Participation in Protected Area Management: Who, why, how and when?)
For a more in-depth study of participatory (multi-level) environmental governance, see
