COMMISSIONED REPORT
Commissioned Report No.248
Social, economic and
environmental benefits of
World Heritage Sites, Biosphere
Reserves, and Geoparks
(ROAME No. F06NC05)
For further information on this report please contact:
Rachel Hellings
Scottish Natural Heritage
Battleby
Redgorton
PERTH PH1 3EW
E-mail:
[email protected]
This report should be quoted as:
Hambrey Consulting. (2007). Social, economic and environmental benefits of World
Heritage Sites, Biosphere Reserves, and Geoparks. Scottish Natural Heritage
Commissioned Report No.248 (ROAME No. F06NC05).
This report, or any part of it, should not be reproduced without the permission of Scottish Natural
Heritage. This permission will not be withheld unreasonably. The views expressed by the author(s)
of this report should not be taken as the views and policies of Scottish Natural Heritage.
© Scottish Natural Heritage 2007.
COMMISSIONED REPORT
Summary
Social, economic and environmental benefits of World
Heritage Sites, Biosphere Reserves and Geoparks
Commissioned Report No.248 (ROAME No. F06NC05)
Contractor: Hambrey Consulting
Year of publication: 2007
Background
UNESCO exists to promote collaboration among nations through education, science
and culture. Within Scotland, there are three UNESCO mechanisms to designate
areas for management towards this end - World Heritage Site (WHS), Biosphere
Reserve (BR) and Geopark.
Based on a review of case studies and documented experience from around the world, this report
makes recommendations for anticipating and maximising the social, economic and environmental
benefits from UNESCO designated areas in Scotland.
Main findings
The case studies suggest that benefits (in all categories) vary widely between sites, depending on
the resource base of the site, the nature of the local economy, governance structures, and
individuals involved. Nonetheless, many of the sites appear to deliver four key benefits:
enhanced leverage to pull in funding for a wide range of purposes;
stimulus to awareness raising and educational initiatives;
enhanced tourism image and profile;
enhanced opportunities for niche branding of local products and services.
These benefits appear to be enhanced in those cases where there is substantial community buyin, and this varies according to the approach taken to designation, as well as local circumstance
and tradition.
The actual impact of a new site in Scotland will depend very largely on:
The existing economic geography of the site. A remote site with a small local population
and a finite tourist market will confer limited social and economic benefits.
The system of site governance. A system offering only limited and formal involvement to
the local population will have a minimal impact on community capacity.
Local leadership. Where confident site management leaves power with strong local
businesses and community leaders, economic and social benefits may be marked.
The report presents a set of social, economic, environmental and governance criteria which may
be used to select or assess candidate sites in Scotland, in terms of their potential, need, and
capacity to deliver benefit.
ii
For further information on this project contact:
Rachel Hellings, Scottish Natural Heritage, Battleby, Redgorton, Perth PH1 3EW
For further information on the SNH Research & Technical Support Programme contact:
Policy & Advice Directorate Support, Scottish Natural Heritage, Great Glen House, Inverness IV3 8NW.
Tel: 01463 725000 or [email protected]
iii
CONTENTS
Executive summary.......................................................................................................... vii
1
Introduction ................................................................................................................1
2
Purpose and structure of the UNESCO designations ................................................2
2.1
World Heritage Sites ..........................................................................................2
2.2
Biosphere Reserves ...........................................................................................3
2.3
Geoparks............................................................................................................4
2.4
Designations compared......................................................................................4
3
Assessing Benefits.....................................................................................................5
3.1
Economic principles in the evaluation of benefits...............................................6
3.2
Existing policies as a basis for evaluating benefits ............................................7
3.3
Summary of benefits ........................................................................................10
4
Literature search ......................................................................................................10
4.1
UNESCO designations – functions and administration ....................................10
4.2
Measuring social, economic and environmental benefits of protected areas –
review of methods and findings....................................................................................11
4.3
Assessing the relevance of governance, the policy community and stakeholder
involvement on UNESCO designated areas - review of evidence ...............................13
5
Criteria for categorising benefits ..............................................................................14
6
Evidence of benefits - Key points from the case studies and literature....................15
6.1
Some snapshots...............................................................................................15
6.2
Environment .....................................................................................................18
6.3
Economy ..........................................................................................................18
6.4
Social................................................................................................................19
6.5
Comparison of designations.............................................................................20
7
Estimating the impacts of new sites in Scotland – methodology..............................21
7.1
The policy based approach ..............................................................................22
7.2
Wider impact assessment ................................................................................24
7.3
Local variation in impacts .................................................................................25
7.4
Other considerations for site selection .............................................................26
7.5
Indicators available in Scotland........................................................................28
8
Recommendations ...................................................................................................30
8.1
Indicator data....................................................................................................31
8.2
Criteria for site selection in Scotland ................................................................34
9
References...............................................................................................................36
10 Appendix 1 Case Studies.........................................................................................1
11 Case Study 1 Giant’s Causeway and Causeway Coast World Heritage Site ...........2
11.1 Summary ............................................................................................................2
11.2 Geography; Natural, human and economic........................................................2
11.3 Management/governance...................................................................................3
11.4 Local benefits .....................................................................................................3
11.5 Wider benefits/policy and strategy fit..................................................................4
11.6 Key lessons and hopes for the site ....................................................................4
11.7 Annex .................................................................................................................7
12 Case Study 2 West Norwegian Fjords - Geirangerfjord & Nærøyfjord - World
Heritage Site ..............................................................................................................9
12.1 Summary ............................................................................................................9
12.2 Geography; Natural, human and economic........................................................9
12.3 Management/governance.................................................................................10
12.4 Local benefits ...................................................................................................10
12.5 Wider benefits/policy and strategy fit................................................................11
12.6 Key lessons and hopes for the site ..................................................................11
12.7 Annex ...............................................................................................................14
iv
13 Case Study 3 North Pennines AONB European Geopark ......................................16
13.1 Summary ..........................................................................................................16
13.2 Geography; Natural, human and economic......................................................16
13.3 Management/governance.................................................................................17
13.4 Local benefits ...................................................................................................17
13.5 Wider benefits/policy and strategy fit................................................................19
13.6 Key lessons and hopes for the site ..................................................................19
13.7 Annex ...............................................................................................................22
14 Case Study 4 Abberley and Malvern Hills Geopark ................................................25
14.1 Summary ..........................................................................................................25
14.2 Geography; Natural, human and economic......................................................25
14.3 Management/governance.................................................................................26
14.4 Local benefits ...................................................................................................26
14.5 Wider benefits/policy and strategy fit................................................................27
14.6 Annex ...............................................................................................................29
15 Case Study 5 Braunton Burrows Biosphere Reserve .............................................31
15.1 Summary ..........................................................................................................31
15.2 Geography; Natural, human and economic......................................................31
15.3 Management/governance.................................................................................32
15.4 Local benefits ...................................................................................................33
15.5 Wider benefits/policy and strategy fit................................................................34
15.6 Key lessons and hopes for the site ..................................................................35
15.7 Annex ...............................................................................................................37
16 Case Study 6 Entlebuch Biosphere Reserve ..........................................................40
16.1 Summary ..........................................................................................................40
16.2 Geography; Natural, human and economic......................................................40
16.3 Management/governance.................................................................................41
16.4 Local benefits ...................................................................................................41
16.5 Wider benefits/policy and strategy fit................................................................43
16.6 Annex ...............................................................................................................46
17 Case Study 7 Rhön Biosphere Reserve .................................................................47
17.1 Summary ..........................................................................................................47
17.2 Geography; Natural, human and economic......................................................47
17.3 Management/governance.................................................................................47
17.4 Local benefits ...................................................................................................48
17.5 Wider benefits/policy and strategy fit................................................................49
17.6 Annex ...............................................................................................................52
18 Appendix 2 – policies in detail..................................................................................55
18.1 Scottish policy measures and indicators ..........................................................55
18.2 UNESCO objectives and measures .................................................................60
18.3 Benefits criteria and Scottish policies...............................................................62
19 Appendix 3 ...............................................................................................................63
19.1 The use of economic multipliers.......................................................................63
19.2 Using multipliers at a local level. ......................................................................65
19.3 Practical advice for the non-specialist. .............................................................66
20 Appendix 4 ...............................................................................................................67
20.1 The Criteria for Selection..................................................................................67
Tables
Table 1
How do UNESCO sites differ from other Scottish protected areas? ................5
Table 2 Scottish policy measures and/or indicators .......................................................9
Table 3 Criteria used in this study to categorise benefits from UNESCO protected
areas ................................................................................................................15
v
Table 4
Table 5
Table 6
Likely contribution of UNESCO sites to selected Scottish Policies .................23
Summary - Giant’s Causeway and Causeway Coast World Heritage Site ........6
Summary - West Norwegian Fjords - Geirangerfjord & Nærøyfjord - World
Heritage Site ....................................................................................................13
Table 7 Summary - North Pennines Geopark ...............................................................21
Table 8 Summary - Abberley and Malvern Hills Geopark .............................................28
Table 9 Summary Braunton Burrows Biosphere Reserve.............................................36
Table 10 Summary - Entlebuch Biosphere Reserve .......................................................45
Table 11 Summary - Rhön Biosphere Reserve ..............................................................51
Table 12 Benefits criteria used in this report compared with Scottish policies................62
Figures
Figure 1 Snapshots of the case studies .........................................................................17
Figure 2 Entlebuch Biosphere Reserve governance ......................................................41
Figure 3 Product Labelling - Producers and Groups40...................................................42
Figure 4 Tourism statistics .............................................................................................42
Figure 5 SWOT Analysis of RA2, dotted lines indicate equal position of factors ...........52
vi
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Scope of the study
1. This report examines the social, economic and environmental benefits of World
Heritage Sites (WHS), Biosphere Reserves (BR), and Geoparks, designated under
the auspices of the United Nations (UNESCO). A literature review and seven case
studies were used as the foundation of the report which:
–
Describes the likely potential impacts of the designations with reference to their
contribution to fulfilling Scottish policies.
–
Compares the purposes of the UNESCO designations with other Scottish
protected areas.
–
Proposes how the impacts of sites under these designations could be assessed
in Scotland
–
Recommends how to select new sites in a way that maximises the benefits of the
designations.
2. All three designations have strong educational roles and are committed to
sustainable development and stakeholder participation. However their purposes are
quite distinct:
–
–
–
WHS focus on the protection of unique heritage quality
BRs are based on a core area protected for biodiversity, with surrounding buffer
and sustainable development areas
Geoparks are intended to protect and promote earth heritage and also have a
strong tourism role.
3. Seven case studies are presented in the report:
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Giant's Causeway and Causeway Coast World Heritage Site (Northern Ireland)
West Norwegian Fjords – Geirangerfjord and Nærøyfjord World Heritage Site
North Pennine AONB European Geopark
Abberley and Malvern Hills Geopark
Braunton Burrows Biosphere Reserve
Entlebuch Biosphere Reserve (Switzerland)
Rhön Biosphere Reserve (Germany).
These case studies were desk based, drawing only on existing published materials
supplemented with information provided by site managers.
Assessing benefit
4. A range of approaches to measuring social, economic and environmental benefit that
would be applicable to these designations is evident in the literature. For economic
issues simple approaches to measuring direct local impacts can be combined with
estimates of impacts in the wider economy (using multipliers). Indirect and non-use
values are important when considering social and environmental benefit.
vii
5. We have drawn on the literature and previous studies to generate a broad
assessment framework for the case studies comprising eight high level categories of
potential benefit:
Environment
Economy
Social
Biodiversity
Employment and income
Social inclusion
Landscape/greenspace
Business opportunity
Health and well-being
Ecosystem services
Education and training
6. We have also assessed benefit in terms of contribution to the specific aims and
objectives of the UNESCO designations, and Scottish government policies, including
those for economic development, tourism, sustainable development, agriculture, rural
development, biodiversity, and landscape. These approaches are largely
complementary, since the benefits sought under these designations and policies can
be readily categorised as above.
Evidence of impact
7. There is little hard evidence in the literature about the benefits of UNESCO sites.
Some work has been done around the world, often focusing on tourism benefits.
None of this indicates how much benefit the designation itself generates compared
with the role of the underlying heritage resources. More evidence is available about
the influence of the designations on governance processes. UNESCO guidelines
encourage participation by a wide range of stakeholders and this seems to have
been put into effect at sites in many countries.
8. The case studies suggest that benefits (in all categories) vary widely between sites,
depending on the resource base of the site, the nature of the local economy,
governance structures, and individuals involved. Nonetheless, many of the sites
appear to deliver four key benefits:
–
–
–
–
Enhanced leverage to pull in funding for a wide range of purposes;
Stimulus to awareness raising and educational initiatives;
Enhanced tourism image and profile;
Enhanced opportunities for niche branding of local products and services.
These benefits appear to be enhanced in those cases where there is substantial
community buy-in, and this varies according to the approach taken to designation, as
well as local circumstance and tradition.
9. All designations seek to increase social inclusion in terms of both governance and
opportunity. The sense of place, community and collective opportunity may be
strengthened, and education and awareness benefits are likely to run deeper.
Enhanced inclusion, in the widest sense of the word, is likely to increase social and
community sustainability.
10. None of the designations confer increased statutory environmental protection,
although they do provide a mechanism and impetus for improved site management.
The success of this again depends on local circumstances. Designation does,
however, confer some leverage, since there is always the possibility of de-listing.
11. Landscape, greenspace, and to some extent ecosystem services, may benefit in
those cases where environmental awareness is raised and environmental
viii
management systems are improved, although we found no clear evidence to
demonstrate this.
12. Although local economic benefits are likely to result from an increased inflow of
funds, branding and tourism opportunities (exemplified in particular in the Entlebuch
and Rhön Case Studies), it is more difficult to identify a significant contribution to the
wider or national economy. Perverse effects need to be considered, such as
attracting funds away from other needy areas. Costs can also be significant – the
direct costs of setting up the administrative arrangements, and a range of indirect
“transaction” costs associated with establishing a major new integrated initiative.
Differences between designations
13. Although the UNESCO designations share many characteristics there are significant
differences, and these are reflected in the relative levels of benefit. All designations
are likely to generate social inclusion benefits, although this is likely to be less for the
Geopark designation, given the more limited management issues. They are also all
likely to generate increased awareness and understanding, “branding” and tourism
opportunities.
14. Otherwise relative benefits correspond broadly to the emphasis of the designation
objectives: tourism in the case of Geoparks, education and heritage conservation for
WHS, sustainable development and environmental protection for BR.
Impact of designation in Scotland
15. The case study experience suggests that designation can and does generate a range
of social, economic and environmental benefits, and these benefits are broadly
consistent with Scottish policy objectives. However, they are likely to be local, and
impact on national economic objectives may be limited.
16. The review also suggests that the actual impact of a new site in Scotland will depend
very largely on:
–
The existing economic geography of the site. A remote site with a small local
population and a finite tourist market will confer limited social and economic
benefits no matter how appropriately governed.
–
The system of site governance. A system giving only limited and formal access
to the local population may achieve some objectives but will have a minimal
impact on community capacity. The Entlebuch case – the outcomes of which
meet most relevant Scottish policy objectives - demonstrates the benefits to be
gained when the local community has a strong sense of ownership.
–
Local leadership. Where confident site management leaves power with strong
local businesses and key community leaders, economic and social benefits may
be marked.
17. Any attempt to estimate the likely impact (past or future) of an actual or proposed
UNESCO designation in Scotland should take account of basic principles for
evaluation as well as practical considerations. Outcomes are most important, but will
be difficult to measure or assess in the short term, and it may be necessary to
measure outputs and processes. Impacts may take a long time to materialise and
cover a wide area, but be small in scale compared with other forces. The benefits
arising from designation may be hard to separate from those generated by the
existing underlying resources. A range of approaches and yardsticks will be needed
ix
as a single measurement index would be too narrow. Finally, different conditions at
different sites may mean the same action has different results.
18. Three considerations are of particular importance:
–
the additional value that a UNESCO designation offers (compared with doing
nothing)
–
the likelihood of success (taking particular account of local social and economic
structures and traditions)
–
the cost of setting up and running the designation
19. Evaluation should be based as far as possible on existing data (relevant data sets
and statistics are detailed in the report) but will need to be supplemented with a clear
understanding of local social and economic structures, issues and trends. Three
issues are particularly important:
–
Potential - the area’s potential to generate benefits, especially in relation to
tourism and environmental branding
–
Need - the development needs of the area
–
Capacity - the local community and government capacity to make the designation
work
20. The report identifies relevant indicators in each case. Human or community capacity
is the most difficult to describe with existing information. The process of planning a
new site should in any case be a participative one, so this can itself be used as an
indicator of capacity.
Site selection
21. In the light of the evidence and conclusions the report makes detailed
recommendations about selecting new UNESCO sites in Scotland. A range of
mandatory and priority selection criteria are described in four categories:
–
–
–
–
environmental criteria, to ensure the site is appropriate for UNESCO designation.
economic criteria to identify the potential of the area.
social criteria to describe the area’s needs.
governance criteria to describe the area’s capacity.
22. The approach provides an objective way to compare possible sites. It is not intended
to provide an arithmetic answer. The final decision should be based on the best
balance of likely impacts, and, crucially, local enthusiasm and support. However, the
sites with the highest potential may not deliver the greatest value as many of them
are likely to be successful without a UNESCO site. The areas of greatest need are a
higher risk, but the additional impact of a UNESCO site could be greatest here.
x
1
INTRODUCTION
This report makes recommendations for anticipating and maximising the social,
economic and environmental benefits from UNESCO designated areas in
Scotland. It is based on a review of experience around the world, and sets this in
the context of national and local objectives in Scotland. In order to cover the
range of issues and scales it draws on some basic economic principles and also
takes account of the need for practical decision making.
At the start of the twenty-first century environmental policy has reached a stage
where environmental protection includes widely different types of designated
area. Geographical types range from pristine wilderness to urban landscapes.
Legislation and management may be in the hands of government locally,
regionally, nationally, at continent level, or globally. Often the responsibilities are
shared between levels. Non-governmental interest groups, including local
communities, may be given a role to play, or may demand one. The purpose of
environmental designations may be simple (one instrument — one policy) and
aimed solely at achieving environmental objectives. But increasingly
governments aim to harmonise policies across different sectors, to prevent policy
conflict and to seek synergy between them. In which case environmental
designations may be required to deliver benefits for health, tourism, education,
and many other fields.
In this complex policy world which environmental designations are most suited in
different places? Which will deliver the benefits that a particular suite of policy
objectives seek? And which will be most effective on the ground, with the key
actors? The answer is not obvious. It is particularly difficult to deal with in the
case of international designations. They are designed to apply in a wide range of
regions and across the whole of the development spectrum. So although terms
such as World Heritage Site may be widely known, the role of the sites may be
harder to understand in national or local terms.
This is the context for thinking about the benefits of UNESCO sites, and it
provided the starting point for this study. The source material here is taken from
published and unpublished reports of any kind and from discussions with key
contacts at a range of case study sites. The report is not restricted to experience
in Scotland or the UK, though most of the material included here has come from
countries at a similar development stage to the UK. However, Scottish
government policies are an important influence on any assessment of the
potential of environmental designations, so that is another important starting point.
Equally, non-governmental groups may see benefits in different terms and the
report aims to take account of this.
The scope of the analysis is broad, covering any social, economic and
environmental benefits arising from UNESCO designations. Benefits must, of
course, be considered “net”: taking account of any costs and disbenefits that may
arise from designation. Ideally the effects of nested designations will be
separated out so the additional effects of the UNESCO sites can be isolated. The
report must also seek to get behind the aspirations and to report on the realities.
Economic benefits arising from sites may be in the form of market based goods
and services, or in the less easily measured form of public goods. Both are
important to society. Finally, UNESCO sites may have subtle effects: the
governance processes they inspire may ease the path for existing national
environmental protection designations, and so increase their effectiveness.
None of these points are easy to address as there are few rigorous evaluations of
UNESCO sites available, and fewer still are quantitative. To get round this we
1
have used the source material to paint a series of pictures through case studies.
Consultation with a local contact in each case should have ensured that the cases
are both accurate and insightful.
The Scottish policy landscape is complex so the report reviews the most relevant
policies and measures. From them it derives a more manageable set of possible
benefits or criteria. These provide a consistent framework for describing and
discussing the evidence. The approach taken here follows on from previous
studies of this type, and develops it.
At the other end of the scale UNESCO has global objectives and each of the
designations has its own set of goals and mechanisms. The international
dimension is one of the unique features of the designations, and may be one of
their benefits. This cannot be assumed however. For example, a progressive
increase in the number of WHS is likely to be partly a result of states’ wish to
market their heritage resources to tourists. The role of UNESCO, the likelihood of
devaluing the WHS brand, and the scope for other organisations to promote other
international heritage brands, is a topical issue (The Economist, 2006). The
report takes these questions into account.
Ultimately the answer to the question about benefits is required to help decide
how Scotland should proceed with UNESCO sites – more, less, the same, or
different types? In the light of the evidence gathered here we make
recommendations about methods for estimating the impacts of new sites. Finally,
we propose criteria that could be used to select new sites that will deliver the
greatest benefits.
2
PURPOSE AND STRUCTURE OF THE UNESCO DESIGNATIONS
2.1
World Heritage Sites
“The cultural and natural heritage is among the priceless and irreplaceable
assets, not only of each nation, but of humanity as a whole,” (UNESCO, 2005).
The World Heritage Convention (UNESCO, 1972) embodies this principle and
adds that parts of our heritage are of outstanding universal value and must be
specially protected. Since 1972 the UNESCO approach has recognised that
sustainable development can make a contribution to conserving and protecting
world heritage.
One of the main practical results of the convention has been the establishment of
World Heritage Sites (WHS), which comprise features of outstanding universal
value. Countries that have signed the convention nominate proposed WHS to the
UNESCO World Heritage Committee. If the Committee accepts that the sites
meet certain criteria they are added to the World Heritage List and become WHS.
By signing the convention countries accept a range of world heritage duties: they
should involve a wide range of stakeholders, identify the lead government
department, and allow their heritage experts to discuss implementation. The
convention also identifies a number of specific duties on countries to protect and
promote cultural and natural heritage. One of these is that they should propose a
list of WHS to the UNESCO committee.
WHS designation may be based on the cultural or natural heritage of a site
(defined in Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention), or on a combination of the two. If
a number of separate sites in combination are of outstanding universal value they
may be designated as a single “serial property”. Any WHS may cross national
boundaries if the normal criteria are met.
2
WHS must be of outstanding universal value, meaning “cultural and/or natural
significance which is so exceptional as to transcend national boundaries and to be
of common importance for present and future generations of all humanity,”
(UNESCO, 2005). The ten criteria used to assess this can be summarised as
follows (mainly natural heritage in bold, see also Appendix 4):
1
2
3
4
5
a masterpiece of human creative genius
an interchange of human values in design or planning
testimony to a cultural tradition or civilization
an example of a stage in human history
a traditional human settlement, land-use, or sea-use especially when it
has become vulnerable
6 associated with events or living traditions, with ideas, beliefs, or art/literature
7 natural phenomena or areas of exceptional natural beauty
8 examples representing major stages of earth's history
9 examples representing significant ongoing ecological and biological
processes
10 natural habitats for in-situ conservation of biological diversity
Apart from outstanding universal value, sites must also meet conditions of
integrity and, for sites relevant to criteria 1-6, authenticity. Authenticity concerns
the credibility and truthfulness of cultural heritage, generally by reference to
values and norms within the relevant culture. All WHS sites must meet the
integrity condition, which has three components: including all the heritage
elements necessary to express the site’s value, adequate size, and lack of
deterioration due to neglect or development.
Once WHS are included in the world list the main focus must be on their
protection and management, with the aim of retaining and enhancing their
universal value and authenticity/integrity. This must be done by legislation and
regulation as well as by following traditional management processes. One
prerequisite is for sites to have clearly defined boundaries that include all the
relevant assets and make sense as functional units. Additional buffer zones may
be defined to improve the protection of the main site, even though they may not
meet the full WHS criteria. Every site must have a management plan. Sites that
have uses apart from heritage conservation must be used in ways that are
ecologically and culturally sustainable and do not have adverse impacts on the
world heritage resources.
2.2
Biosphere Reserves
UNESCO launched Biosphere Reserves (BR) in 1976 as a contribution to the
Man and Biosphere Programme (MAB) objective of achieving a balance between
conserving biological diversity, promoting economic development, and
maintaining associated cultural values. BRs are intended to provide a means of
testing, refining, demonstrating, and implementing this objective (UNESCO,
1995). As with WHS, states nominate their chosen sites which are then assessed
against standard criteria and conditions before they are eligible to be listed as part
of the BR network.
Every reserve should contribute to the three MAB objectives of conservation,
development, and education. The last includes direct demonstration,
environmental education and training, as well as research and monitoring. To
assist in achieving these complex objectives reserves should be structured into
core protected areas, buffer zones, and a transition or co-operation area. Buffer
zones include sustainable management activities compatible with the needs of the
core area and including sustainable tourism and recreation. The transition area
3
can include a wide range of economic activities and human settlements. The aim
here is to develop these in a sustainable way that is linked to, and compatible
with, the rest of the reserve.
The Seville strategy (UNESCO, 1995) identified four objectives for BR:
to conserve natural and cultural diversity,
to provide models of land management and sustainable development,
to provide for research, monitoring, education and training, and
to strengthen the BR network itself.
Under each main objective the strategy lists a number of more specific objectives
and actions, and indicates whether the latter apply at international, national, or
reserve level. Section 18.2 lists reserve level activities or objectives that are most
relevant for this study.
The Seville+5 review of BRs (UNESCO, 2001) identified some additional
initiatives that would improve the effectiveness of the network and its reserves. In
particular the concept of “quality economies” was introduced, which deals with the
potential of branding and marketing, and the need for a stronger socio-economic
perspective on BRs.
2.3
Geoparks
The Global Network of National Geoparks was formed by UNESCO in 2004, as a platform
for cooperation and exchange between experts and practitioners in geological heritage
matters on a worldwide scale.
The aim of the Network is to provide “an international framework to enhance the value of
the Earth heritage, its landscapes and geological formations, which are key witnesses to
the history of life” (UNESCO, 2006). In practice the purpose of geoparks is seen as being
wider than this: “Geoparks are not just about rocks – they are about people ... we want to
see as many people as possible getting out and enjoying the geology of the area. Our
aim is to maximise geotourism...” (Woodley-Stewart, quoted in UNESCO, 2006b).
A European country wishing to apply for a Geopark within its borders to become a
member of the Global Network of Geoparks must follow the European Geoparks Network
process and criteria for application, and UNESCO participates at every stage in the
evaluation of and decision on the applications. When a proposal is accepted the Geopark
is added to the Global Network. UNESCO Guidelines for developing geoparks refer to six
criteria:
•
size and setting,
•
management and local involvement,
•
economic development,
•
education,
•
protection and conservation, and
•
contribution to the global network.
The Geopark applicants’ self-assessment form (see Annex in UNESCO, 2006) gives an
indication of the relative importance attached to the criteria. 35% of the weighting is
based on conservation, 25% on management, 15% each on education and geotourism,
and 10% on economic development.
Unlike WHS and BR designations Geoparks show a less centralised lead from UNESCO.
Although the organisation provides branding and helps to control admission to the global
network, there is considerable activity at continental level, for instance through the
European Geoparks network.
2.4
Designations compared
Scotland has a multitude of national and international designations for the
conservation and management of natural heritage at a site level. The following
table indicates how the objectives overlap and can be distinguished, using a
broad classification of characteristics.
4
How do UNESCO sites differ from other Scottish protected areas?
National Nature Reserves
Sites of Special Scientific
Interest
National Scenic Areas
National Parks
Ramsar Sites
Special Protection Areas
Special Areas of
Conservation
World Heritage Sites
Biosphere Reserves
Geoparks
KEY
Major function
Minor function
3
ASSESSING BENEFITS
Economic theory can describe benefits in terms of the provision of goods and
services, whether they are simple commodities or more complex social and
environmental factors. The difficult part of the question is always “who benefits?”.
Section 4 demonstrates that there are often concerns about how equitably
benefits (and costs) are distributed. Different individuals and groups value
benefits differently, and there is rarely a consensus even in small groups at a local
level. This poses some problems for a study such as this which aims to describe
benefits and make recommendations about maximising them.
We have taken two complementary approaches. First we have used Scottish
policies to identify priorities and objectives which have a high degree of
consensus. Although they include some divergent goals they are a reasonable
indication of the priority the public attaches to different issues. Of course they
also provide the administrative framework for decision making so they are directly
relevant to the management of UNESCO sites in Scotland. Policies influence the
way government collects information so they are also relevant to methods for
selecting UNESCO sites and maximising their benefits.
National policies conceal the divergence of opinion between sectors and
localities, however. They are also subject to political change and may not be
stable in the longer term. On their own they are not an adequate way of defining
benefits. So this report also adopts a more basic approach to defining benefits,
5
Participation
International
network
Economic
development
Tourism
Research
Education
Promotion
Landscape
Geology/geo
morphology
Biodiversity
Protection
Recreation
Table 1
using principles from economic and sustainable development theory. The result
is a more open range of benefits, which may mean more to people at a local level,
and should appeal to a wider range of interests.
Throughout the report both approaches are used to describe benefits, as
appropriate. The next section outlines the principles behind the general economic
approach to analysing impacts.
3.1
Economic principles in the evaluation of benefits
UNESCO designations are granted to sites satisfying a number of criteria, and are
intended to contribute towards a series of economic, social and environmental
objectives relating to sustainable development. Evaluation of the impact,
efficiency and effectiveness of designations can contribute to their utility and is
increasingly promoted by various bodies.
At the start (ex-ante) evaluation may assist in clarifying the likely costs and
benefits associated with designation, and inform choices between candidate sites.
Evaluation of progress (ex-post) may offer assessment of real costs and benefits
and help to guide best practice for future designations and management.
However, weighing-up the relative costs and benefits associated with any
UNESCO designation is a difficult task since identification and quantification are
hindered by several factors.
First, the objectives of a designation may be described in terms of processes and
outputs rather than outcomes. It may be possible to translate them into outcome
benefits, but for practical reasons it may be better for the evaluation to focus on
the effectiveness and efficiency of achievement of the stated objectives.
Second, economic, social and environmental systems tend to be dynamic rather
than static in nature and to have complex spatial linkages. That is, cause and
effect may be separated by distance in both time and space, and to evolve over
time. This leads to what, in economics, are termed direct, indirect, and induced
effects plus halo and spill-over effects. For example, raising levels of human
capital through education programmes takes time and higher skilled workers may
not necessarily remain locally. Consequently, identification of costs and
(especially) benefits becomes more challenging and monitoring efforts must be
directed by scientific principles.
Third, scientific data and understanding of systems is rarely complete and such
systems often display stochastic rather than deterministic qualities. In other
words the data available, and models derived from it, may fail to capture true
relationships adequately. As a result the predicted effects may be wrong because
of external and random factors. For example, re-establishment of a particular
plant species at a site may depend as much upon seed-banks in neighbouring
areas and favourable weather conditions over a period of several years as it does
upon size and shape of a site and its sympathetic management. So even if the
choice and management of a designation is entirely appropriate, the achievement
of desired outcomes may be frustrated.
Fourth, concerns about system complexity and an understandable desire to
measure more easily observable results, may have led to monitoring that is
directed towards aspects of the designation or compliance process rather than
actual outcomes. Hence, for example, monitoring of hectarage enrolment and
visitor numbers rather than biodiversity enhancement or visitor enjoyment (and
another reason why process and output are monitored rather than outcome).
6
Fifth, evaluation entails careful consideration of “additionality” – the
counterfactual: what would have happened in the absence of the designation1?
To put it another way, as the flip-side of the opportunity cost coin, what additional
benefits have been gained? As with chances forgone, benefits gained can be
difficult to discern – especially if the possibility of “displacement” from other sites
is taken into account. For example, income generated within a designated site
may merely be at the expense of income lost from neighbouring areas. Given the
apparent tendency for designations to “stack” on some sites2, the additionality of a
given designation may be even more difficult to discern (SNH, 2005).
Finally, even if cost and benefit categories can be identified and measured it is
still difficult to compare and aggregate across categories. In particular, it may be
unacceptable to use the same yardstick to compare certain factors, or even to
compare them at all. In that case implicit value judgements supported by a mix of
qualitative and quantitative measures may be used. For example, methods such
as contingent valuation are not universally accepted as accurate or indeed
appropriate measures of the richness of cultural and social non-use values
embodied in landscapes. Equally, the distribution of costs and benefits across
different groups is rarely equal, leading to consideration of equity – measures of
which are difficult to agree. Combined with the other evaluation problems, this
lends support to the adoption of “rapid appraisal” techniques, accepting input and
output objectives and available data as proxies for outcome measurement.
Consequently, evaluation exercises may merely “flag” categories of costs and
benefits and trends (positive/negative) in their condition, offering a mix of
quantitative measures of impact and descriptive expressions of others.
3.2
Existing policies as a basis for evaluating benefits
Having described the economic principles involved in describing benefits, we now
look at the existing policies that might benefit from UNESCO designations.
The presence of all three types of protected area in Scotland suggests that
UNESCO, the UK Government, and the Scottish Executive have broadly similar
objectives for protection and sustainable use of heritage and environment. The
priority they attach to the detailed objectives is likely to vary, and at a regional or
site level a different set of local priorities is likely to exist.
So different stakeholders are likely to perceive the benefits of UNESCO sites in
different ways, depending upon their geographical place and their constituency.
In order to understand these sets of priorities, and the related objectives
measures and indicators, it was necessary to unpick national and international
policies and to relate the detailed elements to one another. Having done so it
became obvious where there is overlap between policy objectives.
The main part of this report is based on a relatively simple set of criteria which
group likely benefits. The criteria were informed by the policy analysis, and can
be traced back to specific objectives in Scottish or UNESCO policies. However
the detailed relationships are difficult to present, so most of this material has been
relegated to Appendix 2 – policies in detail. A simplified analysis of the
interactions between Scottish and UNESCO policy objectives is presented in
Table 4 on page 23.
1
The term additionality is used to refer to the additional effect of an instrument of this type. In
economic language the term counter-factual is used to describe what would have happened in the
absence of the instrument.
2
See Table 1
7
The Scottish policies, the key themes arising from them, and the UNESCO
objectives for the three types of site are as follows.
3.2.1 Key Scottish policies included in the study
A Framework for Economic Development in Scotland, as implemented
through Smart Successful Scotland (Scottish Executive, 2004)
Scottish Tourism: The Next Decade - A Tourism Framework for Change
(Scottish Executive, 2006)
Choosing our future: Scotland's sustainable development strategy (Scottish
Executive, 2005a)
A Forward Strategy for Scottish Agriculture (Scottish Executive, 2001)
Rural Scotland - a new approach (Scottish Executive, 2000)
Scotland's Biodiversity: It's in Your Hands - A strategy for the conservation
and enhancement of biodiversity in Scotland (Scottish Executive, 2004b)
European Landscape Convention (Council of Europe, 2000)
3.2.2 Scottish policy priorities, measures and indicators
The Scottish policies analysed here included 142 measures or indicators. It is
clearly difficult to work with such a large array of information, yet condensing it
loses some of the reality. In this report there is also a need to keep as much
detail as possible to inform the later sections on significant impacts and site
selection. The table below is based on the following simplification of the policy
measures and indicators:
Duplicate measures and indicators have been removed
Measures and indicators that are of no relevance to UNESCO sites have
been removed
Similar measures have been grouped within a policy, as have similar
measures across policies. These are indicated by the term “(various)”.
The result is a more manageable table that covers all the relevant policies, draws
out from them the relevant priorities, and where possible lists the targets and
indicators the Scottish Executive has identified. The following table also provides
the basis for the analysis in Table 4, page 23.
8
Table 2
Scottish policy measures and/or indicators
POLICY
PRIORITY/ MEASURE/ INDICATOR
Climate change (various)
Cross Policy
Un/employment (various)
Education and training (various)
Community/ demography (various)
Gross Domestic Product per head of population
Smart Successful Scotland
High growth firms (business starts)
Percentage of businesses trading online
Proportion of employers exporting
Value of tourism revenue
Tourism Framework for change
Number of visitors
Tourism quality (various)
Sustainable tourism (various)
Choosing our Future
Ecosystem Health (various)
A Forward Strategy for Scottish
Agriculture
Business development/ diversification (various)
Visits to the countryside
Rural Scotland - a new approach
We will improve access to services essential to our life
and work, and ensure that quality of life will depend on
what you need, not where you are.
Scotland's natural and cultural heritage must be allowed to
flourish in all its diversity. We will encourage local and
regional influences to play their part ..
Species protection (various)
Biodiversity Action Plan
Scotland's biodiversity - it's in your
hands
Protected areas (various)
Sustainable use (various)
Integration and landscape scale (various)
European Landscape Convention
Landscape protection (various)
3.2.3 UNESCO criteria and objectives
As with Scottish policies, the UNESCO policies also include a range of quite
specific objectives. The full list (shown in Appendix 1 section 18.2) runs to 68
objectives and measures. The main topics within this are as follows.
World Heritage Sites (UNESCO, 2005)
Outstanding universal value (selection criterion)
Integrity
Protection
Biosphere Reserves (UNESCO, 1995)
Integrate biosphere reserves into [biodiversity] conservation planning
9
Secure the support and involvement of local people
Ensure better harmonization and interaction among the different biosphere
reserve zones
Integrate biosphere reserves into regional planning
Improve knowledge of the interactions between humans and the biosphere
Improve monitoring activities
Improve education, public awareness and involvement
Improve training for specialists and managers
Integrate the functions of biosphere reserves
Geoparks (UNESCO, 2006c)
Management and protection
Information and education
Geotourism
Sustainable Regional Economy
3.3
Summary of benefits
This section has outlined the theoretical and practical issues to be considered
when assessing socio-economic impacts and benefits. As another way of
assessing benefits it has also outlined how UNESCO sites may contribute to
national and international policies. The next section reviews the published
evidence.
4
LITERATURE SEARCH
The main purpose of the literature search was to establish what impacts might be
expected at UNESCO sites, how the impacts could be evaluated, and what
evidence existed about the impacts of existing sites. In order to do so it was also
necessary to review the functions and administration of UNESCO designations.
4.1
UNESCO designations – functions and administration
The UN has published a wealth of literature on site designation. The concept of
developing social, environmental and economic benefits is, in theory, well
entrenched at least in relation to Biosphere Reserve (BR) and Geopark (GP)
designation. Section 2 explains the key documents that set out the legislation,
guidelines, criteria and conditions pertaining to the various designations. To
recap briefly on the available literature the key papers and their relevance are
described below, together with any initiatives specifically related to the impacts of
designation.
For World Heritage Sites, the key papers are the UN Convention dating from 1972
(UNESCO, 1972) and updated guidelines written in 2005 (UNESCO, 2005). An
explanation of the criteria for designating sites is repeated here in Appendix 4.
World Heritage Sites that are not only used for heritage conservation (i.e. are
more than a man-made structure alone) must be used in ways that are
ecologically and culturally sustainable. To assist with this the joint
IUCN/UNESCO project “Enhancing our Heritage” (UNESCO, 2007a, 2006e) has
been testing a tool-box of monitoring methods on sites in Africa, Latin America
and South Asia, although none as yet in Europe. This approach, which uses the
IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) “Management
Effectiveness Evaluation Framework” is to be extended to other World Heritage
Sites. The framework was revised and reprinted in 2006 and may also be
relevant to Biosphere Reserves and Geoparks (Hockings et al, 2006). The
gateway relating to World Heritage Sites is at the UN website (UNESCO, 2007d).
10
For Biosphere Reserves the essential UN references are the Seville Strategy
(UNESCO, 1995) and the Seville+ 5 report (UNESCO, 2001) written 5 years later.
These papers show the development of the original Biosphere Reserve concept
(described in section 2.2) to include strong socio-economic components as well
as core environmental objectives. The Biosphere Reserve Integrated Monitoring
(BRIM) (UNESCO, 2007b) scheme has provided assistance with multi-disciplinary
monitoring of Biosphere Reserves since its launch in 1991. BRIM has resulted in
a guide on concepts and methods for social monitoring (Lass and Reusswig,
2002), and various ecological databases. In 2002 the UNESCO Man and the
Biosphere programme also set up a Task Force to provide advice and guidance
on key Biosphere issues relating to “quality economies” (UNESCO, 2007c). This
includes advice on marketing, conservation finance, eco-jobs and sustainable
tourism. A UN website (UNESCO, 2007e) provides the gateway to official
information on the network of Biosphere Reserves.
For Geoparks, UNESCO provides a set of guidelines and criteria (UNESCO,
2006c) for national geoparks aiming to belong to the Global Geoparks network.
There are two main Geopark organisations, the Global Geopark network (World
Geoparks Network, 2007) and the European Geopark network, with UNESCO
(UNESCO, 2006b) acting as umbrella organisation and adjudicator on admission
to the Global network. This is a recent designation, with the first sites named in
2004. There are currently five sites in the UK and one in the Republic of Ireland.
4.2
Measuring social, economic and environmental benefits of protected areas
– review of methods and findings.
4.2.1 Methods
Section 3.1 describes the principles involved in measuring impacts and benefits.
It is clear that both theoretical and practical difficulties arise. So, in order to make
the question more approachable, simplified models and frameworks have been
developed. Both Moxey (Moxey, 1999) and Stoll-Kleeman (Stoll-Kleemann et al,
2006) describe theoretical frameworks such as the OECD DSR framework (see
OECD, 2003), which divide indicators into those of state (e.g. environmental
indicators), driving force (e.g. weather, government policies) and response
(buying behaviour, migration of people and animals, policy changes).
Formal guidance has also been issued by government bodies, setting out their
expectations for assessment of policy and programme interventions (e.g.
European Commission 2007, HM Treasury, 2007). Specific guidance on
spatially-targeted interventions (such as site designations) is also available (HM
Communities and Local Government, 2007).
An economic benefit analysis such as the one used for Natura 2000 sites in
Scotland (Scottish Executive 2004c) uses techniques such as contingent
valuation alongside conventional estimates of market based economic activity.
This broadens the scope of the analysis to allow for non-use (e.g. existence
value) as well as direct (e.g. recreation) and indirect (e.g. ecosystem services)
values. The result is a mix of different types of value collected by different
evaluation methods, expressed as a single monetary index. The validity of such a
result can be contentious. In addition the scope may still be too limited, and the
Scottish study itself noted that social, cultural, educational and health benefits
must be treated separately. Nor are the wider economic impacts covered by a
site based benefits study. For example the impact of tourism or food labelling in
the local economy must be estimated in other ways.
In the USA the National Parks Service spreadsheet-based model (the Money
Generation Model or MGM) (Stynes and Propst 2001) is used to estimate the
11
effect a national park has on the local economy. The purpose and use of this
model is summarised in an open letter (Gregory 2002), which states that “the
MGM is…a refined formula…designed by an economist for application by noneconomist professionals to estimate economic benefits in the local area around a
park.” The model uses multipliers (see Appendix 3, page 63, for discussion of this
concept) to help estimate the benefits. It is quite adaptable and can be updated.
The US government has also developed an Environmental Benefits Index
(Cattaneo et al 2006) to determine whether or not it is worth putting a particular
area of farmland into what is similar to the EU’s set-aside. They rank possible
benefits to arrive at an overall score, and use this across all states. In Europe,
Cardiff University have produced a set of Best Practice Guidelines relating to
assessing the economic value of protected areas (IUCN 1998). This guideline
includes the American MGM model, considering that it is of use for the local
community situation, but prefers to use contingent valuation to look at the bigger
picture in terms of national resource allocation.
Hambrey Consulting (Hambrey 2004) developed a relatively simple framework for
indicator based assessment of social, economic and environmental impacts of
SNH activity and designations. This drew on the broad dimensions of sustainable
development on the one hand, and various existing policy related indicator suites
on the other. It also emphasised the need to use task and locality appropriate
indicators to assess impact against the higher level dimensions or criteria
associated with sustainable development.
4.2.2 Findings
Across the world a wide range of published material addresses the benefits of
UNESCO designated sites, though Geoparks are less well represented
presumably because of their youth. Much of the material deals with developing
countries, where both development and conservation needs are intense. In any
part of the world descriptions of aspirations for achieving benefits are much more
common than robust evaluation of outcomes.
The purpose of geoparks in China has been described as both conservation and
development (Xun and Milly, 2002), and their socio-economic benefits estimated
in terms of tourism numbers, tourism revenue, tourism jobs, and capital value of
tourism projects (Xun and Ting, 2003). However it is not clear what proportion of
these benefits would have arisen without geopark status. Some benefits can be
attributed to the designation more directly, including the educational value of
linking scientific knowledge with the tourist industry, and the opportunities for
international scientific exchange.
SE Asia also offers experience in considering the benefits at a World Heritage
Site (Kim et al,, 2007) and Biosphere Reserve (Lu et al, 2006a). At the former a
willingness-to-pay survey of visitors to a cultural site suggested values about 2.5
higher than the admission rate charged. At the latter, conservation management
incentives and tourism have both increased local employment rates. Some social
problems have arisen because of in-migration from adjacent areas. In neither
case was any attempt made to separate the effects of the UNESCO designation
from the effects of the heritage resources themselves.
Perhaps the most practical attempt to assess the economic impact of a World
Heritage Site comes from Atlantic Consultants in their report (Atlantic Consultants,
2003) on the likely such effects of the proposal to designate the Cornish tin mining
area. This takes a pragmatic approach using the best available information to
describe the likely economic effects. It is a time-consuming and specialist
approach, but is essentially a tailor-made version of the American MGM model.
12
Moxey (2006) adopted a similarly pragmatic approach when assessing the public
benefits purchased by public support of an area of private land in a Scottish
national park.
The costs of establishing and managing a designated site are rarely reported,
even though this is an important factor in determining any net benefit. SNH
(2005) estimated set up costs of £100k per year for a Biosphere Reserve in
Scotland, with an additional £4-500k investment required to develop a quality
mark. In the longer term the reserve would continue to require public support
though the quality mark should be self-financing.
4.3
Assessing the relevance of governance, the policy community and
stakeholder involvement on UNESCO designated areas - review of evidence
Differing regional governance and local management systems are likely to
influence the impacts of new UNESCO designated areas and there is
considerable published literature on how this influence varies. The need for
management systems effective enough to successfully link conservation and
development is explicitly recognised in the Seville Strategy on Biosphere
Reserves. This states that “the link between the conservation of biodiversity and
the development needs of local communities are…now a key feature of the
successful management of …protected areas”.
Policies in Europe are moving towards linking biodiversity protection with local
economic gain, with recognition of the role of social cohesion in doing so. The
origins of this approach lie in experience from overseas development projects,
though the approach is now accepted globally (Pretty and Smith, 2003). StollKleemann (Stoll-Kleemann, 2001) describes this experience in Germany and
underlines the complexities of the situation. She develops the concept of a “policy
community” of agencies and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) which fails
to capture the public imagination due partly to a stereotyped “social memory” of
how these agencies have behaved in the past. She notes that even when this is
acknowledged, the ideals of “inclusory participation”, proper consultation, and
stakeholder power, may not always achieve the level of environmental protection
required by some, as other interests may come to dominate.
Writing five years later (Stoll-Kleeman, 2005), Stoll-Kleemann alludes to the
difficulty of economic “exploitation” of resources when the safe carrying capacity
is unknown. The point that participation is not a panacea for defusing conflict and
achieving equity is often cited: interest groups may manipulate the system for
ends which are not desirable for either environmental protection or economic and
social development (Pretty and Smith, 2003).
For example, before the Seville strategy a review of the impacts of Biosphere
Reserve designation in the US (Solecki, 1994) concluded that a range of tensions
can arise between interest groups in the same way as with other land use
planning. In particular the shift in the distribution of costs and benefits can be
inequitable, with the most politically powerful groups benefiting most. Where local
authorities derive a significant share of their income from land taxes the changes
resulting from Biosphere designations can reduce tax revenue and lead to the
loss of public services, with poorer people suffering most. In that study the
solution to all these issues was seen as being through an improved technocratic
process, with more integration between environmental and development
agencies.
13
Recognising these issues the Governance3 of Biodiversity (GoBi 2007) Research
Project is working on the complex web of factors involved in successful
management of protected areas. Their specific aim is to “disentangle some of
these complexities by integrating ecological and socio-economic approaches that
result in better governance of protected areas”. They are engaged in both
quantitative and qualitative studies on thirteen sites worldwide, although none in
Europe, and were scheduling a quantitative survey of all Biosphere Reserves
during 2006. Their first discussion paper (Stoll-Kleemann 2006 Berlin) describes
the various theoretical models (such as the OECD model (OECD, 2003)) used to
formalise the relationship between man and the environment, and concentrates
on environmental aspects.
Social analysis of a Swiss World Heritage Site (Wiesmann et al 2005) provides a
practical example of both the role of participatory processes in developing site
management objectives, and the variety of socio-economic outcomes sought by
different stakeholder groups. Eight “orientation pathways” are used in the site
plan, covering objectives including resource conservation, increased economic
use, promotion and marketing, local consumption, etc. The analysis suggests
that the high level of stakeholder participation was a direct result of the UNESCO
designation. Case study 6 describes this in more detail.
The Rhoen region of Germany has been a particular focus of attention on social
and economic benefits of a biosphere reserve. A variety of economic benefits has
been reported (Fremuth, 2004). Many are based on tourism, branding, and local
consumption networks. The impacts are not quantified in that study and there is
no estimate of what would have happened in the region following re-unification in
the absence of the reserve. However, the key role of the reserve appears to be
the way it draws people together across local government boundaries and
economic sectors. The focus it provides for public sector spending, such as EU
LEADER funding, and the link between environment and economy also seem to
be important. Case study 7 describes this in more detail.
This review makes it clear why UNESCO has recognised that governance is a
critical element in biodiversity conservation, and for the Biosphere Reserve
programme. A UNESCO technical note describes the need for participation and
some mediation techniques available to achieve it (UNESCO, 2006d). More
generally, a variety of approaches has been recommended for sustainability
valuation and appraisal, many of them based on stakeholder participation (SDRN,
2007). We refer to this again when discussing methods for site evaluation and
selection (section 8.2).
5
CRITERIA FOR CATEGORISING BENEFITS
In the light of the policy objectives outlined in section 3 and the literature search
(section 4) the research team identified a set of criteria for categorising benefits.
They are listed in Table 3, below. The criteria were developed from the general
set used by Hambrey (Hambrey, 2004) in a study of impacts arising from natural
heritage activity and designations. They have been modified to reflect the
objectives of UNESCO designations and the priorities attached to the full range of
Scottish policies, as set out in section 3.2. The table is thus a synthesis of
3
UNDP defines governance as follows: “..the exercise of political, economic and administrative
authority in the management of a country’s affairs at all levels. Governance comprises the
complex mechanisms, processes and institutions through which citizens and groups articulate
their interests, mediate their differences and exercise their legal rights and obligations. Good
governance has many attributes. It is participatory, transparent and accountable. It is effective in
making the best use of resources and is equitable. And it promotes the rule of law.” (UNDP 1997)
14
benefits defined from basic principles and from relevant policies. The match
between these criteria and Scottish policies is illustrated in Table 12 on page 62
Table 3
Criteria used in this study to categorise benefits from UNESCO
protected areas
Criteria
Examples
Environment
Biodiversity
Species and habitat condition
Landscape/greenspace
Landscape protection
Ecosystem services
Water quality, carbon storage
Economy
Employment and income
Increase in ‘green jobs’
Branding of produce
Business opportunity
Rural diversification including agriculture
Tourism value
e-business initiatives
Social
Social inclusion policy (narrow sense4)
Social inclusion
Public participation
Demographic trends/ public services/
infrastructure
Health and well-being
Countryside recreation
Schools projects
Volunteering for the environment
Education and training
Community learning and development
(including community cohesion, linked to
public participation)
6
EVIDENCE OF BENEFITS - KEY POINTS FROM THE CASE STUDIES AND
LITERATURE
The benefits highlighted in the literature are illustrated by the case studies in
Appendix 1, page 1. They are based on published information about the site, and
have been checked with someone from the site or locality, as far as possible.
They reflect what may be achieved with each designation and highlight factors
that improve or reduce the scale of benefits. They are not intended to be a full
assessment of the case study sites. That would require primary research and
was beyond the scope of this project.
6.1
Some snapshots
The case studies illustrate that any of the categories of UNESCO site can
potentially contribute to any of the eight broad criteria of benefit defined in this
study. The extent to which sites do so, and the mix of benefits they achieve, is
very variable. Partly this is a result of inherent characteristics of the site, locality,
and community. Partly it is a result of how the site is administered and managed.
4
By “narrow sense” we mean groups excluded because of poverty, gender, ethnicity, health,
disability etc.
15
When new sites are being considered both their inherent potential and the extent
of the commitment to appropriate governance (including, but not only, funding)
must be taken into account.
It can be dangerous to oversimplify, but some tools are needed to help people to
think about a range of different issues and the possible trade-offs between them.
The following diagrams are one way of visualising the extent to which each site
meets the 8 criteria we have defined. A simple ranking including 0 (not
applicable), and ranging from 1 (low contribution) to 3 (high contribution)
describes how the site meets each criterion. The judgements are based on the
research team’s view of the evidence presented in this report. We have only
considered the current situation at each site, and have not taken account of plans
for the future, or potential. As this was a desk study there may be inaccuracies
and we use it here mainly to illustrate the approach.
16
Figure 1
Snapshots of the case studies
West Norwegian Fjords - Geirangerfjord & Nærøyfjord World Heritage Site
Giant’s Causeway and Causeway Coast World Heritage Site
Biodiversity
3
Education and training
2
Biodiversity
3
Landscape & green
space
Education and training
1
Health and well-being
Landscape & green
space
1
Ecosystem services
0
Health and well-being
Employment and
Income
Social Inclusion
2
Ecosystem services
0
Employment and
Income
Social Inclusion
Business opportunities
Business opportunities
North Pennines AONB European Geopark
Abberley and Malvern Hills Geopark
Biodiversity
3
Biodiversity
3
Education and training
2
Landscape & green
space
Education and training
1
Health and well-being
Landscape & green
space
1
0
Ecosystem services
Health and well-being
Employment and
Income
Social Inclusion
2
0
Ecosystem services
Employment and
Income
Social Inclusion
Business opportunities
Business opportunities
Braunton Burrows Biosphere Reserve
Entlebuch Biosphere Reserve
Biodiversity
3
Biodiversity
3
Education and training
2
Landscape & green
space
Education and training
Health and well-being
Ecosystem services
0
Employment and
Income
Social Inclusion
2
Landscape & green
space
1
Health and well-being
0
Social Inclusion
Ecosystem services
Employment and Income
Business opportunities
Rhon Biosphere Reserve
Education and training
0
Social Inclusion
Business opportunities
Biodiversity
3
Landscape & green
space
1
1
Health and well-being
2
Ecosystem services
Employment and Income
Business opportunities
17
6.2
Environment
The first point that is evident from the study is that in countries such as Scotland
UNESCO designations have only a minor role in site protection. Where strong
national (and in Europe, EU level) protective legislation already exists, with strong
planning authorities to deliver it, UNESCO protection will add little. In contrast,
countries with less well developed environmental policy and institutions are likely
to find that UNESCO sites have an important protective role.
At the same time UNESCO sites anywhere can play an environmental role in a
number of other ways. The most direct is through improved site management.
The will, structures, and funding for sites can be enhanced through UNESCO
status. This is apparent for all three types, and is particularly clear from the
Entlebuch and Rhön BRs, and the West Norway Fjords WHS. It is not an
inevitable benefit, however. The management history at Braunton Burrows BR
and The Giant’s Causeway WHS illustrate that where circumstances are
unfavourable UNESCO status will not necessarily provide the impetus to improve
environmental conditions.
In almost all cases UNESCO sites raise awareness of environmental issues. All
the case studies show moderate to strong performance in the education and
training field, and the wider literature shows that an international accolade
stimulates local interest and attracts people to the area. The benefits of this
accrue to the site itself, where better understanding of the issues is likely to lead
to better management, but also to the environment more widely. People whose
understanding and commitment to the environment is increased because of
UNESCO sites are likely to apply it in the rest of their lives, wherever they live.
6.3
Economy
The evidence about economic benefits is mixed. In some cases there are strong
economic gains from UNESCO sites, particularly in the studies of Entlebuch and
Rhön BR. Here the designation appears to have generated significant additional
benefits, and led to concerted marketing and processing initiatives. In other
cases, such as the Giant’s Causeway the designation appears to add little. The
benefits there are largely attributable to the nature of the site, not to how it is
designated or managed.
There are two important ways in which designation can contribute economically.
One arises from the publicity generated by a global accolade. This opens the
door for marketing and brand development, built on strong public recognition.
World Heritage Sites are best known for this, but Biosphere Reserves and
Geoparks also offer good opportunities for branding.
The second arises from the potential to attract investment to UNESCO sites. It
may come from central government, from other public sources, from nongovernmental organisations, or even in some cases from the private sector. All
the case studies show strong public investment. The Giant’s Causeway is largely
supported by an NGO, and in Entlebuch there are examples of private companies
supporting projects.
The scale of economic impacts is likely to be very local however. The policy
analysis in section 7 highlights the difficulty of attributing national economic policy
benefits to UNESCO sites. Local people and agencies may feel differently, as
many of the case studies show.
The final point about economic benefits concerns the net benefit. Some costs
and disbenefits arise from designation, though there is little quantified evidence of
disbenefits. There is more evidence about costs. They are incurred through
18
basic administration of the site as well as through investment in the development
opportunities it affords. Overall the costs can be seen as an investment to deliver
the full range of benefits, and a judgement must be made about whether this is
good value for money. More complex economic effects can arise in relation to
surrounding areas, as described in section 3.1 (page 6).
6.4
Social
In their current form all the designations emphasise that social processes are
essential for good management and effective benefits. The evidence suggests
that this is true, and that in most cases the sites contribute to social development
in one form or another. Education is the most common benefit as almost all sites
have environment and heritage education programmes. Health and well-being is
also well represented, often because of the recreational opportunities provided.
Social inclusion benefits are normal too, though this category is quite complex
and requires more analysis.
In our categorisation of benefits we use terms for both broad and narrow social
inclusion. The latter describes activities that allow specific excluded minorities to
play a stronger role in society through work, recreation, and other activities.
UNESCO sites often have programmes or initiatives to encourage this type of
social inclusion, for instance through training and education programmes or
accessible design of the site. All the case studies show some benefits in this
regard.
Our broader definition of social inclusion has two main components. The first
deals with the extent to which the whole “community” is involved in decisions
about the designation. Is it only the usual interest groups that are involved, how
much say do local people have, are people consulted once plans are near final, or
are people invited to contribute to plans from the start, for instance? This is a
question of governance: the rights and responsibilities of people affected by and
interested in the designated site.
The second component covers issues of local community sustainability. It
includes demographic issues, including whether the population is declining. It
also includes the question of public services such as public transport, health care,
as well as retail and other private sector services. In many rural areas these
issues are becoming more difficult, perhaps because of population decline, or
because of changing social mix. UNESCO sites may be able to improve
community sustainability because they generate more demand for services, or
because they reverse population decline.
The benefits that sites deliver in terms of these broader social inclusion definitions
appear to be more variable than with the narrower definition. It is possible for a
site to have virtually no impact on governance, and to operate only within the
established local processes. It is also possible for the designation to contribute
little to community sustainability, beyond what would happen anyway without
UNESCO involvement.
In other cases, and the Entlebuch case study provides the best example, the
designation can animate a new collective approach to local development. This is
led from the grass-roots by a range of community interests, with the designation
providing a framework for them to operate and interact. This is the governance
benefit that arises from our social inclusion category.
An almost inevitable result of this will be improved community sustainability. The
“social capital” of the area will increase. Through a variety of mechanisms this is
likely to lead to associated improvements in public services as well as in the
strength of the local economy and thus private service provision.
19
UNESCO sites appear to offer opportunities to deliver strong social inclusion
benefits, for excluded groups as well as to entire communities through
governance and community sustainability. In most cases these are additional
benefits that would not arise without the designation. In a few cases, such as the
W Norway Fjords, the governance tradition already favours community
participation. Here the designation harmonises with existing social capacity to
deliver a full range of benefits. Where the capacity and governance does not
already exist UNESCO sites can play a key role in creating them. Whether or not
this happens depends on how the designation process is handled from the top,
and how the communities act.
6.5
Comparison of designations
The UNESCO designations share some characteristics, but are also quite
different from one another in certain respects. Is it possible to identify their
strengths and weakness from the point of view of the benefits they produce?
One of their most obvious similarities is their approach to social inclusion in both
broad and narrow senses. The UNESCO guidance encourages strong public
participation and inclusion for all three categories of site. Any of the designations
should therefore be able to deliver strong social benefits. This report shows
examples of all three types doing so. The other obvious similarity concerns the
public profile of global designations and its value for marketing and branding. We
have shown that all three types of site can utilise this and that it is often a driving
force for designation in the first place.
Amongst the differences is the explicit emphasis on tourism. Geoparks focus on
it, whilst WHS and BRs make less explicit mention of it. BR however emphasise
sustainable economic development and as their environmental assets are strong
some element of tourism is almost inevitable. WHS encourage education, and
the requirement for universal value inevitably implies exceptional heritage
characteristics. So tourism is normal at all but the most inaccessible WHS. In
practice the role of tourism does not seem to differ greatly between the
designations.
Wider business opportunities do seem to vary. BRs are much more concerned
with a diverse range of sustainable economic activities, often linked to their
natural resources. Geoparks largely focus on tourism alone, whereas WHS may
or may not have a role in business development. The type of designation does
not preclude a range of business opportunities being developed, but it does seem
to favour different mixes of development.
From the environmental point of view there would not at first sight appear to be
differences. All three types of site are based on strong protection, and in the
countries we have focused on this arises from existing national legislation. In
practice though the additional value of UNESCO designations does seem to vary.
In the case of Geoparks there would not seem to be much emphasis on
protection, except through controls on sustainable resource use. In the case of
BRs the distinction between core protected areas and buffer and co-operation
zones provides additional protective mechanisms. WHS are perhaps the most
strongly protected as they have the highest public profile. The scope for
UNESCO to remove sites from the WHS list if their condition deteriorates is a
powerful political tool to influence protection.
Environmental benefits are not limited to site protection, however. Biological
heritage resources almost invariably require active management, whether to
continue traditional practices or to adapt to external trends. Here too the sites
offer different potential though none of them preclude active management. BRs
20
place emphasis on research to improve scientific and practical understanding, as
well as on primary land (or sea) management. So BR designation is the most
obvious way of delivering the full range of environmental benefits. As we have
explained WHS has a strong protective role, and this includes management of the
site. The designation is not so explicit about the incentives needed to achieve it
(the carrot), but the stick of delisting is ever present and should encourage active
management. Geoparks are not based on biological resources so they differ
markedly in this respect. They have limited need for active management and are
not designed to deliver it.
Finally, the link between environmental and social benefits must be highlighted.
All the designations are designed to play an educational role and we have
demonstrated that they do so. This is an important contribution to achieving
environmental benefits. Education is likely to result in better understanding of
environmental issues, greater commitment to maintaining environmental quality,
and a positive attitude to the link between environment, society and the economy.
As a result it should ultimately lead to greater support, locally and more widely, for
sustainable site management. Direct environmental benefits will arise and all
three types of UNESCO site appear to contribute.
7
ESTIMATING THE IMPACTS OF NEW SITES IN SCOTLAND –
METHODOLOGY
This section brings together the evidence presented in the literature review and
case studies and identifies the likely benefits of new sites in Scotland. It then
proposes how benefits could be predicted, and which types of benefit should be
considered during the site selection process. Finally it identifies the data sources
that could be used in practice in Scotland.
Estimating likely impacts at new sites is closely related to evaluation of existing
sites, for two reasons:
Estimates of future impacts will influence site management objectives and
targets. Progress in achieving these must be evaluated, so the same
factors are likely to be measured again.
Both initial impact assessment and monitoring are likely to be constrained
by data availability. This is likely to lead to the same indicators being
chosen in both cases.
For these reasons we discuss both evaluation of past impacts and prediction of
future impacts in the following.
The report highlights some differences between the benefits that can be expected
from different types of UNESCO designation. There are more similarities than
dissimilarities though, so much of this section deals with the types as a group.
The recommendations in section 8 are more specific and where necessary make
different proposals for different designations.
Section 4.2.1 outlined sources of formal government guidance on evaluating
impacts and benefits. In all cases this emphasises the need to assess whether,
given particular circumstances, an intervention is likely to work, for whom, and
why? This entails consideration of objectives, alternatives (counter-factuals,
additionality and opportunity costs) and baselines and monitoring. In addition the
advice recognises that a balance must be struck between the costs of
assessment and the value of the intervention. This does not excuse the absence
of assessment, but does allow for the use of more rapid, often qualitative,
appraisal methods to supplement incomplete quantitative data. Hence this
section ranges quite widely across various aspects of impact assessment.
21
7.1
The policy based approach
What benefits might UNESCO sites bring for Scottish policies? The following
results are based on the judgement of the research team and only broad
conclusions should be drawn from this analysis.
In the light of the literature review and case studies the research team compared
the Scottish and UNESCO policy lists set out in sections 3.2.2 and 3.2.3
respectively. Each combination was compared in a matrix, and scored from 0-35.
The results are summarised in the table below. The extent to which each Scottish
policy is likely to benefit from all UNESCO objectives is shown, as well as the
break down by each type of designation.
For example, WHS objectives concern universal value, site integrity, and site
protection. These were allocated scores of 2, 3, and 1 respectively for their
potential to contribute to the Scottish biodiversity policy objective of integration
and landscape scale actions. The total WHS score for this Scottish policy
objective was thus 6.
5
Zero = no significant interaction, 1-3 = low-high positive interaction
22
Likely contribution of UNESCO sites to selected Scottish Policies
Scottish Policy
Policy priority/ measure / indicator
WHS
BR
Geopark
All types
Table 4
Scotland's biodiversity
Integration and landscape scale activity
(various)
30
6
16
8
Scotland's biodiversity
Sustainable use (various)
25
2
18
5
Rural Scotland
Scotland's natural and cultural heritage
must be allowed to flourish in all its
diversity. We will encourage local and
regional influences to play their part ..
22
9
11
2
19
European Landscape
Convention
Protection (various)
9
4
6
Cross Policy
Community/ demography (various)
15
1
10
4
Scotland's biodiversity
Biodiversity (various)
14
9
5
0
Tourism Framework for change
Sustainable tourism (various)
14
3
3
8
Tourism Framework for change
Tourism quality (various)
13
3
2
8
Scotland's biodiversity
Protection (various)
12
9
3
0
Cross Policy
Education training (various)
10
1
7
2
Tourism Framework for change
Value of tourism revenue
10
2
1
7
Tourism Framework for change
Number of visitors
10
2
1
7
Cross Policy
Climate change (various)
9
5
2
2
Rural Scotland
We will improve access to services
essential to our life and work, and ensure
that quality of life will depend on what you
need, not where you are.
9
1
4
4
Scotland's biodiversity
Species protection (various)
9
9
0
0
A Forward Strategy for Scottish
Agriculture
Visits to the countryside
8
2
1
5
Choosing our Future
Ecosystem Health (various)
7
2
4
1
A Forward Strategy for Scottish
Agriculture
Business development/ diversification
(various)
7
0
3
4
Cross Policy
Un/employment (various)
2
0
2
0
Smart Successful Scotland
proportion of employers exporting
1
0
0
1
Smart Successful Scotland
Gross Domestic Product per head of
population
0
0
0
0
Smart Successful Scotland
high growth firms (business starts)
0
0
0
0
Smart Successful Scotland
percentage of businesses trading online
0
0
0
0
246 75
97
74
TOTAL
See text above for explanation. Rows are ranked by the “All types” category. Only the most
relevant Scottish policies are included.
The results indicate that UNESCO sites are likely to make a strong contribution to
environmental policies. They should also match up well with Scottish policies for
tourism, and with various community development and human resources policy
23
objectives. Wider rural and agriculture policies should also benefit. The expected
fit with economic policy is not apparent though.
The most obvious reason for this is that many economic objectives are stated in
quite high level terms, from a national level. UNESCO sites’ impacts are mainly
local (results of quality branding, for example) so they are not likely to register at
the higher level. This illustrates a difficulty of using national policies and
indicators with local initiatives. Local agencies’ and communities’ perceptions of
economic opportunities, based on a wider consideration of likely benefits, may be
more appropriate in this case. However, the existence of several UNESCO
designated areas in one country or region may have a beneficial effect on the
regional economy, because tourists are attracted to the combination of sites.
There are some obvious differences in the scores assigned to different types of
UNESCO designation. Although interpretation of this type of analysis should not
be taken too far, it does indicate that careful thought should be given to the match
between a designation and the objectives for a site or locality.
7.2
Wider impact assessment
The literature review and case studies reported above offer some insights into the
nature of UNESCO designations and the associated impacts, and the preceding
section indicates how this is relevant to current Scottish policies. Taking a wider
view of likely impacts in Scotland, the level of detail in the literature is insufficient
to support detailed quantitative estimates. It is, nonetheless, possible to draw
some conclusions regarding types and measurement of impact, and criteria that
might be used to select sites for designation.
We have described the potential impacts in three categories, environmental,
economic and social – as summarised in Table 3. These categories suggest how
sites might be selected for designation and also how impacts might be evaluated.
In both cases the work is shaped by data availability, and by their interpretation in
a scientific and political context. This is partly because there is often insufficient
funding for monitoring. In addition there is often controversy about cause-andeffect, either because the information is poor or because local actors have
different attitudes to the issues.
Potential direct environmental impacts appear to be relatively modest, with
UNESCO designations offering no additional protection beyond that offered by
domestic regulatory controls. However, the award of a UNESCO designation
offers two possible indirect routes to enhanced environmental performance. First,
designation raises the possibility of enhanced funding. If used appropriately, such
additional funding may contribute to environmental goals. Second, UNESCO
designation requires formal preparation of management plans and community
participation in site governance. Coupled with the potentially bad publicity that
results from losing the accolade through failure to meet UNESCO criteria,
UNESCO designation may stimulate better environmental management.
Potential economic impacts fall into two categories.
First, from an international perspective, if the designation does protect
and/or enhance natural and cultural heritage, this may represent significant
indirect use and non-use values. In other words, non-visitors and nonresidents may still derive economic value from a site through, for example,
ecosystem services and retention of culturally-significant activities or
communities. Such public goods are not valued through the market, but do
have an economic value – albeit one that may be difficult to quantify.
Second, from a more local perspective, designation may have a more
readily observable economic impact through direct use values expressed by
24
visitors and residents. This may arise directly from the leverage of
additional public funding to support local activities. It may also arise from
entrepreneurs’ responses to enhanced visitor numbers and business
opportunities. The former may arise simply as a result of the designation
acting as a form of “quality assurance”, raising the profile of the site and
signalling its international significance. These gains may then be amplified
by local firms tailoring their market offerings to add value and better reflect
the qualities implied by the designation. Local branding of food and drink,
or through improved visitor facilities, are examples. Such responses may
be reflected in local employment and income levels, both directly through
front-line firms and indirectly through the multiplier effect on other firms,
households and public service providers.
Potential social impacts link to the environmental and economic impacts. For
example, enhanced local employment and income levels may contribute to
poverty-alleviation and social inclusion within the local community. Equally,
UNESCO requirements for community participation in governance may improve
participatory aspects of social inclusion. For both residents and visitors, improved
environmental conditions, and/or facilities to enhance the enjoyment and
understanding of the environment, may contribute to both health and well-being
and to educational levels. Examples include the provision of infrastructure such
as easy-access paths or interpretative material, and the provision of interactive
services such as guided walks or advisory staff.
7.3
Local variation in impacts
The potential benefit outcomes listed above are plausible, and indeed are all cited
in the literature, but their realisation for any particular designated site may not be
guaranteed – as is apparent from the case studies. Designation of a site is an
external force, but it may be neither necessary nor sufficient to generate desired
local outcomes: outcomes might occur without the designation, but equally might
not occur with the designation. So the designation does not itself cause or
guarantee benefits. This is not to deny potential impacts, but rather to emphasise
that they are to a large extent contingent upon other internal, site-specific,
conditions. These can be highly variable and are of two types.
7.3.1 Environmental conditions
The sensitivity of natural resources to environmental change, such as climate
change and other human intervention, varies greatly. Some sites and some
features are highly susceptible to change and require careful management to
avoid over-exploitation and damage. Other sites and other features are more
robust. This has implications for the degree to which UNESCO designations can
be used to valorise6 natural assets and encourage local development without
degrading the assets themselves: fragile sites may have limited potential for
generating local economic benefits through either tourism or other added-value
activities. Equally, robust sites may not need UNESCO protection.
Given the typically dominant role of tourism in generating local economic effects,
the attractiveness of sites to visitors in terms of their natural characteristics and
location can greatly influence economic and social impacts. Remote sites lacking
in charismatic flora and fauna or spectacular landscapes or geological formations
may struggle to attract interest, even with a UNESCO designation.
6
valorise: to derive direct economic value from (for instance through tourism)
25
7.3.2 Governance conditions
Any site or area may be overseen by a variety of government bodies, each with
their own remit and responsibilities. Local authorities, central government, and
agencies are the main types in Scotland. Despite a raft of exhortations and
initiatives to promote “joined-up government” across these different facets of the
State, effective horizontal and vertical co-ordination is not always achieved. If a
designation spans several administrative jurisdictions it may facilitate horizontal
working between neighbouring authorities by providing a forum and a focus for
interaction. Equally, it may serve to facilitate vertical co-ordination across tiers of
government, although the danger of confused responsibilities and
communications also needs to be considered..
“Hard” institutional structures delineated by administrative boundaries and
bureaucratic responsibilities interact with “soft” aspects of community cohesion
and capacity. This is visible when communities self-organise in order, for
example, to access funding streams or exploit collective marketing opportunities
associated with a designation. It is also shown by the degree of participation of
the community in the process of designation and subsequent management. As
with “joined-up government”, a designation may facilitate community cohesion
and engagement by providing a forum for co-operation and participation.
However, despite its potential to act as a catalyst for co-ordination and cooperation, the likelihood of a designation achieving this kind of “success” and
delivering the desired benefits is at least partly determined by the willingness and
ability of government bodies and citizens to respond to the opportunities offered.
Unfortunately this capacity appears to be somewhat variable. Some
administrative authorities are better at co-operating than others, and territorial
disputes over roles and responsibilities can arise. Both hinder spatial and
hierarchical co-ordination and coherence. Equally, local communities vary greatly
in their capacity for self-organisation. Their ability to respond to business
opportunities and to engage with government and NGOS varies, reflecting
variation in skills, confidence and levels of trust.
7.4
Other considerations for site selection
The range of potential impacts and their dependence upon site-specific conditions
raise a number of issues regarding site selection. Perhaps most obviously, since
UNESCO has its own set of criteria for site designations, there is little point in
nominating a site that fails to meet these. Hence, for example, WHS nominations
need to display “outstanding universal value”. However, if one or more sites
within Scotland meet these eligibility criteria, other criteria should be considered
before nominations are proposed.
7.4.1 Making a difference, and probability of success
UNESCO sites are by definition exceptional in some way, so how much difference
will the UNESCO designation itself make? This is a crucial issue when deciding
whether policies or programmes, and their associated costs, are required. Here
we use the term additionality to refer to the issue.
Given the eligibility criteria, it is likely that candidate sites within Scotland will
already be covered, wholly or partially, by domestic environmental designations
such as NNRs or SSSIs. Hence, as noted above, the potential environmental
additionality stems from indirect improvements in site management arising from
additional funding and improved governance arrangements. Equally, economic
and social benefits arise from induced responses from within the business and
wider community. However, the potential to realise benefits varies across sites
according to their environmental characteristics and to hard and soft institutional
26
factors. Intrinsic biological and geophysical attributes may underpin site
designation, yet the opportunity for a designation to make a meaningful difference
may also be reduced by them. They may impose constraints on local
development and/or be of limited commercial (tourism) appeal, for example. In
such cases, the likelihood of success may be small unless efforts are made to
overcome natural limitations through support for infrastructure and services that
protect fragile resources whilst encouraging economic development. The
alternative is to select more naturally-endowed sites with a higher likelihood of
success and a lower resource requirement.
Similarly, variation in local capacity for governance and self-organisation poses a
trade-off in choosing sites for designation. An area already characterised by cooperative working between government bodies and a high level of community
involvement and cohesion will probably be well-placed to realise the potential
benefits of designation. However, the additionality achieved may be relatively low
since the existing local governance and management arrangements might well
deliver similar benefits even in the absence of the designation. Hence the
probability of “success” may be high, but the potential gains may be low.
Conversely, other sites lacking in institutional and community capacity may have
a much lower likelihood of success. Yet, if the designation did stimulate greater
engagement and co-ordination, the additional benefits would be more significant.
A spectrum of risk tradeoffs will exist, but these two extremes illustrate an
uncomfortable aspect of rural development identified previously in the literature
(see for example McNutt, 1992; Midmore, 1998; Terluin, 2003). Namely, rural
interventions can often benefit those already advantaged and able to make
investments rather than those in most need. Overcoming this bias requires
additional effort to support communities with a lower propensity and capacity for
self-organisation and an acceptance of greater risk of policy failure, which can be
7
expensive and difficult to defend .
Hence a key question for site selection is the degree of additionality sought and
the degree of risk acceptable in achieving the additionality.
7.4.2 Costs
Despite the potential benefits outlined above, nomination of an eligible site must
consider benefits net of any costs. That is, although designation is intended to
achieve positive outcomes, the act of designation itself costs money and the
additional regulatory requirements typically impose costs upon various parties.
Such costs fall into two main categories.
First, preparatory costs. Designation of a site will normally be preceded by a
possibly lengthy process to consider the pros and cons of designation, to canvass
opinion, and then to actually achieve designation. Much of this cost may be borne
by the public sector, but private stakeholders will contribute to the consultation
stages.
Second, compliance costs. Whereas preparatory costs may be viewed as a oneoff, once in place the designation will incur on-going compliance costs. These will
be borne by both public and private sectors, in the form of effort and resource
deployment to adhere to, monitor and (if necessary) enforce regulatory
requirements, as well as to respond to business opportunities. This is an
important point, since the costs of reconfiguring a local economy to take
advantage of particular funding streams and/or market openings are not
necessarily outweighed by the gains.
7
Experience with “capacity building” programmes such as LEADER and SEERAD’s “Rural Voice:
Action Research Competition” provide anecdotal evidence of some of the difficulties.
27
To further complicate matters, costs may not simply be realised explicitly as cash
expenses: they also arise as opportunities forgone. That is, the deployment of
resources (land, labour, capital, management) for the designation process and
then compliance means their diversion from other uses, representing an
opportunity cost. For example income, jobs, community involvement, the time of
public sector staff, or public expenditure, could all have been put to another
purpose. Identifying and valuing the opportunity foregone may be difficult since it
requires consideration of the counterfactual situation – what would have
happened in the absence of the designation? Even if the aggregate benefits do
outweigh aggregate costs, it is necessary to consider their distribution across
different groups. That is, designations can impose costs on one group within a
community, for example landowners, whilst conveying benefits to another, for
example tourism operators. The two do not necessarily overlap.
7.5
Indicators available in Scotland
Any indicator is inevitably a compromise between scientific purity, data
availability, practical relevance and (political) acceptability. Hence, whilst
scientific understanding may provide insights into what should be measured,
when, where and how, this may be amended by what is practically possible within
the resources available for monitoring and the perceived relevance to decision
makers. In some respects there is a wealth of data and knowledge available,
though the lack of time-series information at the local level is an important
limitation. Not all the data are easily understood, however, and indicators are
chosen to be relevant, and accepted by, decision makers and stakeholders.
Information is in effect elevated to the status of an indicator by its users. In the
light of these issues the practicability of the indicator categories suggested in
Table 3 (page 15) must be reconsidered. The following sections do so in the light
of data availability and their interpretation.
7.5.1 Environmental
Biodiversity, the natural variety of organisms, is viewed scientifically as an
indicator of ecosystem health and resilience and may be measured via several
established approaches and indices. National interest in biodiversity, and
international regulatory requirements (notably the Convention on Biological
Diversity), have led to extensive monitoring. Consequently, information on
biodiversity is relatively easily available, both at a national and a local scale. As
UNESCO designations tend to coincide spatially with domestic environmental
designations, Site Conditioning Monitoring (SNH, 2007a) may supplement
sources such as, for example, Local Biodiversity Action Plans (JNCC 2007) or
aggregate data on habitats and species (Scottish Executive, 2007a ).
Landscape is less amenable to quantification. A national comparative survey
does exist however (SNH, 2002) and it includes tables identifying importance and
value of the landscape, as well as pressures and trends. This provides
comparative baseline information (although somewhat out of date), but is not
likely to be repeated sufficiently often to generate monitoring information. The
same approach could be adopted to commission site specific monitoring
information. The scale is at the regional level, defined in natural heritage terms,
but this is geographically small enough to be relevant to site selection.
Ecosystem services is a catch-all term encompassing a range of inter-related
mechanisms by which natural capital generates benefits for people. Such
benefits are usually difficult to quantify because many are intangible and subject
to scientific uncertainty. In addition, they are relatively invisible to the public.
Their effects are often distributed thinly: with many beneficiaries, and across
28
space and time. For example public awareness of ecosystem contributions to air
and water quality, to erosion and flooding control, or to food-web resilience, is
typically low. Such benefits are not traded in a market and may not be noticed
until they start to deteriorate. Some aspects of ecosystem services are monitored
and reported routinely at a national level, with some spatial disaggregation
possible, for example river water and air quality (Scottish Executive, 2007b ).
Equally, for areas and sites already under an environmental designation, Site
Condition Monitoring may generate relevant data routinely.
7.5.2 Economic
Economic indicators are relatively well-established, although not necessarily
available at either the locality or time required for evaluation of individual sites.
Employment levels, and associated measures of economic (in)activity are
available at a relatively fine spatial resolution from various official sources,
including Scottish Neighbourhood Statistics (Scottish Executive, 2007c ) and the
Multiple Index of Deprivation (Scottish Executive, 2007d). However, the nature of
employment is not recorded/reported at the same level of detail, and surveys such
as the Scottish Production Database (Scottish Executive, 2007e) or Input-Output
tables (Scottish Executive, 2007f ) must be used instead. Neither can provide a
local-level profile so a local survey may be required.
Similarly, income levels are not recorded intensively and whilst aggregate and
average figures may be derived from sources such as the Scottish Household
Survey (Scottish Executive, 2007g) or the Family Resources Survey (HM
Department of Work and Pensions, 2007), robust profiling at a local-level is not
generally possible without some local survey effort. However, low-income
profiling is possible through Neighbourhood Statistics and the Multiple Index of
Deprivation domains relating to the uptake of welfare benefits.
Business opportunities are reflected in the stock of firms and the rate of startups
and closures. Various routine data collection exercises seek to measure these,
although none are ideal (see Dodds & Briggs 2000). The most commonly used
source is the DTI’s Inter-Departmental Business Register (IDBR) (National
Statistics, 2007a) which is based on VAT registrations and can be disaggregated
to the local level. Whilst robust, this does ignore businesses operating below the
VAT-threshold and therefore underestimates the number of businesses operating
in an area, which can be a problem with tourism. Again, bespoke local surveys
could provide a more accurate picture – including more subjective insights into
expansion plans and possible dependency upon/response to a designation.
7.5.3 Social
Social inclusion means individuals’ opportunity to choose to participate fully in
society. Examples include participation in the democratic and legal systems, in
the housing and labour markets, in public services, and in family and friend
networks. Measurement of social inclusion may be achieved objectively through,
for example, membership of bodies such as Trade Unions or Pressure Groups
and Sports or Hobby Clubs, or through recorded levels of (un)employment,
welfare benefit uptake and accommodation conditions. Equally, inclusion may be
measured more subjectively, for example through qualitative surveys of attitudes
and experiences regarding feelings such as loneliness, fear and aspirations.
Some objective measures are available through, for example, Neighbourhood
Statistics and the Multiple Index of Deprivation. However, others – such as
membership of Clubs – and the more subjective aspects can really only be
addressed through bespoke surveys.
29
Health and well-being, or rather ill-health and unwell-being, are recorded and
reported nationally on a routine basis and selected facets are reported at a
disaggregated level through Community Profiles (SPHO, 2007), Neighbourhood
Statistics and the Multiple Index of Deprivation. Indeed there are strong links to
social inclusion in terms of access to services supporting health and well-being
and indicators overlap between the two. However, as with social inclusion, more
subjective aspects such as the motivations of people in seeking health and wellbeing benefits from particular activities/pastimes, and how such benefits are felt,
are generally not recorded so well. Whilst some aspects may be picked-up by
national sample exercises such as the Scottish Recreation Survey (SNH, 2007b)
or the Tourism Attitudes Survey (VisitScotland, 2007a), it seems likely that more
specific survey effort may be required locally.
Formal education and training opportunities, and attainment outcomes, are
recorded and reported at a national level (Scottish Executive, 2005b). Some local
disaggregation is possible through Neighbourhood Statistics and the Multiple
Index of Deprivation. However, less formal education and training activities and
events - which might be associated with interpretative material produced because
of a UNESCO a designation - are not recorded routinely. Hence, again, local
survey effort may be required to document both the nature and number of
activities and their translation into attainment in terms of knowledge,
understanding and appreciation.
7.5.4 Indicators - Summary
Indicators are a useful tool to assist in both site selection and evaluation of
impacts. However, the site-specific nature of attributes and impacts means that
national monitoring sources may be insufficient to portray local circumstances
adequately. Additionality and likelihood of impact depend on governance and
participation arrangements that are best measured qualitatively, so local survey
efforts may be inescapable. In the case of evaluation this is certainly true, not
least since some UNESCO objectives are couched in terms of participation and
community involvement. Any local monitoring needs to establish a baseline
against which subsequent performance can be compared.
For site selection, local surveys will probably be disproportionately expensive. So
the monitoring data available would have to provide a basis. It should be
supplemented with subjective insights gleaned from public bodies and NGOs
regarding, in particular, local capacity to engage with and benefit from
designation. That is, bodies such as Communities Scotland, Community
Councils, Local Economic Fora, Enterprise Companies, Local Authorities and the
Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations will have prior experience of
attempting to support local communities and may be able to comment on the
likelihood and magnitude of impacts. Whilst such bodies may have their own
agendas, informal consultation in the spirit of joined-up government and guided by
some of the observations above should provide a useful input to the designation
process.
8
RECOMMENDATIONS
This section proposes how decisions about new UNESCO sites should be made
in Scotland. First, the evidence that should inform the decision is outlined.
Second, the rules for deciding what priority should be assigned to a possible site
are described. This process could lead to any of the UNESCO designations
being pursued, or none. The recommendations are not a rigid prescription for the
process. It should be adapted in the light of the candidate sites, the data
availability for those localities, and the views of local stakeholders.
30
8.1
Indicator data
The first issue concerns the suitability of the site in environmental terms. This is a
pre-requisite for designation and should provide an initial filter for site selection.
The analysis presented here suggests three further considerations for evaluating
the potential impacts of designation. They should be used to prioritise possible
sites, and are as follows:
Potential - First, the existing economic structure of an area may be used as
a guide to current dependency on particular sectors and to potential
business opportunities.
Need - Second, the social structure of an area in terms of demographics
and labour market participation may be used as a guide to development
needs.
Capacity - Third, the level of local capacity for engagement and cohesion
may be used to gauge the likelihood of an area or site responding to the
opportunities presented by designation.
8.1.1 Environmental conditions [Pre-requisite]
Sufficient secondary environmental data should be available to avoid any
requirement for new surveys or evaluation. All the environmental data quoted
here are relevant to all three types of designation, as all of them would have to be
of high environmental quality to qualify. The emphasis would vary though and in
particular Geoparks should be assessed mainly on their earth science heritage
resources. This would be a minor consideration in BRs, where the biodiversity
and landscape resources should be central. World Heritage Sites should be
assessed across all fields, though some emphasis must be given to the features
that are of universal value. The key sources are as follows:
Other protected areas. Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) holds GIS based
data on the boundaries and purpose of sites designated for biodiversity and
landscape under national and international legislation. Listed historic sites
and monuments are also relevant from a wider landscape point of view, and
Historic Scotland holds data about them.
Protected area status. SNH data on site condition (including trends) of
SSSIs is available from routine monitoring. Poor status should not
necessarily be seen as an impediment to designation – it may be a
development opportunity.
Ecosystem quality. River quality information held by the Scottish
Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) is the most comprehensive
dataset available. It can also be taken as an indicator of general
environmental quality. The SNH Natural Heritage Futures documents
(SNH, 2007c) describe 21 zonal types in Scotland and are a good indication
of natural heritage quality in a locality.
8.1.2 Socio-economic data
For socio-economic data, overlaps exist between all the three perspectives of
potential, need, and capacity, and information to colour them may be derived from
a mix of primary and secondary data sources. The former may take the form of
specially commissioned quantitative surveys and/or qualitative investigations that
provide insights into the more subjective aspects of designation. Whilst such
approaches undoubtedly provide richer local detail, they can be expensive and
time-consuming. Hence it is prudent to also consider the availability of existing,
secondary, data.
31
In this context, information on selected economic and social attributes is available
from a number of census-type sources, supplemented by national surveys. These
are collated conveniently by the Scottish Executive through its Neighbourhood
Statistics initiative (SNS) (Scottish Executive, 2007c), although some additional
data are held in other databases. The information may be viewed (and
downloaded) at various levels of spatial resolution, ranging from Local Authorities
down to electoral wards, and most are also available as a time-series. However,
not all data are available at all levels of spatial or temporal resolution and the
reliability of extrapolation or interpolation for a particular site will be variable.
Nevertheless, the information is probably the best available. Within the welter of
indicators offered through the composite databases, the attributes described in
the following sections may be particularly useful in characterising an area from the
three perspectives.
The potential, need and capacity of an area and its communities are all important
factors influencing the benefits individual designations may offer. On the other
hand, there are not likely to be significant differences between the three types of
designation in the role of economic sectors and communities. For these reasons
a single approach should be taken to assessing the socio-economic benefits of all
three types of possible UNESCO site.
8.1.3 Economic structure [Potential]
Employees in industry groups (under the SNS Business domain). Although
this neglects the self-employed, and therefore under-represents certain
sectors, it does give an indication of the relative importance of different
sectors in terms of paid employment. Tourism is a diffuse industry, not
specifically identified as a group in the statistics, so some care is needed in
drawing conclusions about it.
Number of business units (under the SNS Business domain). This
supplements employee figures by providing an estimate of the number of
firms in manufacturing, construction and services, to give a guide to the
relative importance of different sectors. More detailed information may be
obtained direct from the Scottish Executive’s Corporate Sector Statistics
(Scottish Executive, 2007h), the Scottish Annual Business Statistics
(Scottish Executive, 2007i, and National Statistics, 2007b) and, for tourismspecific data, VisitScotland (VisitScotland, 2007b). However, since all
measures are based on VAT registrations, the figures underestimate total
business numbers. This is another problem with small tourism businesses,
which tend to be particularly underestimated. Moreover, the spatial
resolution is not greater than Local Authorities or Local Enterprise Company
areas.
Economic activity rates and unemployment rates (under the SNS Economic
Activity domain). This provides a guide to participation in the labour market
by different groups.
Earnings (under the SNS Economic Activity domain). This provides an
estimate of average earnings, as a guide to the absolute and relative
income position of an area. However, it is based on surveys for which the
degree of spatial disaggregation is limited.
Training and qualifications (under the SNS Education, Skills and Training
domain). This offers a guide to the skill-level of workforce, and the extent of
on-the-job training.
32
8.1.4 Social Structure [Need]
Income deprivation and employment deprivation (under the SNS Economic
Activity domain). This supplements the earnings and economic activity data
(and is more robust in terms of coverage) to reveal the prevalence of very
low incomes and exclusion from the labour market.
Comparative illness (under the SNS Economic Activity domain). Based on
the uptake of various welfare benefits, this offers a guide to both the degree
of social and health exclusion.
Child, working and pension populations (under the SNS Population
domain). These provide a guide to the demographic structure of an area,
revealing dependency ratios and likely demands for public services.
Household spaces (under the SNS Housing domain). This reports the type
and value of dwellings in an area, but perhaps more interestingly the
proportion used for holiday homes rather than permanent residents, and the
availability of social housing.
Public services. The SNS Access to Services domain includes drive-times
to schools, hospitals, Post Offices and petrol stations. These also appear in
the Multiple Index of Deprivation, and provide an indication of geographic
isolation in terms of access to key services. The urban-rural classification
could also be used as a cruder measure.
8.1.5 Community [capacity]
Charity membership and electoral turnout (under SNS Community WellBeing/Social Environment domain). These provide a partial, and crude,
measure of community participation in voluntary organisations and
democratic processes.
The issue of community capacity is, however, quite specific to the context of a
UNESCO site: a community and its local agencies may have considerable
capacity for some types of development, but not this one. So it will be necessary
to evaluate the local conditions through a study in the locality. A possible site
would in any case require full participation from communities and agencies so the
evaluation does not amount to a heavy administrative burden, particularly once
the opportunity cost of selecting an inappropriate site is considered. Although
various methods could be used (see UNESCO, 2006d), the stakeholder
decision/dialogue analysis method would seem to be most appropriate in the first
place. It is described as follows (SDRN, 2007):
The combined use of group deliberation techniques and (a qualitative form of)
multicriteria analysis to aid decision-making about policy options. Stakeholder
decision analysis was developed to address complex issues, characterised by
uncertainty. It highlights the framing of problem, scoping options, eliciting criteria
and making judgements through facilitated deliberation (Burgess, 2000). Data are
collected during stakeholder workshops. This method is most suitable for the
appraisal of policies, programmes or projects where it is important to work first on
a common problem understanding, and for which a rough impact assessment is
sufficient as input in the decision process.
It has the advantage that it not only tests the local capacity, but is also informed
by information about likely impacts from indicator data. The extent to which a
community is likely to wish to support a UNESCO site, and the likelihood of
success, will be evident if this approach is used as a planning tool. It could of
course only be done in a short-list of locations, and these should be chosen using
secondary data on the social, economic and environmental perspectives.
33
8.2
Criteria for site selection in Scotland
This section draws on the report’s findings to make recommendations about how
future UNESCO sites should be selected in Scotland. It takes into account
UNESCO objectives
Scottish policy objectives
other stakeholders perceptions of benefits
benefits at national level
benefits at local level
additional benefits from UNESCO designation
pre-requisites for success
As with the analysis of impacts and indicators, the recommendations are based
on the principles of potential, need and capacity. They assume that best practice
governance processes (outlined here in section 4.3 and case studies 2, 6 and 7)
will be followed, and that the core funding necessary for operation will be
provided. Some of the recommendations apply to all three designations (ALL),
others are designation specific (WHS, BR, GEO).
8.2.1 Environmental criteria
Mandatory – The site must:
meet UNESCO criteria for the designation (ALL)
be of universal value (WHS)
have very strong geological/geomorphological qualities (GEO)
have strong biodiversity qualities and require active management to
maintain them (BR)
have sufficient site protection under national legislation to meet the
requirements of the UNESCO designation (ALL)
have public appeal and the potential to attract additional funding for
conservation and education (ALL)
Other criteria to use for prioritisation - does the area:
Offer sustainable development opportunities based on its natural resources
(ALL)?
Offer strong environmental educational opportunities (ALL)?
8.2.2 Economic criteria (potential)
Mandatory – The economy of the area must:
Offer strong tourism potential (GEO)
Other criteria to use for prioritisation - does the area:
Have a significant proportion of natural resource based activity (BR)?
Have potential for reserve related development to contribute to national
economic objectives (WHS particularly)?
Have strong potential for reserve related development to improve the local
economy (ALL)?
Have potential to capitalise on the designation through branding and
marketing (ALL)?
Have potential to develop public goods services such as recreation
provision and environmental management (BR)?
34
8.2.3 Social criteria (need)
Criteria to use for prioritisation - does the area:
Have relatively low rates of employment and income (ALL)?
Show adverse demographic trends in total population and/or age profile
(ALL)?
Have relatively low levels of skills and training (ALL)?
Have high and unmet demand for social housing (ALL)?
Have poor infrastructure and services (ALL)?
8.2.4 Governance (capacity)
Mandatory – A significant proportion of the local communities and agencies must:
Have a track record that shows willingness to collaborate (ALL)
Show enthusiasm for the designation in their area (ALL)
Show willingness to participate in its delivery (ALL)
Other criteria to use for prioritisation:
Are there embryonic or existing trade groups in sectors likely to benefit from
the designation (ALL)?
Do agencies should have existing partnership projects (ALL)?
Do geographical communities have active intra-communal structures, and
wider networks or show a demand for them (ALL)?
Are communities of interest part of cross-sectoral networks or be willing to
establish them(ALL)?
Do communities have experience of winning and managing external funding
(ALL)?
Does the Community Planning process include all agencies and reach
down to community level (ALL)?
8.2.5 Final selection
In practice the selection criteria should be tested at each potential site, using the
indicators set out in section 8.1. Sites that are likely to benefit most will score well
across the four sets of criteria, meeting all mandatory and many of the priority
criteria. A short-listing process will be the most efficient way of considering a
range of possible sites using some of the simpler secondary impact indicators,
though these must address all the mandatory criteria. A small short list should be
examined across the full set of criteria, including by public participation.
Decision makers should carefully balance the potential, need and capacity of
competing candidate sites. It is tempting to take a safe option, where success is
more or less guaranteed, defined by the “opportunity” criteria. This neglects the
question of whether the designation, and the effort and cost that go with it, will
add anything additional. It is harder to favour a higher risk option, defined by the
“need” criteria. But here the designation is likely to make more of a difference.
As a result it is likely to deliver greater value from public money, and from private
investment of community resources. So potential risks and benefits must be
carefully balanced if new UNESCO sites are to be of most value.
35
9
REFERENCES
Atlantic Consultants, 2003. Cornish mining world heritage site bid. Economic
Impact Assessment. June 2003, Atlantic Consultants for Cornwall Enterprise.
http://www.cornishmining.org.uk/pdf/Cornwall_west_Devon_Mining_Landscape_WHS_EIA.pdf,
accessed 15/1/07
Cattaneo, A, Hellerstein, D, Nickerson, C, Myers, C, 2006. Balancing the multiple
objectives of conservation programs. USDA Economic Research Service.
Economic Research Report No 19.
http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/ERR19/ERR19.pdf accessed 15/1/07
Council of Europe, 2000. European Landscape Convention,
http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/176.htm accessed 18/12/06
Dodds, C. & Briggs, J. 2000. Selected Issues in Scottish Economic Development
- Section D Corporate Sector Statistics for Scotland: Business Start-Ups and
Failures. Scottish Economic Report: January 2000, Scottish Executive.
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library2/doc10/ser2-19.asp accessed 27/2/07
European Commision, 2007. Impact assessment. European Commission,
Brussels. http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/key_en.htm accessed 27/2/07
European Geoparks Network, 2007. European Geoparks.
http://www.europeangeoparks.org/isite/home/1%2C1%2C0.asp accessed 15/1/07
Fremuth, W, 2004. The Rhoen Region: A model of sustainable development at
the former border between East and West Germany, in The Role of Biodiversity in
the Transition to Rural Sustainability, ed. S. Light, pp 199-211, IOS Press.
GoBi 2007, Research Group GoBi, Humboldt University of Berlin
www.biodiversitygovernance.de accessed 25/1/2007
Gregory, A, 2002. Economic Impact Assessment – Florida State Park System.
Department of Environmental Protection, Florida
http://www.dca.state.fl.us/fdcp/dcp/wekiva/wekivatf/November02/DEPFPSEcono
micImpact%202001-2002.pdf
Hambrey et al 2004. Framework for measuring social, economic and
environmental impacts of SNH activity and land designations. SNH contract
AB(04NC07)0405110. SNH Inverness.
HM Treasury, 2007. Green Book, HM Treasury, London.
http://greenbook.treasury.gov.uk/ accessed 27/2/07
HM Communities and Local Government, 2007. Assessing the impact of spatial
interventions, HM Government, London.
http://www.communities.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1128861 accessed 27/2/07
HM Department of Work and Pensions 2007. Family Resources Survey. HM
Government, London. http://www.dwp.gov.uk/asd/frs/ accessed 27/2/07
Hockings, M, Stolton, S, Leverington, F, Dudley N, and Courrau J 2006.
Evaluating Effectiveness; A framework for assessing management effectiveness
of protected areas, 2nd ed. 2006, WCPA Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines
Series No 14. IUCN, Cambridge.
http://www.enhancingheritage.net/docs/WCPA_Revised_Framework_2006_v1.pdf
accessed 15/1/07
IUCN, 1998. Economic Values of Protected Areas – Guidelines for Protected
Area Managers. WCPA/IUCN 1998 Second in a series of Best Practice
36
Guidelines produced in partnership with the Environmental Planning Research
Unit, Dept of City and Regional Planning, Cardiff University.
http://www.iucn.org/bookstore/HTML-books/BP2Economic_values_of_protected_areas/cover.html
JNCC 2007. Local Biodiversity Action Plans in Scotland, Joint Nature
Conservation Committee, Peterborogh.
http://gateway.snh.gov.uk/portal/page?_pageid=53,854538&_dad=portal&_schem
a=PORTAL accessed 27/2/07
Kim, SS., Wong, KHF., Cho, M., 2007. Assessing the economic value of a world
heritage site and willingness-to-pay determinants: A case of Changdeok Palace,
Tourism Management 28, 1, 317-322
Lass, W, and Reusswig, F, (eds) 2002. Social Monitoring: Meaning and Methods
for an Integrated Management in Biosphere Reserves. Report of an International
Workshop. Rome, 2-3 September 2001. Biosphere Reserve Integrated Monitoring
(BRIM) Series No. 1. UNESCO, Paris.
http://unesdoc.UNESCO.org/images/0012/001287/128732e.pdf accessed 15/1/07
Lu, YH, Fu, BJ, Chen, LD, Zu, FY, Qi, X., 2006a. The effectiveness of incentives
in protected area management: An empirical analysis. International Journal of
Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 13, 5, 409-417
Lu, YH, Fu, BJ, Chen, LD, Quyang, ZY, Zu, FY, 2006. Resolving the conflicts
between biodiversity conservation and socioeconomic development in China:
Fuzzy clustering approach. Biodiversity and Conservation, 15, 8, 2813-2827
McNutt, P. 1992. A note on club theory as applied to community and rural
development, Community Development Journal, 27, 75-80
Melling, M, and Graham, L., 2000. A2 Output, Employment and Income
Multipliers, Scotland 1996. Scottish Economic Statistics 2000, Scottish Executive,
Edinburgh
Midmore, P. 1998. Rural policy reform and local development programmes:
appropriate evaluation procedures, Journal of Agricultural Economics, 49/3, 409426.
Moxey, A. 1999. Cross-cutting issues in developing agri-environmental indicators,
113-130 in OECD (1999). Environmental Indicators for Agriculture. Volume 2:
Issues & Design. OECD, Paris.
Moxey, A. 2006, Review of public benefits purchased by the public sector,
Cairngorms National Park Authority. Cairngorms National Park Authority, in press
National Statistics 2007a. Interdepartmental Business Register. National
Statistics, UK. http://www.statistics.gov.uk/idbr/idbr.asp accessed 27/2/07
National Statistics 2007b. Annual Business Inquiry. National Statistics, UK.
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/abi/abi_analyses.asp
OECD, 2003. Environmental Indicators – Development measurement and use.
OECD, Paris, http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/7/47/24993546.pdf accessed 15/1/07
Pretty, J, and Smith, D, 2003. Social Capital in Biodiversity Conservation and
Management, Conservation Biology 18 (3), 631-638.
Scottish Executive, 2000, Rural Scotland: A New Approach. Scottish Executive,
Edinburgh. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library2/doc15/rsna-00.asp accessed
18/12/06
37
Scottish Executive, 2001, A Forward Strategy for Scottish Agriculture. Scottish
Executive, Edinburgh. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library3/agri/fssa.pdf accessed
18/12/06
Scottish Executive, 2004, A Smart, Successful Scotland: Strategic direction to the
Enterprise Networks and an enterprise strategy for Scotland. Scottish Executive,
Edinburgh. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2004/11/20246/46555
accessed 18/12/06
Scottish Executive, 2004b, Scotland's Biodiversity: It's in Your Hands - A strategy
for the conservation and enhancement of biodiversity in Scotland. Scottish
Executive, Edinburgh.
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2004/05/19366/37239 accessed
18/12/06
Scottish Executive 2004c. An economic assessment of the costs and benefits of
Natura 2000 sites in Scotland. Scottish Executive, Edinburgh.
Scottish Executive, 2005a, Choosing our future: Scotland's sustainable
development strategy Scottish Executive, Edinburgh.
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2005/12/1493902/39032 accessed
18/12/06
Scottish Executive 2005b Education and Training in Scotland National Dossier
2005. Scottish Executive, Edinburgh.
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2005/06/13113114/31182
Scottish Executive, 2006, Scottish Tourism: The Next Decade - A Tourism
Framework for Change, Scottish Executive, Edinburgh.
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2006/03/03145848/0 accessed 18/12/06
accessed 18/12/06
Scottish Executive 2007a. Scottish Environmental Statistics Online – Biodiversity,
Scottish Executive, Edinburgh.
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/Browse/Environment/seso/Q/TID/17
accessed 27/2/07
Scottish Executive 2007b. Scottish Environmental Statistics Online, Scottish
Executive, Edinburgh.
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/Browse/Environment/seso accessed
27/2/07
Scottish Executive 2007c. Scottish Neighbourhood Statistics, Scottish Executive,
Edinburgh. http://www.sns.gov.uk/default.asp
Scottish Executive 2007d Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation – Overview.
Scottish Executive, Edinburgh.
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/SIMD/Overview accessed 27/2/07
Scottish Executive 2007e. Scottish Annual Business Statistics 2004 – Scotland
Table. Scottish Executive, Edinburgh
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/16170/4442 accessed 27/2/07
accessed 27/2/07Scottish Executive 2007f. Input-Output Tables for Scotland.
Scottish Executive, Edinburgh.
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/14713/484 accessed 27/2/07
Scottish Executive 2007g. Scottish Household Survey. Scottish Executive,
Edinburgh. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/16002 accessed 27/2/07
38
Scottish Executive 2007h. Scottish Corporate Sector Statistics 2005 & 2006.
Scottish Executive Edinburgh.
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/18389/13042 accessed 27/2/07
Scottish Executive 2007i. Scottish Annual Business Statistics 2004. Scottish
Executive Edinburgh. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/16170/4363
accessed 27/2/07
SPHO 2007. Profiles. Scottish Public Health Observatory collaboration,
Edinburgh.
http://www.scotpho.org.uk/web/site/home/Comparativehealth/Profiles/profiles_intr
o.asp
SDRN 2007. Emerging methods for sustainability evaluation and appraisal.
SDRN Briefing 4, SDRN, London. http://www.sdresearch.org.uk/documents/BriefingProofFINAL.pdf accessed 15/2/07
SNH 2002. Natural Heritage Zones: a National Assessment of Scotland’s
Landscapes. Scottish Natural Heritage, Inverness.
http://www.snh.org.uk/futures/Data/pdfdocs/LANDSCAPES.pdf accessed 15/2/07
SNH 2005. Galloway Biosphere Reserve. Scottish Natural Heritage, Inverness.
SNH 2007a. Sitelink, Scottish Natural Heritage, Inverness.
http://gateway.snh.gov.uk/portal/page?_pageid=53,854538&_dad=portal&_schem
a=PORTAL accessed 27/2/07
SNH 2007b. Scottish Recreation Survey: annual summary report 2004/05.
Scottish Natural Heritage, Inverness. http://www.snh.org.uk/publications/online/commissionedreport/F02AA614_3.asp accessed 27/2/07
SNH 2007c. Natural Heritage Futures - An overview. Scottish Natural Heritage,
Inverness. http://www.snh.org.uk/futures/Data/index.htm accessed 26/2/2007
Solecki, W, 1994. Putting the Biosphere Reserve concept into practice: some
evidence of impacts in rural communities in the United States, Environmental
Conservation, 21, 3, 242-247
Stoll-Kleemann, S. 2001. Reconciling opposition to protected areas management
in Europe; the German experience. Environment, June 1 2001.
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-75917477.html
Stoll-Kleeman, S. 2005 Voices for biodiversity management in the 21st century.
Environment. Dec 1 2005. http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-140145754.html
Stoll-Kleemann, S. Bender, S, Berghöfer, A, Bertzky, M, Fritz-Vietta, N, Schliep,
R, and Thierfelder, B, 2006. Linking governance and management perspectives
with conservation success in protected areas and biosphere reserves.
Perspectives on biodiversity governance and management 01 Berlin June 06.
GoBi Research group.
http://www.biodiversitygovernance.de/files/_publications_files/GoBi_discussionpa
per01.pdf accessed 16/1/07
Stynes, D and Propst D, 2001. Money Generation Model – Version 2. Michigan
State University. http://web4.canr.msu.edu/mgm2/default.htm accessed 15/1/07
Terluin, T. 2003. Differences in economic development in rural regions of
advanced countries: an overview and critical analysis of theories, Journal of Rural
Studies, 19, 327-344.
The Economist, 2006. Protecting precious places, The Economist, December 23
2006, London
39
UNDP 1997. Governance for sustainable human development - A UNDP policy
document. United Nations Development Programme, New York.
http://www.pogar.org/publications/other/undp/governance/undppolicydoc97-e.pdf
accessed 16/2/07
UNESCO, 1972, Convention concerning the protection of the world cultural and
natural heritage, adopted by the General Conference at its seventeenth session,
Paris, 16 November 1972, WHC-2001/WS/2
http://whc.UNESCO.org/en/conventiontext accessed 27/12/07
UNESCO, 1995, The Seville Strategy For Biosphere Reserves, UNESCO, Paris
http://www.UNESCO.org/mab/BRs/pdf/Strategy.pdf , accessed 28/12/2006
UNESCO, 2001, Seville+5, MAB report series No. 69, UNESCO, Paris,
http://unesdoc.UNESCO.org/images/0012/001236/123605m.pdf accessed
28/12/2006
UNESCO, 2005, Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World
Heritage Convention, Intergovernmental Committee For The Protection Of The
World Cultural And Natural Heritage, UNESCO, Paris
http://whc.UNESCO.org/en/guidelines accessed 27/12/2006
UNESCO, 2006, Guidelines and Criteria for National Geoparks seeking
UNESCO's assistance to join the Global Geoparks Network, UNESCO, Paris
http://www.UNESCO.org/science/earth/geoparks/2005guidelinesfinal030406.pdf
accessed 28/12/2006
UNESCO, 2006b, Earth Sciences. UNESCO, Paris
http://www.UNESCO.org/science/earth/geoparks.shtml accessed 28/12/2006
UNESCO, 2006c, Applicant's self-evaluation and progress evaluation forms for
National Geoparks seeking assistance of UNESCO to become member of the
Global Network of National Geoparks UNESCO, Paris
http://www.worldgeopark.org/wwwroot/newsletter/GGNselfevaluationDocument06
0406.pdf accessed 28/12/06
UNESCO, 2006d, Biodiversity and Stakeholders – concertation itineraries,
Biosphere Reserves Technical Notes 2006-1, UNESCO, Paris.
http://unesdoc.UNESCO.org/images/0014/001465/146566e.pdf accessed
15/1/07
UNESCO, 2006e. World Heritage News and Events, July 16 2006 UNESCO,
Paris http://whc.UNESCO.org/en/news/269 accessed 15/1/07
UNESCO 2007a. Enhancing Our Heritage – Monitoring and Managing for
Success in World Natural Heritage Sites http://www.enhancingheritage.net/
Accessed 15/1/07.
2007b, Biosphere reserve integrated monitoring (BRIM): Observing global biodiversity
changes. UNESCO, Paris. http://www.UNESCO.org/mab/BRs/BRIM.shtml
accessed 15/1/07
UNESCO 2007c, People Biodiversity and Ecology. UNESCO, Paris
http://www.UNESCO.org/mab/BRs/Qe.shtml accessed 15/1/07
UNESCO 2007d, World Heritage List. UNESCO, Paris
http://whc.UNESCO.org/en/list/ accessed 15/1/07
UNESCO 2007e. The World Network of Biosphere Reserves UNESCO, Paris
http://www.UNESCO.org/mab/wnbrs.shtml accessed 15/1/07
40
VisitScotland 2007. Visitor Attitudes Survey. VisitScotland, Edinburgh.
http://www.scotexchange.net/research_and_statistics/leisure_visitors/visitor_attitu
des-mainpage.htm accessed 27/2/07
VisitScotland 2007b. Regional Facts and Figures. VisitScotland, Edinburgh
http://www.visitscotland.org/research_and_statistics/regional_facts___figures.htm
accessed 27/2/07
Wiesmann, U, Liechti, K., Rist, S., 2005. Between conservation and development
- Concretizing the first World Natural Heritage Site in the Alps through
participatory processes. Mountain Research And Development 25 (2): 128-138
World Geoparks Network, 2007. Global Geopark News.
http://www.worldgeopark.org/wwwroot/index1.html accessed 15/1/07
Xun, Z, and Milly, W., 2002, National geoparks initiated in China: Putting
geoscience in the service of society, Episodes 25, 1, 33-37
Xun, Z. and Ting, Z. 2003, The socio-economic benefits of establishing National
Geoparks in China, Episodes 26, 4, 302-309
41
42
Social, economic and environmental benefits of
World Heritage Sites, Biosphere Reserves, and
Geoparks
SNH contract No. 18998
Report Appendices
September 3, 2007
Prepared by Richard Robinson, Sue Evans, John Hambrey, and Andrew Moxey
Hambrey Consulting
Hambrey Consulting, Crancil Brae, Strathpeffer, Ross-shire IV14 9AW
Tel/fax 01997 420086; Email [email protected];
www.hambreyconsulting.co.uk
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
APPENDIX 1 CASE STUDIES
Case Study 1 Giant’s Causeway and Causeway Coast World Heritage Site ...........2
Case Study 2 West Norwegian Fjords - Geirangerfjord & Nærøyfjord - World
Heritage Site ..............................................................................................................9
Case Study 3 North Pennines AONB European Geopark ......................................16
Case Study 4 Abberley and Malvern Hills Geopark ................................................25
Case Study 5 Braunton Burrows Biosphere Reserve .............................................31
Case Study 6 Entlebuch Biosphere Reserve ..........................................................40
Case Study 7 Rhön Biosphere Reserve .................................................................47
1
11
CASE STUDY 1
GIANT’S CAUSEWAY AND CAUSEWAY COAST
WORLD HERITAGE SITE
This case study is intended to provide a short introduction to the site, its benefits,
how it operates. It also describes how such a site would contribute to policy
objectives if it were located in Scotland.
© CAIN (cain.ulst.ac.uk)
11.1
Summary
This spectacular, iconic place pulls millions of pounds a year into the economy of
Northern Ireland. The visitor pressure in peak times can be massive, with an
estimated 600 people arriving per hour8 and a total of half a million per year.
Thanks to the National Trust, who maintain, at a loss, 15km of footpaths, the
environmental impact is limited. Visitor facilities are very limited, the council
visitor centre that burnt down six years ago still not having been replaced. The
UNESCO inscription did prompt the writing of a comprehensive management
plan9, submitted in January 2005. Two key features, the appointment of a coordinator to implement the Management Plan and the building of a new visitor
centre, have yet to become a reality.
11.2
Geography; Natural, human and economic
The Giant’s Causeway is a mass of tightly packed hexagonal basalt columns the
tops of which form stepping stones that lead from almost the foot of the cliffs into
the sea. Some of the columns tower 10m out of the sea. This spectacular
volcanic phenomenon 10 was “discovered” in the seventeenth century and
8
Giant’s Causeway visitor facilities. Interpretation concept development proposal. Land Design
Studio May 2006 http://www.nitb.com/attachment.aspx?id=455
9
Giant’s Causeway and Causeway Coast World Heritage Site Final Draft Management Plan
DETI Environment and Heritage Service, National Trust, Moyle District Council. January 2005
http://www.ehsni.gov.uk/whs_final_draft_man_plan.pdf
10
The columns are thought to date from igneous activity 60 million years ago, but for the nongeologist, the legend of the causeway sounds almost as likely and makes a great story. Various
versions of the legend involve local hero and small giant Finn MaCool , a larger Scottish giant
2
became known as the eighth wonder of the world. The Giant’s Causeway is
Northern Ireland’s most popular tourist attraction. Entry is free.
The WHS extends out to sea, but the land-based part is almost exactly co-located
with the existing NNR. The site includes 5km of coastline and lies within the
Causeway Coast AONB. There are various other protective designations, listed
in appendix 1.8.4. The RSPB consider this an area of regional importance within
the UK, with over fifty resident and thirty migrant species of birds.
The site itself is uninhabited except for hotel staff in the Causeway Hotel, which is
near the temporary visitor centre and the National Trust shop and tearoom. There
are small settlements inland. In the local (Moyle) district council area there are
12,000 people over the age of 16 and a relatively high working age employment
rate11 .
11.3
Management/governance
The 70ha of land is largely owned by the National Trust, which has also bought
the Causeway Hotel, which is within the World Heritage Site. Moyle District
Council owns the temporary visitor centre and the land it is on, and also the car
park. There is currently no overall site manager or direct community involvement.
The National Trust, through their regional property manager and conservation
manager, manage the shop and tea-room, the environmental requirements of the
NNR/SAC, and the maintenance of the footpaths. This is done at a financial cost
to the charity. The district council collect the car-parking fees and invest these in
tourist facilities in the wider area. A design for a new visitor centre has been
chosen after an international competition, but work has not yet commenced. This
is being driven by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment and fully
involves other stakeholders including the Northern Ireland Tourist Board, Moyle
District Council, Environment and Heritage Service, and the National Trust. The
WHS Management Plan (Jan 2005) proposes a governance structure (see
section 11.7.2) involving the appointment of a WHS co-ordinator, a WHS
management group and a local community advisory forum.
11.4
Local benefits
11.4.1 Environmental
The ASSSI agreements and the Special Area of Conservation objectives provide
statutory environmental protection for the land-side of the site, regardless of the
WHS status. The WHS Management plan highlights the need for more analysis
and protection of sub-tidal habitats and species. The entire WHS Management
Plan would confer environmental benefits if implemented, particularly regarding
landscape and the management of visitor pressure.
11.4.2 Social
Social gains from the site are largely those derived indirectly from the boost the
tourist revenues give to the general national economy, and therefore depend on
treasury social spending priorities and their effects locally. Net direct social gains
are limited locally. Although free access to such an iconic site is of cultural value
the traffic congestion that results from the visitors is unwelcome. The hotel and
(who lost) and possibly a woman as well. The definitive answer is on
http://www.giantscausewayofficialguide.com/once01.htm
11
76.8% as opposed to a national average of 67.5%. Economic activity rate in the area 62.5%
as opposed to a national average of 58.8%. Source: Labour force survey 2004 Local areas
database. DETI Northern Ireland http://www.detini.gov.uk/cgi-bin/get_az?openbus=99&let=G
3
the National Trust shop and tea-room provide some local employment, but the
lack of a permanent visitor centre limits both employment and educational
opportunities in the local community. The Management Plan also considers that
“lack of skills and training may limit distribution of WHS benefits amongst the local
communities”. There is currently minimal local involvement in the management of
the site, so essentially no opportunity at present for increasing community
“capacity” through involvement in governance.
11.4.3 Economic
Economic gains from the site are significant in terms of revenue to the national
economy. The Tourism Master Plan considers that there is huge potential for
tourism in Northern Ireland and has a vision of maximising this and spreading the
benefits to the local economy. The Giant’s Causeway is seen as a “strength” in
the tourism infrastructure but “unfulfilled” in terms of visitor experience12.
WHS designation could assist in that it has inspired the drafting of a Management
Plan, but this does need actually carrying out to realise more of the benefits.
11.5
Wider benefits/policy and strategy fit
11.5.1 With Scottish policy themes
Giant’s Causeway WHS has an actual impact on the key Scottish policy themes
of education and training and landscape protection. Tourism quality, community
activity, landscape protection and policy integration are all addressed by the WHS
Management Plan but have not yet become a reality. Policy integration is not
obvious, although there are many relevant planning papers (see appendix 1.8.6)
Draft planning guidelines dating from May 2005 recommend a development-free
zone for some 4km around the site. Green tourism, climate change and
ecosystem health are not so readily addressed on this site, although the
Management Plans include consideration of how to reduce private cars.
11.5.2 With UN World Heritage Site Objectives
The Giant’s Causeway WHS is clearly of outstanding universal value and the
essential elements of the geology are likely to remain so. The largest threat in
this sense is from climate change, as rising sea levels drown the basalt and
increasingly fierce storms batter the coastline. Site integrity and protection is more
of a problem in that the necessary visitor facilities are not yet of a quality fitting for
the grandeur of the geology nor the cultural importance of the site. However,
although the facilities should be better, visitor research indicates that the site still
offers a good experience.
11.6
Key lessons and hopes for the site
WHS designation has inspired the Management Plan, which is a useful document
in that it proposes a more inclusive method of governance and the appointment of
a site co-ordinator. In environmental/biodiversity terms, it seems that site
protection is satisfactory and that WHS designation has made little difference.
WHS designation does have the potential to increase both social and economic
benefits arising from the site but only if the management plan is fully
implemented. WHS designation has not been able to over-ride existing barriers of
culture and governance. Worldwide publicity is seen as a useful tool, particularly
in increasing site awareness in the field of education and science. Also, because
12
Causeway coast and glens tourism master plan 2004-1013 DETI 2004
http://www.detini.gov.uk/cgi-bin/downutildoc?id=475 and executive summary
http://www.detini.gov.uk/cgi-bin/moreutil?utilid=294&site=12&util=2&fold=&parent
4
WHS site insciption is an International accolade that can be withdrawn it does
carry a certain influence with national governments.
5
No particular initiatives
More inclusive proposed
management system could
spread benefits.
Proposed management
system would involve local
businesses.
More inclusive management
system could improve
community capacity.
Nothing specific
Nothing specific
Ecosystem
services
Employment and
Income
Business
opportunities
Social Inclusion
Health and wellbeing
Education and
training
See section 6.1
Improve visitor facilities
Landscape &
green space
13
Improve protection below
high-tide mark.
World Heritage Site
initiatives
6
Many school visits; already a
popular educational trip.
Does provide free exercise
and a bracing outdoor
experience out of season.
Little community
involvement.
Little community
involvement in or
employment on site. Low
B&B occupancy rates
Little community
involvement in or
employment on site. Low
B&B occupancy rates
N/A
Poor visitor facilities.
ASSI Management Plan
and SAC protection
Current situation
2
1
1
1
1
0
2
2
Score
(0-3)13
Encouragement for new
visitor centre could hasten
improved educational
facilities.
Proposed new footpath in
Management plan could
encourage longer walks.
Good opportunity to
improve social cohesion.
New management structure
could inspire business
involvement.
New management structure
could inspire community
involvement.
N/A
UNESCO pressure could
speed-up building the
visitor centre
Could inspire protection
below high tide mark.
Potential for WHS
designation to bring
benefit.
Summary - Giant’s Causeway and Causeway Coast World Heritage Site
Biodiversity
Table 5
Safety, numbers, time
and resources National
Trust can commit.
Needs a car to get there
easily.
Possibly complex local
power issues.
Uptake by local
community
Uptake by local
community
Small area. Climate
change.
Local governance issues
Lack of suitable statutory
legislation
Limitations
11.7
Annex
11.7.1 Relevant designations, policies, plans and programmes
North Antrim Coast Special Area of Conservation (SAC);
Giant’s Causeway National Nature Reserve (NNR);
Causeway Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB);
Giant’s Causeway and Dunseverick Area of Special Scientific Interest
(ASSI);
Antrim Coast, Glens and Rathlin Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA);
The Girona Historic Wreck Site (HWS).
World Heritage Site
Planning Policy Statement 2 (PPS2): Planning and Nature Conservation
(1997);
Planning Policy Statement 6 (PPS6): Planning, Archaeology and the Built
Heritage (1999);
Northern Ireland Tourist Board: Strategic Framework for Action 2004-2007
Giant’s Causeway NNR Management Plan
Visitor Servicing Strategy for Northern Ireland (2004) and the supporting
manual;
Northern Ireland Landscape Character Assessment (2000) and supporting
detailed assessments of Moyle and Coleraine Council areas;
The North East Area Plan 2002 (to be succeeded by the Northern Area
Plan 2016);
Regional Development Strategy 2025 (RDS) (2001);
Causeway Coast AONB Management Plan (2003);
Causeway Coast and Glens Tourism Master Plan 2004-2013 (2004);
Draft northern area plan 2005
Antrim Coast, Glens and Rathlin Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA)
management agreements;
North Antrim Coast SAC Draft Conservation Objectives 2003;
The Giant’s Causeway NNR Draft Management Plan (2001); and
National Trust Property Management Plan.
7
11.7.2 Proposed Management Structure
source: Giant’s Causeway and Causeway Coast World Heritage Site Final Draft
Management Plan DETI Environment and Heritage Service, National Trust, Moyle
District Council. January 2005
11.7.3 Additional References
2nd Causeway Coast Master Plan Forum 29th March 2006, Northern Ireland
Tourist Board. http://www.nitb.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=1300
UNESCO World Heritage site website at: http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/369
Environment and Heritage Service Northern Ireland at
http://www.ehsni.gov.uk/natural/designated/WHS.shtml
National Trust site at: http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/main/w-vh/w-visits/wfindaplace/w-giantscauseway/
Northern Ireland Tourist Board
http://www.discovernorthernireland.com/causeway.aspx
http://www.geographia.com/northern-ireland/ukiant01.htm
Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, mew Visitor Centre
http://www.detini.gov.uk/cgi-bin/get_builder_page?page=1759&site=12&parent=173
11.7.4 Acknowledgements
We are grateful to for Graham Thompson , Property Manager, National Trust, his
help and advice
8
12
CASE STUDY 2
WEST NORWEGIAN FJORDS - GEIRANGERFJORD &
NÆRØYFJORD - WORLD HERITAGE SITE
This case study is intended to provide a short introduction to the site, its benefits,
how it operates. It also describes how such a site would contribute to policy
objectives if it were located in Scotland.
Rowing-boat in Geiranger
©Terje Rakke/Nordic Life/Fjord Norway
12.1
Summary
This is a classic example of the Norwegian fjords, in pristine condition. The
landscape and biodiversity are stunning, with small traditional communities and a
sparse population. Tourism is key to the local economy, but traditional agriculture
is in decline despite its environmental role. Most tourists visit on cruise ships, and
less than half stay overnight. World Heritage status is very recent and has been
enthusiastically supported by local people and agencies. They hope it will stem
the outflow of population and regenerate the communities and economy. Strong
local participation in the management of the site is assured.
12.2
Geography; Natural, human and economic
Norway is the home of the fjord landscape, where long and narrow steep sided
valleys have been created by glaciers during the ice ages. This site was
designated in 200514 and contains two classic fjords that are among the least
affected by modern human activity. It is composed of two unconnected tributary
fjords, 60 and 100km inland of the open sea, and has a total area of about
123,000ha. The site ranges from sea level to 1,850m. There are relatively slight
differences between the two areas, one being more alpine and the other more
rounded, but to the casual observer they appear similar, and they are similar in
area and population15.
Within the massive landscape a tradition of human presence is evident,
particularly agriculture on cliff ledges, and villages with traditional wooden
buildings. Tourism began here in the 19th century and is now the dominant
14
The West Norwegian Fjords, Norwegian Nomination, 2004, UNESCO World Heritage List,
http://www.verdensarv.com/filer/546.pdf
15
World Heritage Nomination – IUCN Technical Evaluation Geirangerfjord & Nærøyfjord (Norway)
Id N° 1195, http://whc.unesco.org/archive/advisory_body_evaluation/1195.pdf
9
economic activity, with 0.5 million visits every year. Only 40% stay the night in the
area, and the remainder mainly visit on cruise ships or by bus. Other adjacent
areas have been developed for hydro-electricity so its absence here is one of the
reasons for WHS designation. The current social issues are loss of farming,
growth of tourism, and loss of population to rural and urban centres, particularly
young people and families. The communities here are small villages of up to
about 200 people, of which there are 5 in the Geirangerfjord.
12.3
Management/governance
Norway has a parallel system of national and local government, with the County
Governor responsible for the delivery of national functions, an elected County
authority dealing with regional functions in the same area, and elected authorities
at municipal level. All these authorities have planning and management
responsibilities that effect aspects of the site and its protection and development.
The County has overall responsibility for the WHS.
The application for WHS status was developed over 10 years with the full
participation of local authorities, including the local municipalities at village level.
Working groups included many representatives from the villages, and the process
generated a high level of enthusiasm for WHS status. Once it had been achieved
a year-long process of planning and involvement began, which was a big
celebration with a visit by the Queen. Everyone, from young to old, was involved
in these community events and lasted for 4 days in each area (Geirangerfjord and
Nærøyfjord area).
Now the system is in place the aim is to maintain a high level of community
participation. The key person on the ground is the site co-ordinator, and she
liaises between the managing authority and the communities. The communities
have already expressed a wish to take over the management of the site from the
county in the course of time.
12.4
Local benefits
12.4.1 Environmental
A range of national and local designations and plans exists to protect the
environment of the site. A more pressing issue is the decline in agriculture, as
land is abandoned and farmers move into more profitable and comfortable
occupations. There are plans to develop an incentive scheme for farming as part
of the WHS management. The plans for WHS status influenced local attitudes to
a hydro-electricity proposal, which was not supported by the communities and is
now awaiting a final decision.
12.4.2 Social
The process of developing the WHS proposal generated a high level of
community activity and strong support locally. To some extent this reflected the
economic role of tourism, but it went beyond this. WHS status has given these
remote communities increased status and a higher profile, and has contributed to
their sense of local pride. This is an important contribution to reversing the
demographic decline locally. It should encourage economically and socially
active people to stay in the area or to move to it.
10
12.4.3 Economic
The economic driver of the local
economy is tourism and the WHS
assists this considerably.
Inscription itself generated world
wide publicity. As a WHS the area
now regularly features in global
assessments and reports16. This is
a valuable source of free publicity
and marketing. The integrated
approach to site management and
tourism should also allow positive
links to be made between
traditional farming and food and
tourism. This should broaden the
range of beneficiaries from tourism,
and increase the quality of the
tourism experience.
12.5
Wider benefits/policy and
strategy fit
12.5.1 With Scottish policy themes
The objectives and plans for the
site fit well with Scottish policy on
tourism, particularly for increased
revenue, quality, and green
tourism. There is also a good fit
with the policies for biodiversity,
and landscape. It is less clear how
Cruiseship in Geiranger
© Per Eide
economic policies fit, though GDP
will benefit from higher value tourism. Unemployment is not an issue in this area,
so the benefits of a stronger economy are most likely to be seen in demographic
terms. This fits mostly closely with the Scottish rural development policies for
services, young people, and cultural heritage. Many of the sustainable policy
objectives fit with this case study, including marine and river quality. Some of the
Scottish climate change objectives might be in conflict with the increase in tourism
and the restriction on renewable energy development.
12.5.2 With UNESCO World Heritage Site Objectives
Such a recently inscribed site must fit well with UNESCO objectives. It is too
early to judge the extent to which the practical achievements will match the
ambitions, but the level of statutory site protection is already very good, there are
plans to improve positive incentives for land and tourism management, and the
level of community participation in the site can already be seen to be very high.
This suggests that UNESCO objectives will be met successfully in all respects.
12.6
16
17
Key lessons and hopes for the site17
We hope the WHS will increase the active population in the small villages
within and surrounding the WHS.
e.g. http://www.nationalgeographic.com/traveler/features/whsrated0611/whsrated_europe.html
Based on information from Katrin Blomvik, WHS project officer
11
We hope to take good care of our important heritage and that we will be
able to meet higher demands from visitors to our area.
We hope to keep our pride in the exceptional beautiful fjord landscape and
in our natural and cultural heritage.
We hope the WHS will encourage young people to see greater
opportunities in their local communities including settling down and creating
a way of living for the future.
We hope that our traditional agriculture will have better opportunities in the
future, so that it is possible for future generations to keep the cultural
landscape in shape.
12
Natural watercourses
protected by planning
High dependency on
tourism, low agricultural
incomes
60% of total are day
visitors only
Decline, particularly
young people and
families
Wide range of activities
available
High level of
participation and
enthusiasm at village
level.
Ecosystem services
Employment and
Income
Business
opportunities
Social Inclusion
Health and wellbeing
Education and
training
See section 6.1
Protection through
national legislation and
local plans
Landscape &
greenspace
18
Protection through
national legislation and
local plans
Current situation
Community activity and
participation, including
schools
Marketing includes activity
tourism
Objective of retaining
active population
Greater value from tourists
Tourist information centre
planned
None foreseen necessary
in IUCN assessment
Preservation of cultural
heritage. Military training
proposal cancelled.
Agricultural incentive
scheme planned
WHS initiatives
13
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
2
Score
(0-3)18
Enthusiasm already evident. Scope for
municipalities to take more direct control
in the future.
Better facilities for tourists, which will be
available to locals
Strengthen community structure and
pride.
Higher value tourism, better marketing.
Scope to improve incomes in traditional
sectors by linking to tourism (esp.
agriculture)
Scope to tackle marine ecosystem
issues
Wider public awareness of value
because of WHS status
Increased focus on research and
understanding of trends
Potential for WHS designation to
bring benefit.
Summary - West Norwegian Fjords - Geirangerfjord & Nærøyfjord - World Heritage Site
Biodiversity
Table 6
Small population puts heavy
burden on volunteers’ time
Socially excluded groups unlikely
to be able to afford to visit area
Maintaining sufficient modern
services
Heavy reliance on one volatile
sector: vulnerable to travel crises
Agricultural conditions are
marginal. Lifestyle expectations
may make it difficult to retain
farmers.
Control of cruise ships’
environmental impact may be
difficult
Cultural change is to some extent
inevitable. Pressure for quarrying
may continue.
Climate change impacts may be
severe
Limitations
12.7
Annex
12.7.1 Maps19
Geirangerfjord [See reference for copyright and permission]
Nærøyfjord [See reference for copyright and permission]
19
© The West Norwegian Fjords, Norwegian Directorates for Nature Management and Cultural
Heritage (2006),
14
12.7.2 Acknowledgements
We are grateful to Katrin Blomviq for her help and advice
15
13
CASE STUDY 3
NORTH PENNINES AONB EUROPEAN GEOPARK
This case study is intended to provide a short introduction to the site, its benefits,
how it operates. It also describes how such a site would contribute to policy
objectives if it were located in Scotland.
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
e
c
c
p
.
o
r
g
.
u
k
/
i
mages/great-days-out/First%20rock%20club%20lft.pdf
© North Pennines AONB.
.
13.1
Summary
This is an extensive area of high, wild moorland crossing Cumbria, County
Durham and Northumberland, which achieved European Geopark status in 2003
and is a founder member of the UNESCO Global Geopark Network. It is
coincident with the North Pennines Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which
was designated in 1988, and also includes a Biosphere Reserve. The
designation is overseen by the North Pennines AONB Partnership of some 30
organisations, including nine local authorities. Work is carried out by the fourteenstrong AONB Staff Unit. There is a detailed and ambitious management plan,
with aims and objectives linked to the many policies involved. The most obvious
manifestations of the European Geopark status are the educational, interpretation
and geotourism aspects. The designation appears to be most useful for adding
value to funding bids and promoting the area to a wider audience, thereby
contributing in overall terms to the work of the AONB partnership. .
13.2
Geography; Natural, human and economic
This is Britain’s first European Geopark, designated in June 2003, and is also a
member of the UNESCO Global Geopark network. In June 2006 this status was
re-validated for another three years after a UNESCO assessment. The Geopark
boundary is exactly the same as that of the North Pennines Area of Outstanding
Natural Beauty (AONB) (see Map appendix 1.8.1 and explanation of AONB in
appendix 1.8.3). Over one-third of this area is designated SSSI, as would be
expected with nationally significant areas of upland heath, meadows and blanket
bog and most of England’s black grouse. There are two National Nature
Reserves within the Geopark boundary; Moor House and Upper Teesdale, and
Derwent Gorge and Muggleswick Woods. It is a relatively wild area in regional
16
terms. At 2000 square kilometres it is the second largest AONB in England and
Wales.
Geologically the area is important because of the diversity of the rocks and the
associated history of mining for lead, iron and zinc ore and building stone.
Geology here is strongly linked to the social and economic history. Since the
demise of the mining industry the local population has fallen to about 12,000, half
that of the 1860s when the lead mines were at their busiest.
There are no major towns within the area, although there are a few villages such
as Alston and Allendale. This probably reflects the planning decisions that
defined the AONB boundary Employment opportunities are limited, house prices
are rising and there are poor links with local services. The nearest towns of any
size are Haltwhistle, Barnard Castle and Hexham, relatively prosperous market
towns outwith the designated area.
13.3
Management/governance
The Geopark designation does not supplant or supersede the AONB status and
the same management is needed in each case. Local management is by North
Pennines AONB Partnership Staff Unit on behalf of the North Pennines AONB
Partnership, which is made up of about thirty local organisations, including nine
local authorities and various other “stakeholder” groups. A full list is given in
section 13.7.3. The Partnership has produced a Management Plan 2004-2009 20
and Annual Reports 21. The Management Plan states that there will be annual
“implementation monitoring” to assess the 37 detailed objectives.
The AONB Staff Unit has a very wide remit and carries out the work with fourteen
staff. It must act as advocate, catalyst or executive for each of the Management
Plan objectives. The Unit is supported by a Geopark Advisory Group and hosted
by Durham County Council. The Staff Unit worked with local organisations from
across the North Pennines to develop the area's first geology festival (and two
more since). It uses the Geopark status to assist in raising funding and boosting
the profile of the North Pennines.
The main avenues for community involvement in the Geopark/AONB other than
the formal committee situation seem to be through educational activities and the
administration of the various grants schemes. The Sustainable Development
Fund and the Small Grants Scheme are both administered through the Staff Unit
and fund projects suggested by local sports clubs and parish councils, community
based groups, parish councils, conservation bodies and small businesses.
13.4
Local benefits
13.4.1 Environmental
The partnership has produced a Geodiversity Audit and Action Plan 22 in
conjunction with British Geological Survey. This is the first Geodiversity Action
Plan (GAP) for a UK protected landscape. As well as being the first
comprehensive audit of the geology of the North Pennines AONB, it sets out a
framework for action for the conservation and interpretation of many of the area's
key sites and features of geological interest.
20
North Pennines AONB Management Plan 2004-09. the North Pennines AONB Partnership
http://www.northpennines.org.uk/index.cfm?articleid=4369
21
Annual Report 2005-6 North Pennines AONB Partnership.
http://www.northpennines.org.uk/index.cfm?articleid=9424
22
Geodiversity Audit and Action Plan 2004-2009. The North Pennine AONB Partnership/British
Geological Survey. http://www.northpennines.org.uk/index.cfm?articleid=5137
17
Geopark Network member organisations are not allowed to be involved in the sale
or unregulated collection of geological materials and this proviso would apply to
all members of the AONB Partnership. It is too early to say whether or not the
Geopark status in itself will contribute to the environmental interest as it is so
closely linked to the AONB designation. The environmental benefits may depend
on the nature of the extra projects and initiatives that proceed because of extra
funding secured by the Geopark status.
13.4.2 Social
Most of the social effects of the
designation are likely to come
from educational, interpretation
and geotourism programmes.
Direct community involvement in
planning the Geopark is limited to
the consultation part of the
participation spectrum23. It
seems unlikely that community
“capacity” is being significantly
expanded by the present
management structure.
However, initiatives such as the
Rockworks project and the
EastCumbria
CumbriaCountryside
Countryside
©©East
Teeside Time Trail project
Junior hard-hats
PProject
roject
effectively link the social and
© East Cumbria Countryside Project
economic history of the area with
the geology, perhaps creating even more of a sense of place for the local
community. This theme is continued with financial support for community projects
such as the provision of stone benches and local social enterprise based on earth
heritage, all of which contribute to the local environment and community identity.
Educational activities such as the three children’s Rock Clubs are deliberately
inclusive, with a £1 joining fee, free thereafter.
13.4.3 Economic
The Partnership is using Geopark status to pull in outside funding for sustainable
development, which will have multiplier effects in the local economy. For example
the Staff Unit has secured £150,000 for an EC funded project looking at
sustainable geotourism in the area and £600,000 for an ambitious programme of
education, interpretation and geotourism work. There will be some positive
effects on the local economy from such projects directly, for even if the posts they
create are not permanent some of the money will be spent locally. Four recent
festivals based in the AONB were estimated to have generated input to the local
economy (the latest supporting over £30,000 of overnight spend)24. In general the
greatest economic impact is likely to come from multiplier effects of visitor
spending, though no estimates of this are available.
Perhaps the biggest potential for direct long-term economic effects comes from
the various grants schemes, the largest of which has not been running for long
enough to assess its impact. The key scheme is the Sustainable Development
Fund, which has only been available here since AONB Partnerships were given
access to it by DEFRA for the first time in June 2005. At a little over £100,000 pa
for a wide range of interesting projects it would be valuable to follow the results.
23
24
See Moseley 2003, p137, for example
Based on participants’ survey by self completion questionnaire, Park Manager pers. comm..
18
As ever, it is almost impossible to predict which of the projects would have
proceeded anyway without the grant funding, though the speed of activity has
almost certainly increased.
There is some encouragement for local produce. The Staff Unit has a system
whereby local attractions and accommodation providers may, with approval, use
the European Geopark logo to promote their business as being in a Geopark.
13.5
Wider benefits/policy and strategy fit
13.5.1 With Scottish policy themes
It is too early to see to what extent the Geopark designation is achieving the
Scottish policy objectives that coincide with the Geopark objectives. Certainly the
various initiatives described show potential in terms of education, business
development and tourism quality. They may have a positive impact in terms of
employment in the area, but they may also increase housing demand and
therefore price in the same way as National Parks. The AONB Partnership is
heavily involved in planning and building design within the AONB, which fits with
aspects of sustainable development policies. The question of how they fit with
economic development or changing demography is more problematic.
Biodiversity and landscape protection is not directly affected by the designation
but rather relies on the established NNR/SSSI system for protection and
monitoring. The sustainable development fund is certainly aiming to reduce net
carbon emissions. Community capacity and demography are not directly
addressed through the Geopark at present.
13.5.2 With UN Geopark Objectives
UNESCO has a relatively short list of objectives for Geoparks, and the North
Pennines meets them all to some extent. It already provides management and
protection through the existing statutory SSSI system and the AONB designation
itself. There is a great deal of education work happening and geotourism is being
encouraged. The UNESCO ideal of a sustainable regional economy is perhaps
rather ambitious given the Geopark’s wider regional economic context. At the
same time the grant system, and a range of conservation, education,
interpretation and community development programmes and projects, is
encouraging some local businesses to improve their sustainability credentials.
The area has too few people and insufficient large settlements to consider
sustainability in isolation; so the surrounding market towns must be seen as part
of the system even though they are outside the Geopark. The AONB Staff Unit’s
response is to treat the boundary as somewhat fluid in all matters apart from landuse planning.
13.6
Key lessons and hopes for the site
The Geopark Manager comments:
“The AONB Partnership Staff Unit is an active member of the European Geopark
Network and the North Pennines is at the forefront of this still relatively young
global movement. Work on geological interpretation, education resource material,
trails and festivals, as well as training events for land managers and the wider
public, is backed up by research into participant satisfaction and economic
impact. Examples of where the work is delivering wider benefits include the
Wheels to the Wild Cycle Trail, where a geology and landscape theme for the trail
guide is just one aspect of the project; money raised ostensibly for ‘rocks’ has
also been used in this project to create cycle-tourism friendly infrastructure at 14
B&Bs and attractions en route and buy two disabled people’s adapted bikes for
19
local hire. A marketing campaign in Cycling magazine (plus promotion in the
AONB team’s own publications) backs up the work and links to the promotional
work of tourism bodies, turning this from a guidebook printing project into a
genuine geotourism initiative. From geology festivals to educational resource
packs and from publications to conservation measures, the Geopark status is
proving a valuable string to the AONB partnership’s bow. It may not be for
everyone, but in a former mining area where the community understands that
rocks are important, it is well received and appreciated (perhaps more so than the
AONB designation, given that it comes with few restrictions and caveats).”
20
AONB initiatives in river and woodland
management, peatland management
AONB training initiatives for tourist
service providers. Grant provision
Wider AONB team initiatives + Geology
Festivals / other events
Rock Detectives children’s clubs.
Teeside Time Trail, training events,
grant schemes
Teeside Time Trail, other trails and
events
Wider AONB initiatives, Rock Boxes
and resource material, Teeside
TimeTrail, Rock Detectives Clubs.
Ecosystem
services
Employment and
Income
Business
opportunities
Social Inclusion
Health and wellbeing
Education and
training
See section 6.1
Consulted on planning applications.
Building design guidance.
Landscape &
green space
25
Peatscapes project. Hay meadows
project.
Living North Pennines HLF Landscape
Partnership amongst others
AONB/Geopark initiatives
21
Geopark designation
probably having a lasting
influence.
Geopark designation may
be having some direct
effect.
Ongoing. Looks
successful, although
currently mainly limited to
children.
Ongoing. Looking good.
Ongoing.
Funding secured for
several major projects
Very much governed by
existing AONB planning
regulations
Projects delivering
conservation benefit
across a range of habitats
Current situation
Summary - North Pennines Geopark
Biodiversity
Table 7
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
2
Score
(0-3)25
Funding for AONB/GP
initiatives. Good potential
Funding for AONB/GP
initiatives
Funding for AONB initiatives.
Geological theme for clubs.
Funding for AONB initiatives.
Good potential, depending on
business take-up.
Funding for AONB initiatives.
Good potential, depending on
business take- up.
Funding for AONB initiatives.
Possible protective effect.
None as not a regulatory
status.
Funding for wider AONB
initiatives, Advice from
Geodiversity Officer.
Potential for Geopark
designation to bring
benefit.
Need to involve all sectors of
society, all age groups.
Social attitudes
Emphasis on children’s
education may put off serious
community input.
Planning permission.
Availability of local
entrepreneurs.
Competing attractions in other
areas. Visitor accommodation in
the local area?
Climate change.
Visitor pressure
Other agencies.
Could still be a conflict between
perceived landscape value and
sustainable development.
Landowner willingness to
participate, funding, team and
partner capacity
Limitations
13.7
Annex
13.7.1 Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
There are 37 AONBs in England, covering 15% of the land area, and a further 4 in
Wales. They range in size from the Isles of Scilly (16 km2) to the Cotswolds (2038
km2). AONBs have their roots in the same legislation that brought about the
National Parks – the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949,
which has been consolidated by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.
The primary purpose of AONB designation is to conserve and enhance natural
beauty. In pursuing the primary purpose account should be taken of the needs of
agriculture, forestry, other rural industries and of the economic and social needs
of local communities. Particular regard should be paid to promoting sustainable
forms of social and economic development that in themselves conserve and
enhance the environment (CCP 356).
Recreation is not an objective of designation, but the demand for recreation
should be met so far as this is consistent with the conservation of natural beauty
and the needs of agriculture, forestry and other uses.
In June 2000 Nick Raynsford MP confirmed in a response to a Parliamentary
Question that the Government accept that the landscape qualities of National
Parks and AONBs are equivalent, and so the level of protection given to both
types of area by the land use planning system should also be equivalent. This will
eventually be clarified in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 7 (Sustainable
Development in Rural Areas), which supercedes the Planning Policy Guidance.
Source: Geodiversity Audit and Action Plan 2004-09. The North Pennine AONB
Partnership/British Geological Survey.
22
13.7.2 Indicators26
13.7.3 Members of the North Pennines AONB (& Geopark) Partnership
The Partnership currently comprises the following organisations:
Carlisle City Council
Cumbria County Council
Derwentside District Council
Durham County Council
Eden District Council
Northumberland County Council
Teesdale District Council
Tynedale District Council
Wear Valley District Council
Natural England
CPRE
26
North Pennines AONB Management Plan 2004-9 AONB Partnerships
23
Durham Rural Community Council (& feedback to Durham Assoc Local Councils)
East Cumbria Countryside Project
English Heritage
English Nature
Forestry Commission
Moorland Association (& feedback to Moorland Gamekeepers Assoc and Game
Conservancy Trust)
National Farmers Union (& feedback to CLA)
North Pennines Heritage Trust
North Pennines LEADER+ Programme
Northumberland Assoc Local Councils
ONE NorthEast
The Three Area Tourism Partnerships
RSPB
Voluntary Action Cumbria (& feedback to Cumbria Assoc Local Councils)
Chair of Access & Recreation Working Group (non-voting member)
Chair of Historic Environment Working Group (non-voting member)
Chair of Land Management Working Group (non-voting member)
Chair of Sustainable Tourism Working Group (non-voting member)
Chair of Geopark Advisory Group
2 Open Seats
Source, web January 2006
http://www.northpennines.org.uk/index.cfm?articleid=261
13.7.4 AdditionalReferences
http://www.northpennines.org.uk/
Moseley, M, 2003. Rural Development – principles and practice, Sage, London.
13.7.5 Acknowledgements
We are grateful to the following for their help and advice:
Chris Woodley-Stewart
North Pennines AONB Officer ands Geopark Manager
North Pennines AONB Partnership
Weardale Business Centre
The Old Co-op Building
1 Martin Street
Stanhope DL13 2UY
County Durham
England UK
Dr Elizabeth Pickett,
Geodiversity Officer
North Pennines AONB Partnership.
Marilyn Leech
East Cumbria Countryside Project
24
14
CASE STUDY 4
ABBERLEY AND MALVERN HILLS GEOPARK
This case study is intended to provide a short introduction to the site, its benefits,
how it operates. It also describes how such a site would contribute to policy
objectives if it were located in Scotland.
Geopark Boundary
http://www.geopark.org.uk/_attachments/1716023/AMH_GeoparkMap.pdf
© Abberley and Malvern Hills Geopark.
14.1
Summary
Abberley and Malvern Hills was designated European Geopark in 2003 and
joined the Global Network in 2004. The Geopark, which covers 1,250 square
kilometres, includes many protected geological sites and an Area of Outstanding
Natural Beauty. The Geopark is run from the University of Worcester, with a
Geopark Partnership Management Scheme, a broad-based Community Liaison
Group and a Community Liaison Officer. There is a wide range of educational
activities from family fun days to geology evening classes, run by the university
and by various local heritage and geological groups.
14.2
Geography; Natural, human and economic
This is a scenic area of rolling hills including parts of Gloucestershire,
Worcestershire, Herefordshire and Shropshire. The Malvern hills run north-south
through the area, a hogsback ridge of Precambrian rocks over 700 million years
old, the most ancient in England. To the west is limestone and sandstone forming
rolling hills and dales, to the east fertile arable land. The Geopark includes an
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), thirteen geological SSSIs and more
than 100 Regionally Important Sites for Geology and Geomorphology.
25
Landscape and social history are here entwined; this is the quintessentially
English landscape that inspired Elgar and Thomas Hardy. There is a mining
heritage based on the Wyre Forest coalfield, where the forest remains one of the
most important areas of semi-natural ancient woodland in England.
Archaeological remains such as the Bronze Age stone ditch that runs most of the
length of the hills provide further resources.
Traditionally this is an agricultural area with orchards and hop-yards, but although
land-based industries may be at the heart of rural society they are not central to
the economy. The area really relies on the larger surrounding towns such as
Worcester, with a population of about 94,000. There is a thriving (Malvern)
mineral water business. Section 14.6.2 below shows how the economy of the
surrounding counties of Herefordshire and Worcestershire are increasingly
dominated by service industries. Relative to the regional average the rural areas
have lower unemployment, higher business start-up rates and levels of selfemployment, and similar, if not broader, diversity of economic activity and
employment 27. Growth potential in the rural areas is considered low, and pockets
of deprivation are reported in the West Midlands as a whole, although it is unlikely
that these are in the Geopark area.
14.3
Management/governance
A Geopark Partnership Management Team meet regularly to ensure that the
“conservation, tourism and educational aims of the Geopark are met28. This team
consists of representatives from:
Abberley Hills Preservation Society
Natural England
The Forestry Commission
Gloucester Geology Trust
Herefordshire and Worcestershire Earth Heritage Trust
Shropshire Geological Society
University of Worcester
There is also a Geopark Liaison Group (see appendix 1.8.3 for full list) comprising
various interested local bodies including District and Local Councils and local
wildlife trusts. The Director of the Geopark is based at the University of
Worcester. A Community Liaison Programme has been in place since 2005, led
by a Community Liaison Officer, also based at the University of Worcester. Park
governance does not yet appear to directly involve those members of the local
community who are not in a formal group.
14.4
Local benefits
14.4.1 Environmental
Theoretically Geopark status does not confer any extra environmental protection
over and above that which is already implied by existing designations. SSSIs
should if necessary be subject to a management agreement with Natural England,
who will also oversee NNRs and Local Nature Reserves in the area. Special
Wildlife Sites are looked after by the four county wildlife trusts and archaeological
sites recorded and protected by the four county archaeology departments. In
practice, the extra publicity given to the geological interest of the area will assist in
raising public awareness of local environmental issues in general.
27
Rural Renaissance Framework. Advantage West Midlands 2006.
http://www.advantagewm.co.uk/downloads/rural-renaissance-action-plan-2006.pdf
http://www.advantagewm.co.uk/downloads/rural-renaissance-framework.pdf
Geopark Website http://www.geopark.org.uk/
28
26
14.4.2 Social
Geopark publicity is very inclusive. The website promotes the area as having
something for all to enjoy: locals, visitors, old, young. The educational
programme is very wide-ranging, from pure fun to serious geological evening
classes. The schools programme is comprehensive
14.4.3 Economic
The Geopark has only been designated for three years, and the Community
Liaison programme for less than that, so it is early to judge. It is unlikely that the
statistics will ever be sufficient to allow a view to be formed on the additional
effect of the Geopark in the local economy. Even so, experience dictates that
effective publicity given to good trails and fun days out will increase the number of
visitors to the area, boosting local retail and catering businesses. The mutually
beneficial link with the Severn Valley Railway is useful as this is a great attraction
which steams through a good cross-section of interesting geology.
14.5
Wider benefits/policy and strategy fit
14.5.1 With Scottish policy themes
Abberley and Malvern Hills Geopark has a direct impact on the key Scottish policy
theme of education and training, and has the potential to have a positive effect on
GDP per head and business development. On biodiversity, landscape protection,
community activity, green tourism, ecosystem health, climate change and policy
integration the impact of the UNESCO designation is less clear-cut. The park is
not actually attempting to address this wide range of policy objectives.
14.5.2 With UNESCO Geopark Objectives
The first UNESCO objective of management and protection is met through
existing designations, to which the Geopark tag adds weight but no extra statutory
protection. The educational objective is well met, and attributable directly to
Geopark status. Geotourism is being encouraged through the educational
provision. The scope for Geopark status to be significant in encouraging a
sustainable regional economy is extremely ambitious. To examine this objective
sensibly one would need to consider the surrounding large towns as part of the
functioning hinterland of the park.
27
Some Geopark web links to local
tourist services
Health and education programmes
Geopark Community Liaison
officer. Artist in Residence.
Newsletter.
Wyre Forest Health walks. all
year, free. Other trails and guided
walks.
Schools, Rock and Fossil Road
shows, Craft Courses, Wildlife
Focus Events, Team Challenge
Events, Special Needs, CPD,
evening classes
Business
opportunities
Social Inclusion
Health and wellbeing
Education and
training
See section 6.1
High level of selfemployment/small businesses,
low wages. Not a growth area.
Some Geopark web links to local
tourist services
Employment and
Income
29
Under EA control?
No specific Geopark initiative
known.
Ecosystem
services
28
Strong inclusive educational
programme on a wide range of
levels: from courses for the
amateur to Revolting Roman
pot-making days.
Visitor numbers unknown.
Geopark Way proposed.
Mixture of local visitors and
tourists. Many free
opportunities. Park
governance not fully inclusive
(except agencies/NGOs)
High level of selfemployment/small businesses,
low wages. Not a growth area.
Provided by AONB/ Malvern
Hills Conservators/Planning
system and others
No specific Geopark initiative
known
Landscape &
green space
Geodiversity strategy exists.
Statutory protection for
Geological SSSI’s.
Current situation
No specific Geopark initiative
known
Geopark initiatives
Summary - Abberley and Malvern Hills Geopark
Biodiversity
Table 8
3
3
2
2
2
0
2
2
Score29
Excellent. Strong support from
knowledgeable local heritage
and geological societies and
professional geological support
from University of Worcester
Good potential. Park
accessible from large towns
nearby and from Birmingham
Wide-ranging accessible
education and activity
programme could bring in more
diverse visitors Good potential
for urban areas to benefit
Good. Tourism seen as a key
driver in rural economy.
Geopark activities could be an
attraction. Could assist Severn
Valley Railway
Good. Tourism a key driver in
rural economy. Geopark
activities could be an attraction.
Unknown
Good, could raise awareness
Good, could raise awareness
Potential for Geopark
designation to bring benefit.
Funding?
Visitor pressure?
Car parking? Trail
maintenance?
Funding for
educational visits
and staff. Visitor
Centre facilities?
Public transport
Level of innovation
Business uptake.
Skills
Climate change
challenges ahead.
Housing pressure.
Planning decisions
Nature of site
management
agreements
Limitations
14.6
Annex
14.6.1 Members of AONB Group
Gloucestershire County Council
Herefordshire Council
Worcester County Council
Wychavon District Council
Bridgnorth District Council
Forest of Dean District Council
Malvern Hills District Council
Tewkesbury Borough Council
Worcester City Council
Bromesberrow Estate
Christopher Lyons Estate
Huntley Estates
Madresfield Estate and CLA
Malvern Hills Conservators
National Trust
Woodland Trust
Countryside Agency
Advantage West Midlands
Rural Development Services, DEFRA
Herefordshire Nature Trust
Shropshire Wildlife Trust
Worcestershire Wildlife Trust
Go West Teme Valley Project
Worcestershire County Museum
Bewdley Museum
Kidderminster College
Severn Valley Railway
Malvern Hills AONB
14.6.2 Worcester economy
Chart of trend of regional gross value added of Worcestershire at current basic prices
Regional
Gross
Year
Agriculture[4]
Industry[5]
Services[6]
Value
Added[3]
1995
5,047
225
1,623
3,200
2000
6,679
159
2,002
4,518
2003
7,514
182
1,952
5,380
Published (pp.240-253) by Office for National Statistics with figures in millions of British
Pounds Sterling.
29
14.6.3 Herefordshire Economy
Chart of trend of regional gross value added of Herefordshire at current basic prices
Regional
Gross
Year
Agriculture[3]
Industry[4]
Services[5]
Value
Added[2]
1995
1,622
218
567
836
2000
1,885
155
643
1,087
2003
2,216
185
708
1,323
Published (pp.240-253) by Office for National Statistics with figures in millions of British
Pounds Sterling.
14.6.4 Additional References
UNESCO Geopark website
http://www.europeangeoparks.org/isite/geopark/39,1,0.asp?mu=1&cmu=6&thID=
0
Geopark Community Newsletter
http://www.geopark.org.uk/_attachments/1716088/GeoparkNewsletterSpr06.pdf
14.6.5 Acknowledgements
We are grateful to the following for their help and advice:
Dr Cheryl Jones :
Director
Abberley & Malvern Hills Geopark
Department of Applied Sciences, Geography & Archaeology
University of Worcester : Henwick Grove :
Worcester WR2 6AJ
Rona Davis :
Community Liaison Officer
c/o The Geological Records Centre
University of Worcester:
Henwick Grove :
Worcester WR2 6AJ
30
15
CASE STUDY 5
BRAUNTON BURROWS BIOSPHERE RESERVE
This case study is intended to provide a short introduction to the site, its benefits,
how it operates. It also describes how such a site would contribute to policy
objectives if it were located in Scotland.
15.1
Summary
This is the UK’s first “new-style” Biosphere
Reserve; 9,700 ha of dunes, mudflats, fields,
woods and over 150,000 people. The core
area, a large dune system much used by local
people for recreation, has an SSSI
designation and is run under a management
agreement with a private owner and the MoD.
The management structure includes the local
community and business leaders and there
is strong leadership and good links with local
schools and colleges. A new Biosphere
Reserve Strategy is under development and
will be rolled out in April/May 2007. The
tourist industry is important to the economy of
the area and the BR label could assist with
marketing. Some sixty local businesses use
the Biosphere Reserve label on their websites,
there is a link with green business mentors
Envision, and with one hundred businesses in
the North Devon Food Group. The good
community involvement and business
inclusion needs time and support to achieve
the critical mass needed to translate the vision
of the North Devon Biosphere into measurable
social and economic benefits.
15.2
Dune system
© Copyright Richard Johns and licensed
for reuse under this Creative Commons Licence
Coastal landscape
© Copyright Noel Jenkins and licensed
Geography; Natural, human and economic
for reuse under this Creative Commons Licence
This Biosphere Reserve covers part of the
northern half of Devon, in the South-West of England, and has a long area of
scenic coastline and attractive countryside. Braunton Burrows is the central core;
an active sand dune system of international importance, an SSSI and a Special
Area of Conservation under the EU Habitats Directive. In 199830 this amounted to
the whole of the Biosphere Reserve. Restructuring since then has kept this as
the core area and expanded the whole reserve. The buffer zone is 3,120ha of
mainly grassland and encompasses a large section of the estuary of the rivers
Taw and Torridge. The habitats in both the core and buffer areas are dependent
on the water level and there are obvious benefits to controlling it over the whole
area through a single system. This approach unifies management in the core and
buffer zones.
The buffer zone also contains one of the only two surviving Mediaeval Open Strip
field systems in the UK and is therefore of historical significance. The transition
area is large, with a fuzzy boundary. It extends out to sea round Lundy Island,
and inland to encompass the towns of Oakhampton, Barnstaple and Bideford.
The whole Reserve extends to about 3,600 sq km. Approximately 440 people live
in the buffer zone and more than 150,000 in the transitional area. Agriculture and
30
Price et al 1999. Review of the UK Biosphere Reserves. Report to DETR. HMSO London.
31
forestry dominate the traditional culture of the area, and, like South West
Scotland, small dairy farms used to predominate .Geographically remote, in
English terms, from regional commercial centres, the area has relatively low
wages and a shortage of affordable housing, partly due to second home
ownership. There is a relatively low level of car ownership and this, combined
with poor public transport, causes problems of rural isolation for some people,
with limited access to leisure and cultural opportunities. One in eight people are
carers. Nearly one-quarter of the self-employed work in agriculture or related
services, where wages are historically low31. Tourism is an important part of the
local economy. At least one local business group (North Devon economic
partnership) feel that the Biosphere Reserve idea could work as a catalyst to
encourage economic development32.
15.3
Management/governance
Reserve management is co-ordinated by North Devon Coast and Countryside
Service (NDCCS), which has a very wide mandate (see section 15.7.3). This
compact organisation covers both environment and development issues and coordinates the management of the reserve. The administrative authority for the
whole area is Devon County Council, who part-fund NDCCS. The core dune
system of some 1,333 ha is owned and managed by Christie Devon Estates and
the MoD, working within a management agreement supported by Natural
England. The buffer and transition zones are owned and managed by many
private individuals. The Biosphere Reserve management structure is designed to
make it possible to act with local people, and particularly to make use of the
various groups and partnerships already working within the region, as follows:
31
North Devon First; A community strategy for the future of North Devon. North Devon District
Council and Devon district Council on behalf of the North Devon community Alliance, July 2002
http://www.northdevon.gov.uk/ndfirst.pdf
32
“2020 vision” A Strategy for Sustainable Economic Regeneration in North West Devon. NW
Devon Economic Partnership May 2004, prepared by WSP Environmental Ltd.
32
Biosphere Reserve Management Board
Landowners
Business stakeholders
Local Authority
Cultural Sector
Scientific and academic community
National/regional funding agencies
Social and educational community
Facilitation Group
Members of community groups
Members of institutions and agencies represented
on the Board
Specialists co-opted as required
Task Groups formed as required
Consultative forum and framework
Pre-existing groups, alliances and partnerships within the area e.g.
sustainable energy groups, agriculture groups, conservation groups,
tourism associations, community planning alliances.
As we write (January 2007) a new Biosphere Reserve Strategy is being written,
and a Biosphere Reserve Partnership is being set up, involving many of the
organisations and individuals previously consulted but in a more inclusive
structure (See appendix 1.8.5). There is ongoing consultation and community
work with the North Devon Alliance, which is the umbrella group for community
alliances in North Devon.
15.4
Local benefits
15.4.1 Environmental
The Biosphere Reserve designation may well benefit the environment in the
buffer and transition zone, and perhaps further afield than that, largely because of
the environmental education and research that can be attributed to the reserve
organisation. The core SSSI - the sand dunes themselves - are deteriorating. An
English Nature habitat survey33 carried out in October and November 2006 found
that of the eight areas that make up the SSSI all but one were in unfavourable
condition. Over half the SSSI area was classified as “unfavourable, declining”
and only 30% met the Public Service Agreement target of favourable or
33
http://www.englishnature.org.uk/special/sssi/reportAction.cfm?report=sdrt18&category=S&refere
nce=1000023
33
recovering34. This situation is in the process of being rectified through
discussions between Natural England, Christie Estates and the MoD.
15.4.2 Social
Much work has been done already in terms of involving members of the local
community in reserve management. The scope of future community participation
will depend very much on the nature of the new Biosphere Reserve Partnership.
In terms of health and well-being the core areas of the reserve, the fine beach and
the dunes, are a much-loved dog-walking, kite-flying, Sunday family outing
destination. English access laws are less liberal than Scottish so the BR
designation and the sense of “ownership” it confers assist in preserving the
access rights here. The presence of the BR designation does increase the profile
of NDCCS, and this may assist their efforts to promote outdoor activities in the
wider area.
North Devon College are developing foundation degrees including a module on
sustainable development based on the reserve, which they also use as a study
site. A local school consortium has just succeeded in a bid for £130K to develop
a pack for education in the Biosphere Reserve.
15.4.3 Economic
The reserve is involved with the UNESCO “Quality Economies” initiative and
stakeholders are aware of the proposed BR trademark label35. NDCCS have
used reserve events and their dedicated website to publicise the work of
EnVision, a local partnership consultancy service who offer discounted
environmental auditing to save waste, energy and money. The Green Tourism
scheme is a 3-level approach for developing sustainability accreditation and will
be a fundamental part of the BR Business Partner scheme. A great number of
initiatives and strategies have been undertaken by NDCCS.
15.5
Wider benefits/policy and strategy fit
15.5.1 With Scottish policy themes
Braunton Burrows BR has direct impact on the key Scottish policy themes of
education and training, community activity, green tourism, ecosystem health and
policy integration. On biodiversity and landscape protection the impact of the
UNESCO designation is less clear-cut. The vision of this BR does include
initiatives that could have a positive effect on GDP per head, business
development, climate change and tourism quality.
15.5.2 With UNESCO BR Objectives
Braunton Burrows is particularly well-integrated into the regional planning system,
including the economic development reports and community initiatives, all key BR
objectives. It is difficult to assess how harmonised the core, buffer and transition
areas are, although there is clearly a close relationship between the core and
34
There is a Public Service Agreement (PSA) target to have 95% of SSSI area in favourable or
recovering condition by 2010. Source; English Nature website, Jan 07.
35
A workshop on “Quality Economies” was held on the reserve May 2006, at which Peter Dogse,
Programme Specialist, Division of Ecological and Earth Sciences, UNESCO gave a presentation.
This is available as a PowerPoint presentation from the website www.northdevonbiosphere.org.uk
.
34
buffer zones in environmental terms. The new strategy and partnership for the
BR fit tightly with UNESCO objectives.
15.6
Key lessons and hopes for the site
Key hopes for the site are set out in the draft strategic plan (not yet ratified). They
are:
To reverse the decline in biodiversity.
To conserve our best landscapes and enhance the other areas where it is
compatible with sustainable development
To use our resources wisely
To develop and strengthen a robust economy that enhances the
environment
To reduce poverty and inequality in North Devon
To have a safe strong and healthy community in North Devon by
To be a community of learning for the wider world
35
“Greening” advice on
website, business support.
Indirect via business
partnership scheme.
Indirect via business
partnership scheme.
Biosphere Reserve
Partnership and history of
good community involvement
Established recreation area.
Long distance path and trails.
Good links with local schools
and colleges; strong
outreach programme
Ecosystem
services
Employment and
Income
Business
opportunities
Social Inclusion
Health and wellbeing
Education and
training
See section 6.1
Art in the landscape
community project.
Landscape &
greenspace
36
Coastal and floodplain
grazing marsh project.
Saltmarsh creation
General habitat management
Braunton Burrows BR
initiatives – huge raft of
initiatives, see separate
document
BR will already be
memorable to students.
36
BR probably having a slight
but noticeable effect.
Good. Limited number of
people involved but there
will already be benefits and
some influence within
business community.
Effect of BR will be fairly
marginal at present.
Effect of BR will be fairly
marginal at present.
EnVision doing well,
supported by BR.
Good. Strong local feel that
the landscape is important.
SSSI is deteriorating. Wider
countryside may be
benefiting from BR
initiatives.
Current situation
Summary Braunton Burrows Biosphere Reserve
Biodiversity
Table 9
3
3
2
3
2
3
3
1
Score36
Good
Good.
Good.
Good, depending on
business take-up and
national tourism behaviour.
Good, depending on
business take-up.
Very good.
Good.
Wider countryside likely to
benefit from BR’s
involvement in local
planning.
Potential for BR
designation to bring
benefit.
Need to appeal to all sectors of
society.
Social attitudes.
Poor local transport to get to
meetings. Normal difficulties of
social inclusion in participatory
process.
Poor transport links. Possible
skill shortage. Over-reliance on
tourism.
Business take-up. Difficult
transport. Low wages.
Needs wider business support
Climate change?.
Housing demand?
Climate and sea level change
Management agreements?
Housing demand?
Road building?
Limitations
15.7
Annex
15.7.1 Map of Braunton Burrows
15.7.2 Aims of Braunton Burrows Biosphere Reserve
The following list arises from the Biosphere Forum, a public consultation event
held in Barnstaple in November 2006.
To reverse the decline in biodiversity
To conserve our best landscapes and enhance the other areas where it is
compatible with sustainable development.
To use our resources wisely.
To develop and strengthen a robust economy that enhances the
environment.
To reduce poverty and inequality in North Devon.
To have a safe, strong and healthy community in North Devon.
To have a population that is skilled in sustainable living and working and
makes informed choices about their future.
To be a community of learning for the wider world.
15.7.3 Duties of North Devon Coast and Countryside Service
Core functions
Provide a management/co-ordination function for the entire Biosphere
Reserve
Managing the SW Coast Path
Managing the Tarka Trail
Provide a management unit for the North Devon AONB
Provide estuary management advice and co-ordination
37
Provide a biodiversity and landscape technical and on the ground delivery
service for the area
Provide a countryside access and environmental education/interpretation
service for the area.
Provide support for strategic planning with issues related to the
environment.
To find efficiency savings by working and co-ordinating activity with other
partners.
38
15.7.4 Proposed Governance Structure (not yet ratified)
Area of Outstanding
Natural Beauty
Biosphere Reserve
Partnership - to support
activities in the Biosphere
Reserve.
Local
Strategic
Partnerships
(Owns the strategy,
coordinates effort, champions
the principles of the Biosphere
Reserve, links to UK MAB and
beyond, supports and advises
authorities and agencies,
Meets 3 times per year
Facilitation Group
Filters and refers information to and from the Board, proposes
papers and reports (made from officers and representatives on the
Board, North Devon County Council and Countryside Service, and
from Estuary Forum members as Founding Community Facilitators).
Groups meet as necessary. Topic groups can be permanent or
“task and finish”.
Consultative Framework/Forum
Split by geography and theme, using existing groups and fora, such as Community
Planning Alliances, Theme based interest groups such as Agricultural Forum,
Biodiversity Forum, Coastal Group, Transport Groups, Tourism Associations. Will
have an annual conference/workshop.
15.7.5 Acknowledgement
We are grateful to Andy Bell, Biosphere Manager, for help with this case study.
39
16
CASE STUDY 6
ENTLEBUCH BIOSPHERE RESERVE
This case study is intended to provide a short introduction to the site, its benefits,
how it operates. It also describes how such a site would contribute to policy
objectives if it were located in Scotland.
16.1
Summary
This is Switzerland’s first Biosphere Reserve;
39,000 ha of mountain, moor, forest, alpine
pastures and some 17,000 people in eight main
settlements. The core is a mountain area
protected by three local protective designations. The buffer area is moor, forest
and pasture, and relatively large at 16,000 ha The reserve was set up after a
positive vote by the local community and has continued the theme of strong
community and business involvement.
This reserve works in social and economic terms because the residents are used
to selling the area as a tourist destination. For many, their income relates directly
to the number of visitors. They support the idea of the Echt Entlebuch brand,
which has a good logo, and when visitors arrive
they get a quality experience and good cooking.
The reserve also provides a forum for foresters
and woodworkers to discuss and develop a
sustainable traditional industry. The
environmental issues may be those of
determining the carrying capacity of the forest industries, managing any undue
visitor pressure on the mountain areas and dealing with the unknown effects of
global warming on the mountain environment.
This reserve has only been in place for five years and already its achievements
seem to accord with almost all the Scottish policy priorities.
16.2
Geography; Natural, human and economic
The Entlebuch Biosphere Reserve is a scenic mix of mountain, moorland, peat
bog, forest and alpine pasture at the foot of the Alps in the central part of
Switzerland. There are wild, inaccessible forested gorges with rare species such
as lynx and eagle owl, and a big cave system. The reserve covers some 39,000
hectares and reaches an altitude of 2,350m. The
core mountain area is covered by three protective
designations; a cantonal Bog Conservation
Decree, a Nature Protection Area and a hunting
ban above 1700m. The buffer zone is mainly
moor and forest and is partly covered by a
protected landscape designation. The map at
appendix 1.8.1 shows the designation boundaries.
There are some 17,000 people living in the area (2000), mainly in eight
settlements. At one of them a cable-car ascends to a ski and hiking area.
Agriculture, tourism and wood-based industries are significant. Detailed
demographic or economic data for the area are not easily accessible, but as it is a
popular holiday destination it is reasonable to assume that incomes can be
variable, that there is a high percentage of self-employed people and that wages
for the economically active in smaller villages will be on the low side.
40
16.3
Management/governance
Under Swiss governance the protection of nature and the landscape remains in
the hands of the cantons and the Biosphere designation makes no difference to
this. From the beginning this reserve has involved local residents. Public
meetings were initially held with the eight communities concerned, who approved
the proposed reserve with a 94% majority. Appendix 1.8.3 gives further detail on
the implementation of biosphere management. Governance is now through a
system of regional management with public participation. Representatives of the
different towns, and of various organisations, are elected to a steering committee
by an assembly of delegates. There is also a co-ordination committee with
various sub-groups to tackle particular issues.
The participatory structure is shown in the following diagram.
Figure 2
Entlebuch Biosphere Reserve governance37
© www.biosphaerenreservat-rhoen.de
The Regional Management Centre does the day-to-day organisation and runs a
Biosphere Centre (see photograph) in conjunction with the Office of Forestry and
the Agricultural Education and Advice Centre. It also runs training and work
experience courses from this and other smaller regional offices, and works closely
with other, similarly oriented institutions and regions inside and outside
Switzerland 38 A Supporters club raises money for the reserve and does inventive
publicity.
16.4
Local benefits
16.4.1 Environmental
According to the official website, biodiversity on the reserve has stabilised with the
population of endangered species increasing. Research is being carried out with
37
Presentation given by Engelbert Ruoss, Regional Management, Entlebuch, at a meeting to
discuss the UN “Quality Economies” initiative, held at North Devon Coast and Countryside
Centre, May 2006
38
www.bisphaere.ch
41
hunters and farmers and a doctoral thesis has been written on integrated
monitoring 39. Traditional and sustainable uses of natural resources are on the
increase.
16.4.2 Social
There is reported to be an increased awareness of and identification with natural
and cultural values. In 2005 the Biosphere Reserve School held 22 classes for a
total of 740 children. Initiatives and awards in “gastro-tourism” (good cooking)
involve a number of people in this labour-intensive industry. Similarly,
encouraging tourists to stay in farm houses involves many more people in the
hospitality industry who have to develop personal skills, and become more
knowledgeable about the local area.
The following bar charts show how membership of producer and product groups
increased sharply after the reserve was designated, showing an increased
cohesion at least in business matters.
Figure 3
Product Labelling - Producers and Groups
16.4.3 Economic
Specific information on visitor numbers, meals and overnight stays reveals a
healthy increase since the reserve was designated. Unless there has been some
marked improvement in transport links or other such material change over the
same period of time it is reasonable to assume that the change can be partly
attributed to the reserve initiatives.
Figure 4
Tourism statistics40
39
Scmid, A. PhD Thesis. Monitoring of sustainability in the regional development of the UNESCO
Biosphere Reserve Entlebuch. Date unknown.
40
Presentation given by Engelbert Ruoss, Regional Management, Entlebuch, at a meeting to
discuss the UN “Quality Economies” initiative, held at North Devon Coast and Countryside
Centre, May 2006
42
There is well-directed promotion of tourism and marketing of regional produce
using the BR “brand”, which should assist medium to long-term economic
development.
16.5
Wider benefits/policy and strategy fit
16.5.1 With Scottish policy themes
Entlebuch Biosphere Reserve, had it been Scottish, would be judged to have had
an actual impact on the key Scottish policy themes of GDP/head, business
development, employment, education and training, community activity, tourism
quality, green tourism, ecosystem health and biodiversity. On climate change and
landscape protection the impact of the UNESCO designation is less clear-cut, but
it is possible that the encouragement of a sustainable wood industry could have a
positive effect on both. It is not possible to fairly judge the level of integration into
the regional planning system without in-depth study of the Swiss system. Even
so, this reserve addresses almost all the Scottish policy priorities, and it has been
in place for only five years.
16.5.2 With UN Biosphere Reserve objectives
It is difficult to assess whether there has been any actual increase in “harmony”
between the core, buffer and transition areas as a result of designation. There
was a fair degree to start with, both through the obvious ecological links and
through the reliance of the local people on their mountains as a tourist draw and
as source of wood and grazing. Perhaps the links are more overt as a result of
the reserve, and more children will be taught of them. There has been a study on
integrated monitoring, and visitor numbers are locally recorded, a most useful and
elsewhere under-rated exercise. The UNESCO objective of local involvement is
achieved well. There is evidence of research involvement, although we cannot
assess habitat monitoring in the same detail as is possible with UK sites.
Similarly we cannot easily assess the level of integration with local planning.
Generally, the UN objectives seem to have been met in a practical way.
16.5.3 Key lessons and hopes for the site
This reserve works in social and economic terms because many of the residents
work in the hospitality industry, they are used to selling the area as a tourist
destination, and, for many, their income relates directly to the number of visitors.
They know a good idea when they see one, they support the idea of the Echt
Entlebuch brand, they got a good logo and they make sure that when visitors do
get here they get a quality experience and good cooking. A good example for
Scotland. The glorious scenery does the rest. The business leaders are clearly
sharp, willing to take on a new concept and to make it happen. With this critical
mass of business support turning into a swift increase in visitor numbers the
success of the brand builds on itself. This illustrates the power of effective
participation and innovation, combined.
The creation of the Reserve has coincided with an increase in “eco-tourism”. The
well-educated and relatively affluent Swiss take local breaks in an accessible area
(Lucerne, central Switzerland) with “green” credentials, little hotels with wood
stoves, chalets for hire, great hiking, wooden crafts and good restaurants. It
illustrates how determined people living in a beautiful area with great local food
and a tradition of hospitality can seize the opportunity.
In environmental terms the issues will be those of determining the carrying
capacity of the forest industries, managing any undue visitor pressure on the
43
mountain areas and dealing with the unknown effects of global warming on the
mountain environment.
44
Villages of Fluehli and
Suerenberg looking at
forest/energy/water/tourists.
Tourism initiatives
Sustainable use of wood
project >100 members.
Lively supporters club with
influential members.
Entlebuch “brand”. Gastrotourism.
Elected representatives from
all communities on the
assembly of delegates.
Walking, cycling and horseriding trails benefit local
people and visitors.
Schools programme
Research involvement
Ecosystem
services
Employment and
Income
Business
opportunities
Social Inclusion
Health and wellbeing
Education and
training
See section 6.1
Tourism initiatives increase
economic dependence on
landscape.
Landscape &
green space
41
Involvement with various UN
research programs. Core
protection unchanged.
Entlebuch BR initiatives
BR concept will already be
memorable to students
45
BR probably having a slight but
noticeable effect.
Good, but link between steering
committee and regional
management not known
Increased by rise in visitor
numbers and expenditure.
Increase in visitor numbers and
spending will improve business
incomes and may increase
employment.
Possibly unchanged although
increased visitor numbers must
have impact.
Possibly unchanged.
Biodiversity stabilised.
Population of endangered
species increasing.
Current situation
Summary - Entlebuch Biosphere Reserve
Biodiversity
Table 10
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
Score41
Good
Good
Depends on who is
involved. Good
prospects.
Good, depending on
business take-up and
national tourism
behaviour .
Good, depending on
business take-up and
national tourism
behaviour.
Possible protective
effect.
Possible protective
effect. Dependent on
canton planning
regulations.
Depends on nature of
management unknown
Potential for BR
designation to bring
benefit.
Need to involve all sectors of
society, all age groups.
Social attitudes
Need to involve all sectors of
society.
Depends on business take-up,
leadership and the availability of
competing attractions.
Competing attractions in other
areas.
Availability of skilled local staff.
Needs wide business take-up.
Climate change.
Visitor pressure
Development pressure unknown.
Determination of forest carrying
capacity for monitored
sustainability. Unknown effects of
climate change
Limitations
16.6
Annex
16.6.1 Implementation42
16.6.2 Acknowledgements
We are grateful to Engelbert Ruoss, for help and advice.
Images are ©UNESCO Bioshere Entlebuch
42
Presentation given by Engelbert Ruoss, Regional Management, Entlebuch, at a meeting to
discuss the UN “Quality Economies” initiative, held at North Devon Coast and Countryside
Centre, May 2006
46
17
CASE STUDY 7 RHÖN BIOSPHERE RESERVE
This case study is intended to provide a short introduction to the site, its benefits,
how it operates, and how such a site would contribute to policy objectives if it
were located in Scotland.
17.1
Summary
Rhön Biosphere Reserve is huge. It covers 185,000 ha of largely man-made
landscape, mostly grassland and forest. The small multiple core areas are being
retained untouched to become rare “wilderness”, and there are strict development
limitations on the large buffer zone. In the Rhön this is the most important zone
for biodiversity conservation (grassland). Relatively sparsely populated, this is a
cold, wet, open landscape, recovering from the blight of being a border zone
before German re-unification. The management structure involves three separate
federal states and what could be a confusing governance system, but somehow it
works. The business partner scheme, area trademark and many training and
marketing initiatives have combined to give an unpromising area hope and
identity.
17.2
Geography; Natural, human and economic
Rhön Biosphere reserve sits in the centre of Germany at the border triangle of
three Federal States, Bavaria, Hesse and Thuringia. Covering some 185,000
hectares, and with a population of 136,000, it has a population density far below
the national average. It is traditionally a poor area, remote from large
conurbations, and a source of emigration. Settlement is mainly in small villages.
The economy is centred around small businesses (and the service industries),
based on agriculture, tourism, light industry, construction and forestry. Thuringia
used to be in East Germany and carries the legacy of large collective farms, now
owned by private consortia. By contrast, in Bavaria over half the farms are less
than ten hectares. Farming is fairly extensive but there is a livestock and dairy
industry, which offers the potential of adding value fairly easily, and there are
orchards.
The landscape is largely pasture and meadow with low hills and about one-third
woodland, remnants of the ancient beech forests that used to cover the area (see
map Appendix 1.8.1). There are some steeper, almost mountainous areas with
interesting plant communities. The old border area is interesting because most
people were thoroughly excluded from it for some time. The twenty-nine core
areas are valued remnants of wilderness in a varied but largely man-made
landscape. The sheer size of the area and the varied elevation means that there
are over 100 breeding bird species, many of which are protected at the national
and EU-wide level. The soil is poor and the climate cold and wet, but the air is
clean and there is a sense of space.
17.3
Management/governance
Designated as a trans-boundary BR immediately after the reunification of
Germany, this is a bold attempt at planning a large area from three different
federal states (Länder). Although Bavaria, Hesse and Thuringia speak the same
language, they are thoroughly independent. None may govern in another Länder,
so there are three Biosphere Reserve Departments, one in each state. Each state
has a different administrative hierarchy to feed into the trilateral framework of the
47
Management Framework Plan 43, which is co-ordinated by a small but clearly
effective working group.
The management framework plan was written in 1991 and is currently under
review, but provided a bold vision of wide-ranging tourism development and landuse planning, with many local forums and workshops leading to a harmonized
regional management plan. Interdisciplinary research is co-ordinated across
Länder boundaries.
As part of the review of the Management Plan, various workshops and studies
have been undertaken to examine the way forward for the area. In the context of
an EU research project, the working group subjected themselves to a complex
SWOT analysis in 2003 44 (see appendix 1.8.4), which concluded that the factors
which could best be locally influenced, and which would have a positive effect
were:
Tourism
Regional identity
The Biosphere Reserve itself
Product marketing.
17.4
Local benefits
17.4.1 Environmental
The immediate environmental benefit of Biosphere Reserve status in 1991 was
the protection of biodiversity and habitat in 29 core areas, which together form
some 3% of the reserve. The aim is to leave these areas untouched, to revert to
or remain near-wilderness, a rare thing in Germany. Some 37% of the reserve is
also designated as buffer zone, and is sensitive, low disturbance habitat. Part of
this is called buffer zone A and is protected as nature reserves. The buffer zone
is not intended for settlement or commercial development. The remaining 60% of
the area, the transition zone, is earmarked for environmentally compatible,
sustainable development. In this way the area has avoided the piecemeal and
unconsidered development that might have followed re-unification.
Perhaps the biggest threat to the historic cultural landscape is from agricultural
structural change. Various Natura 2000 schemes in the wider countryside
attempt to address this, partly by land purchase. Biosphere grants for
conservation and landscape maintenance attempt to counter the natural
temptation to turn small farms to fallowand/or forest when agricultural returns are
poor.
There are fifty environmental monitoring programmes in place with over 800 sites.
Much of this is part of a systematic national monitoring scheme using a fixed grid
system. This programme is decentralised and mostly run by various Länder
agencies.
43
Framework Management Plan for the Rhon Biosphere Reserve. (English Language Summary).
Editors: State Ministry of Development and Environmental affairs of Bavaria, the Ministry of
development, Settlement, Agriculture, forestry and nature Conservation of Hesse and the Ministry
of Agriculture, Nature Conservation and Environmental Affairs of Thuringia. !995.
http://www.biosphaerenreservat-rhoen.de/dokumente/rahmenkonzept_englisch.pdf
44
Iron Curtain project Ref: QLK5-2001-01401 Reference Area 2 Germany – Biosphere Reserve
Rhon – Institute for Geography – Geoinformatics Friedrich-Schiller-Universitat Jena (UNIJENA)
25 Feb 2004.http://www.geogr.unijena.de/fileadmin/Geoinformatik/c1stbe/ironcurtain/Publikationen/ra2_www.pdf
48
17.4.2 Social
The social upheaval of re-unification had a major effect on families and
communities in the area. The direct effects of the reserve are likely to have been
minor in comparison, but the various educational projects, grants schemes and
general community involvement will have been all the more welcome for coming
at such a time. There is evidence that “the combination of innovative concepts
based on the ecological and economic values of the region have remarkably
improved the socio-economic conditions of the entire region” 45.
17.4.3 Economic
The reserve’s aim is to maintain a multi-faceted local economy based on linking
agriculture, crafts and tourism, but not to pursue grand projects. Various training
initiatives encourage small businesses and there is a quality-controlled business
partners scheme allowing use of the trademark “die Rhön einfach erhebend” sign.
This roughly translates as “Rhön is simply getting better (and feeling great and
proud)”. There are more than 100 business partners comprising agricultural
businesses, breweries, restaurants, butcheries, distilleries and other crafts. Local
fairs showcase products, and there is a published guide to local events. It is
difficult to tell exactly what the effect is, partly because tourist visit statistics only
include properties with more than eight beds, missing out the farm bed &
breakfast sector that the reserve is trying to encourage.
17.5
Wider benefits/policy and strategy fit
17.5.1 With Scottish policy themes
Rhön BR would seem to have an impact on the key Scottish policy themes of
biodiversity, landscape protection, GDP per head, community activity, policy
integration, ecosystem health and business development. On green tourism and
climate change the impact of the UNESCO designation is less clear-cut.
17.5.2 With UNESCO Biosphere Reserve Objectives
Rhön BR is well-integrated into the regional planning system, and considering the
potential complications of the trilateral governance has achieved a great deal.
Environmental monitoring seems comprehensive and organised, research and
education are well catered for and there is a range of training programmes.
Community involvement should be better within the revised framework plan. The
zoning system reflects the multi functional purpose of UNESCO biosphere
reserves. As the Rhön is not a wilderness area but a man made landscape the
different zones are intertwined. Core areas are targeted to conserve undisturbed
natural processes. The surrounding vast buffer zones in the Rhön have, in
addition, their own protection goals as cultural landscape of high biodiversity.
Most of the land is privately owned and managed. The transition zone is where
people live and where the farms, settlements and the entire infrastructure are
located.
Key lessons and hopes for the site
Dr Doris Pekorny, a member of the BR working group, writing in 2001 46, came to
the conclusion that the following factors were needed for success [adapted]:
45
Fremuth, W, 2002. The Rhoen Region, a model for sustainable development at the former
border between East and West Germany. NATO advanced research workshop on the role of
biodiversity conservation in the transition to rural sustainability.
46
Pekorny, D., 2002. Processing and marketing of local products, A mechanism to fund
environmentally friendly land use. Rhon BR/UNESCO. Published in: Birgit Heinze, Gernot Bäurle
49
Multilateral partnerships between and within the administration, private
sector, research sector and municipalities.
Local people with courage, vision and enthusiasm.
A platform (e.g. regional fairs/farmers markets) to draw attention to the
region.
Moral support from the Biosphere Reserve administration, and interest from
elsewhere to encourage local pride.
At this point (March 2007) she adds:
“A recent trilateral research project47 has found out that the Rhön biosphere
reserve partner enterprises have economically benefited from the biosphere
reserve idea and philosophy as well as from the networking. 206 new work
places (part time, full time) have directly been created which can be regarded as
success considering the average unemployment rate of approximately 9.5%.
According to the enterprises, 2/3rds of the created jobs are intended to be long
term employment.”
& Gisela Stolpe (Eds.). 2001. Financial Instruments for Nature Conservation in Central and
Eastern Europe. Proceedings of a seminar held at the International Academy for Nature
Conservation Isle of Vilm, Germany, 27 May . 31 May 2001. BfN-Skripten 50. German Federal
Agency for Nature Conservation. Bonn, 2001. pp 149-156.
http://www.unesco.org/mab/BRs/q_e/case_studies/Germany.pdf
47
Sabine Nattermann (2007): Nachhaltiges Wirtschaften im Biosphärenreservat Rhön.
Evaluierung der wirtschaftlichen Impulse und Auswirkungen auf den Arbeitsmarkt. Diplomarbeit
Universität Tübingen und Universität Hohenheim
50
Development guidelines
should provide protection.
Business opportunity
initiatives as below.
Business Partners .food
processing, small business
training, Rhön sheep project,
marketing/trademark, apple
promotion, local fairs, hunting
project,.nature guide training
Training opportunities.
Cycle routes
Visitor centres,
Local school visits
Research
Ecosystem
services
Employment and
Income
Business
opportunities
Social Inclusion
Health and wellbeing
Education and
training
See section 6.1
Presumption against
development in all but the
(large) transition zone.
Landscape &
green space
48
Protection for core and part
of the buffer zone.
BR initiatives
Good. Strong on
research and
education.
Unknown
Unknown
Believed improved
Reported improved
Believed
satisfactory
Sympathetic
development,
thought given to
building styles.
Ongoing
monitoring.
Believed positive
impact
Current situation
Summary - Rhön Biosphere Reserve
Biodiversity
Table 11
51
3
2
2
3
3
2
3
3
Score48
Good
Good
Management plan
proposals for more
community involvement.
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Potential for BR
designation to bring
benefit.
None
Attitudes.
Attitudes, poverty, demography.
External influences on the tourist
market.
Migration. Level of training.
Climate change. Large farms
operating outwith BR guidelines.
National requirements,
Climate change
Limitations
17.6
Annex
17.6.1 Result of SWOT analysis July 16 2003
The elements of the SWOT analysis were collected during a workshop with the working
group and positioned in a plane defined by four half-axes (S, W, O, T). The stronger the
element was perceived within one category the farther away from the axes’ origin it is
located. The position inside the quadrants reflects the perception of the factor as e.g.
strength and opportunity at the same time.
Figure 5
SWOT Analysis of RA2, dotted lines indicate equal position of
factors
© IRON CURTAIN Consortium
In the following session the members of the working group were asked to rate the
direct influence of each SWOT element on each of the others in the following
scale (see figure 2.2): 0 no influence at all, 1 slight influence, 2 strong influence, 3
very strong influence. The aim of this procedure is to reduce the complexity of the
underlying system and to sort which of the elements are very sensible to change
and which of them influence the system as a whole. The approach was developed
by Vester (2002, see also http://www.frederic-vester.de). The result was then
analysed and some adjustments were made ending up with 21 elements or
factors. All factors are complex systems themselves that can be categorized in
one of four groups:
Source: Iron curtain Project reference QLK5-2001-01401
17.6.2 Additional References
UNESCO MAB Biosphere Reserve directory - Rhön
http://www2.unesco.org/mab/br/brdir/directory/biores.asp?code=GER+09&mode=
all
52
17.6.3 Acknowledgements
We are grateful to Dr Doris Pokorny for help and advice.
53
54
18
APPENDIX 2 – POLICIES IN DETAIL
18.1
Scottish policy measures and indicators
The most relevant measures and indicators for the purposes of this study are
shown here, together with those that were excluded from consideration.
A Framework for Economic Development in Scotland, as implemented through
Smart Successful Scotland49
Included:
Gross Domestic Product per head of population
CO2 emissions
high growth firms (business starts)
percentage of businesses trading online
productivity levels in Scottish industry
proportion of employers exporting
net migration as a percentage of the population
proportion of the working age population in employment
proportion of 16-19 year olds who are not in education, employment or
training
reducing the gap in unemployment between the worst 10% of areas and the
Scottish average
proportion of those in employment undertaking training
Excluded:
business research and development as a proportion of GDP
productivity levels in Scottish industry
cost and coverage of broadband
Scottish Tourism: The Next Decade - A Tourism Framework for Change50
Included:
Value of tourism revenue
Number of visitors
Number of visitors who were very satisfied
Number of visitors whose expectations were exceeded
...All agencies involved in the development of people and skills will report a
year-on-year improvement in staff satisfaction (working towards 80% by
2015) and customer satisfaction (working towards 90% by 2015), resulting
in year-on-year improvement in productivity.
The Scottish Executive to provide over 16,500 social rented homes and
nearly 5,000 low-cost homes over the period 2005-06 to 2007-08.
Visitor propensity to return to Scotland and to recommend Scotland as a
great destination will increase. TIG, ASVA, Enterprise Agencies,
VisitScotland and culture and heritage organisations will provide qualitative
feedback on product development.
The Area Tourism Partnerships will report back on establishment of Product
Development Networks. Number of visitors will increase. Product
Development Networks and EventScotland will provide qualitative feedback.
Scottish Tourism Forum will provide evidence that all tourism businesses
are using e-technology effectively by 2007. STF will provide qualitative
feedback on progress each year thereafter.
49
50
Scottish Executive, 2004
Scottish Executive, 2006
55
Number of visitors who come to Scotland as a direct result of marketing will
increase. VisitScotland will report on Return on Investment and
visitscotland.com will report on conversion rates. The Scottish Tourism
Forum and culture and heritage organisations will report back on where
their customers heard about them - from customer feedback.
Membership of Green Tourism Business Scheme will increase year on
year.
Establishment of Sustainable Tourism Partnership. and qualitative feedback
on its work.
Excluded:
The Scottish Executive and VisitScotland will provide qualitative feedback
on development of National Box Office.
Our National Transport Strategy will be completed in 2006, and will set the
context for the Strategic Projects Review which is to follow. The research
project will be completed by spring 2006.
The Scottish Executive and VisitScotland will provide qualitative feedback
on development of National Box Office.
Our National Transport Strategy will be completed in 2006, and will set the
context for the Strategic Projects Review which is to follow. The research
project will be completed by spring 2006.
Choosing our future: Scotland's sustainable development strategy51
Included:
Economic opportunity: 16-19 year olds who are not in education, training or
employment
Economic opportunity: People of working age in employment
Community: (a) Neighbourhood satisfaction (b) volunteering
Households: (a) Childhood poverty: children in low income
Biodiversity : composite indicator of bird populations
Marine: Fish stocks which are within safe biological limits
River Quality : Kilometres of river identified as "poor" or "seriously polluted"
Climate Change: Greenhouse gas emissions: total and net
Sustainable Energy: Electricity generated from renewable
Sustainable Energy: carbon emission indicator
Transport: Total vehicle kilometres
Learning: Eco-schools uptake and number with Green Flag
Economy: Economic output: GDP per head
Demography: Age profile of population
Excluded:
[Crime: Recorded crimes for (a) vehicles (b) domestic housebreaking (c)
violence (d) anti-social behaviour]
[households (b) homeless households]
[Waste: Municipal waste arisings (a) total and (b) recycled /composted]
[Health Inequality: Life expectancy (by area) men/ women]
[Air Quality: Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs)]
[Social justice: new indicator being developed to support UK Framework]
[Environmental Equality: new indicator being developed to support UK
Framework]
[Well-being: well being measures will be developed in support of UK
framework...]
51
Scottish Executive, 2005a
56
A Forward Strategy for Scottish Agriculture52
Included:
Total factor productivity in agriculture
Net valued added at factor cost for agriculture
% of inputs sourced from Scottish agriculture
% of farms with veterinary approved health plans
% of farms involved in farm business reviews
Rate of new entrants to farming. Rate of business start ups in food industry
% of farms engaged in on-farm and off-farm diversification
% of total income derived from diversification
Change in population very accessible rural, remote rural, very remote rural
areas
Output of greenhouse gases from Scottish agriculture/ adaptation to climate
change
Biodiversity action plan species and habitats
Farmland bird population
Water bodies at risk of failing to achieve good water status as a result of
agricultural activity
Volume of fertilisers used
Visits to the countryside
Excluded:
Research and Development in food manufacturing
Rural Scotland - a new approach53
Included:
...We will support employers and communities to stimulate local and
national economic success.
We will invest in our young people by bringing childcare, education, training
and employment opportunities to where they live and work.
We will improve access to services essential to our life and work, and
ensure that quality of life will depend on what you need, not where you are.
Scotland's natural and cultural heritage must be allowed to flourish in all its
diversity. We will encourage local and regional influences to play their part ..
No measures excluded
Scotland's Biodiversity: It's in Your Hands - A strategy for the conservation and
enhancement of biodiversity in Scotland54
Included:
Deliver the actions and outcomes identified in the UK species and habitat
action plans relevant to Scotland
Strengthen and further develop monitoring of habitats and species to
ensure that progress against UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UKBAP) targets
and other indicators can be measured
Encourage the Local Biodiversity Action Plan network and ensure it has
adequate resources to support the delivery of national objectives and to
facilitate action by local people
52
Scottish Executive, 2001
Scottish Executive, 2000
54
Scottish Executive, 2004b
53
57
Improve the co-ordination and management of the Local Biodiversity Action
Plan network - between Local Biodiversity Action Plans and with national
level Biodiversity Action Plans
Develop at local level further actions for biodiversity conservation and
enhancement that take full account of climatic, economic and land-use
change
Manage the Natura 2000, Ramsar, SSSI, and National Nature Reserve site
network to protect and where appropriate enhance conservation interests
Manage National Parks to protect and where appropriate enhance
conservation interests
Manage existing and develop new local nature reserves and wildlife sites to
protect and where appropriate enhance conservation interests
Facilitate action by local people to identify and protect important species
and habitats
Implement our commitments to marine protected areas under international
commitments
Minimise the detrimental impacts of non-native invasive species
Strengthen the role of the Local Biodiversity Action Plan network in
engaging a wider range of people in biodiversity conservation, and in
exploring innovative ways of promoting interest in biodiversity
Ensure that people, enterprises, and government at all levels understand
the values of biodiversity, and how their actions affect biodiversity
Review and where necessary enhance the place of biodiversity in formal
education
Encourage and facilitate first hand learning about biodiversity in the natural
environment
Encourage ownership, responsibility and best practice in relation to
biodiversity on the part of individual, enterprises and government
Facilitate incorporation of biodiversity in corporate responsibility initiatives,
codes of conduct and other market-led mechanisms
Promote sustainable tourism and sustainable use of biodiversity resources
Facilitate enjoyment and appreciation of biodiversity, and its links to healthy
living
Coordinate and support the provision of access to, and understanding of,
natural habitats in deprived communities
Encourage active community involvement in biodiversity conservation and
enhancement through volunteering and enjoyment of wildlife and green
space
Encourage biodiversity conservation as a key element in community
planning
Facilitate identification and recognition of local wildlife sites and local nature
reserves and their use to stimulate local awareness, engagement in
conservation and education
Adjust and apply measures under the Common Agricultural Policy and the
Common Fisheries Policy to reinforce landscape and ecosystem level
planning and support appropriate conservation management
Provide incentives to create and link habitats and conserve/create important
underpinning landscape features in all open spaces
Co-ordinate policies and actions relating to forestry, farming, transport and
infrastructure, and urban spatial planning to maximise habitat linkage and
minimise further fragmentation
Enhance biodiversity in all transport corridors, and public and private
greenspace through public and private sector initiatives
58
Develop guidance in relation to maximising biodiversity in all open spaces,
and in relation to landscape and ecosystem level planning and
management by responsible authorities
Improve the management of marine resources, seascapes and ecosystems
to take full account of the interactions between species - commercial and
non-commercial
Further reduce chemical pollution from all activities on land and sea
Minimise the risk of farmed organisms adversely affecting wild organisms,
directly or indirectly, through conditions and protocols, and through spatial
zoning where appropriate
Develop cost effective indicators relating to landscape scale biodiversity
and habitat linkage, ecosystem health, genetic diversity and structural
diversity
Increase integration between policies, programmes, actions and incentives
across government to deliver coherent policy and incentives which enhance
biodiversity
Improve decision making procedures in government and business planning
to address multiple sustainable development objectives (e.g. through
strategic environmental assessment); to assess and communicate the
implications of alternative actions/objectives; and to ensure that biodiversity
values and opportunities are taken fully and efficiently into account
Establish the organisations and partnerships needed to co-ordinate and
drive the complex processes needed to achieve all the strategy objectives
Strengthen existing incentives and develop new ones to extend the range
and scope of environment friendly agriculture and land management,
forestry, fishing and tourism
Further develop cross-compliance - making biodiversity protection and
enhancement a condition for grant or subsidy - and explore its use to effect
best practice in other publicly funded activities
Include standards relating to biodiversity in the development of river
catchment plans under the Water Framework Directive (Water Environment
and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003) and in other environmental
management plans
Excluded:
All public bodies should take account of, and further biodiversity
conservation and enhancement in all their functions and activities
Establish clear priorities and milestones in the implementation plans to
guide progress and achievement
Develop reporting protocols and guidelines which include reference to
biodiversity for government departments, agencies, local government, and
business
Develop existing biological indicators as part of a comprehensive and costeffective suite of indicators for social engagement; effective biodiversity
management; landscape scale biodiversity; ecosystem health; and genetic
diversity
Use the strategy itself as a management tool to ensure effective delivery of
biodiversity gains
59
European Landscape Convention55
Included:
to increase awareness … of the value of landscapes, their role and changes
to them.
to promote training … landscape appraisal and operations…. policy,
protection, management and planning, … school and university courses
to identify its own landscapes throughout its territory;
to analyse their characteristics and the forces and pressures transforming
them;
exchange of experience and methodology, at European level
define landscape quality objectives
introduce instruments aimed at protecting, managing and/or planning the
landscape.
Nothing excluded
18.2
UNESCO objectives and measures
World Heritage Sites
Outstanding universal value
–
traditional land/sea use
–
superlative natural phenomenon or beauty
–
example of a major stage in the earth's history
–
example of ecological and biological process
–
significant for conservation of biological diversity
Integrity
Protection
Biosphere Reserves
Integrate biosphere reserves into [biodiversity] conservation planning
Secure the support and involvement of local people
–
fully involve [stakeholders] in planning and decision-making regarding the
management and use of the reserve.
–
Identify and address factors that lead to environmental degradation and
unsustainable use
–
Evaluate the natural products and services of the reserve, and use these
to promote … opportunities for local people.
–
Develop incentives for the conservation and sustainable use of natural
resources..
–
Ensure that the benefits derived from the use of natural resources are
equitably shared with the stakeholders
Ensure better harmonization and interaction among the different biosphere
reserve zones
–
Develop institutional mechanisms to manage…the biosphere
reserve's…activities
–
Establish a local consultative framework including the full range of
interests (e.g. agriculture, forestry, fisheries, tourism..)
Integrate biosphere reserves into regional planning
–
…examine socio-economic and environmental problems of the region,
and sustainable utilization of biological resources
Improve knowledge of the interactions between humans and the biosphere
–
Use biosphere reserves for basic and applied research..
55
Council of Europe, 2000
60
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Develop data system for research and monitoring results of reserve
management
Improve monitoring activities
Use the reserve for … scientific purposes and as the basis for sound site
management.
Use the reserve as an experimental area for monitoring biodiversity,
sustainability (including indicators) and quality of life of its inhabitants
Improve education, public awareness and involvement
Encourage involvement of local communities, school children and other
stakeholders
Produce visitors' information
Promote the… education of school children and other groups
Improve training for specialists and managers
Use the reserve for on-site training
Encourage training and employment of local people and other
stakeholders
Encourage training programmes for local communities and other local
agents
Integrate the functions of biosphere reserves
Identify and map the different zones
Prepare a management plan
…re-plan the buffer and transition zones, according to sustainable
development criteria.
establish institutional mechanisms to manage… the reserve's
programmes
Ensure that the local community participate in the planning and
management
Encourage private sector initiatives
Geoparks
Management and protection
Information and education
–
Education and publications
–
Research
Geotourism
–
Tourism evaluation
–
Tourist facilities and activities
–
Facilitate access to the site and within it
–
Provide information/ interpretation and promotion
Sustainable Regional Economy
–
Promoting food, craft and tourism products
–
Links with and between businesses
61
Benefits criteria and Scottish policies
Table 12
Benefits criteria used in this report compared with Scottish policies
Landscape/greenspace
Ecosystem services
Employment and
income
Business opportunity
Social inclusion
Health and well-being
Education and training
Close matches indicated
62
European Landscape
Convention
Scotland's Biodiversity
Rural Scotland - a new
approach
Scotland's sustainable
development strategy
Biodiversity
Forward Strategy for
Scottish Agriculture
Scottish Policies
Tourism Framework for
Change
Criteria defined in
this report
Smart Successful
Scotland
18.3
19
APPENDIX 3
This was originally written as an internal working paper for Hambrey Consulting
as part of a project relating to site optimisation for aquaculture operations.
19.1
The use of economic multipliers
Introduction
Economic multipliers bring alive tables of statistical data. They are a way of
describing numerically the nature of the interdependence of various sectors of the
economy. Multipliers are derived from input-output tables; real data about the
flows of products, services and money in the (Scottish) economy for a given year.
Multipliers can be used to predict the likely changes in output, employment and
income resulting from a marginal56 change within one industry group. They
enable us to quantify what we know intuitively; that a change in circumstances
within an industry has a “ripple” effect in that it can effect the economic situation,
and hence the society, in which that industry is based.
Used intelligently, multipliers add depth and reality to discussion about economic
development and can be readily understood by the non-specialist. Tables of
multipliers are publicly available to download on www.scotland.gov.uk/stats. It is
important to understand exactly what they are measuring, and whether or not they
can be sensibly used at a local level.
Derivation of multipliers
National multipliers are derived from Input-Output tables. The raw data for these
tables comes from official sources such as the Scottish Annual Business
Statistics, which are compiled using Office of National Statistics Annual Business
Enquiry data. Other data sources include Scottish Executive Rural Affairs
Department and various Scottish Executive surveys.
The basis data sources are the supply table, which gives the monetary value of
the output of each industry for a given year, and the domestic use matrix, which
indicates the inputs each industry has used to produce that output. These data
can be presented as an industry-by-industry use matrix, which describes the
purchases made by each industry from other sectors of the economy, thus
indicating their level of interdependence.
To make practical use of this information it is transformed into a Leontief Inverse
Matrix, which shows how much of each industry’s output is required, in terms of
direct and indirect requirements, to produce one unit of another given industry’s
output57. This is the change in the economy as a whole resulting from a marginal
shift in the conditions pertaining in another industry, for example a change in the
final demand for a commodity. At a more local level, a change in production
levels in a local industry will have a ripple effect through the community, and this
can also be described using multipliers as long as data is available that
adequately describes the operation of industries at a local level.
56
“Marginal” in economics means a small change, not enough to affect the basic structure of an
industry but enough to have a measurable effect on some aspect of it. A large (non-marginal)
change, such as the collapse of an entire industry, will affect economic behaviour so much that
the real data used for the tables will be outdated and existing multipliers may be misleading. The
tables from which multipliers are derived are based on average rather than marginal relationships,
but one must still be cautious when using them to predict the knock-on effect of changes which
are more than marginal.
57
Melling and Graham, 2000
63
Direct, indirect and induced impacts
The impacts of changes within an industry can be direct, indirect or induced, and
can refer to production levels (output), employment or income. At the national
level, multipliers exist for all these situations.
Direct impacts – changes that occur strictly within the industry under
consideration, such as a change in output in response to a change in final
demand, or an increase in the number of employees in response to a change
originating within that industry.
Indirect impacts – changes within businesses and services that supply the original
industry. For example, if the original business under consideration is a fish farm,
and they reduce production, there will be an indirect impact on their suppliers who
will provide less feed, potentially reducing their own output and levels of
employment. Indirect impacts can be “upstream” e.g. feed producers, or
“downstream” e.g. processors. This is the start of the “ripple” effect.
Induced effects – The combined effect of direct and indirect impacts on
businesses not directly connected with that within which the original change
occurred. The effects are due to consumer expenditure, which will change with
employment and income levels. As an example, this could change the income
levels of local shops. To continue the “ripple” analogy, this is where the ripple
starts to deepen, and spread.
Types of multiplier
Multiplier information is so structured as to make it clear which type of impact is
being described.
Type I multipliers. These consider only the direct and indirect impacts of a
marginal change, i.e. those changes in output, employment and income that are
confined to the industry under consideration and its supporting businesses,
upstream (e.g. feed suppliers) and downstream (e.g. packing companies).
Type II multipliers. These consider all the impacts of a marginal change i.e. direct
and indirect (as in Type I) plus the induced effects caused by impacts on
consumer expenditure. Clearly, to look at the socio-economic effects of
aquaculture siting, it is Type II multipliers that must be used.
Specifically, the most relevant multipliers58 for our purposes are:
Type II employment multiplier: Measures the increase in total employment
resulting from a unit increase in employment in one particular sector, i.e. the ratio
of direct, indirect and induced employment changes to the direct employment
change.
Type II income multiplier: The ratio of direct, indirect and induced income
changes to the direct income change. i.e. for every unit change in wages in
aquaculture what is the effect on income elsewhere?
It is also possible to calculate the employment and income effects throughout
society as a whole resulting from changes in final demand (output) from a
particular industry.
Employment coefficients may be relevant to local planning as they measure the
amount of employment (measured in full-time equivalents, FTEs) required per unit
output of each sector.
58
Definitions partly taken from Scottish Executive Statistics division website on
www.scotland.gov.uk/topics/statistics/14713/460
64
The practical use of multipliers
Once one is familiar with the difference between the two types of multiplier they
are readily used, at least on a national scale. If we look at the latest multipliers
(2001) available at the time of writing59 we find that the Type I employment
multiplier for fish farming is 2.591, and the Type II multiplier (larger, intuitively) is
2.857. This tells us that, in 2001, each job in the fish farming industry supported,
in total, roughly two and a half jobs directly related to the industry, and nearly
three jobs in the Scottish society as a whole. There are two important caveats:
11 It is not possible to directly relate jobs supported to jobs that might be lost if
employment in a sector were to decline. Employment may be found in other
sectors of the economy and factors such as local work availability, skills profile
and the overall health of the economy would affect the final figure.
12 Accurate local employment multipliers would need the generation of InputOutput tables for each area. Local multipliers can be small due to leakage
from small local economies i.e. the local population may do the bulk of their
shopping somewhere else. They may pick up much displacement, for
example a new job may be one from another part of the country, so not, on
the national scale, a real effect. Applying a national multiplier will
overestimate aquaculture-generated employment in some areas and
underestimate it in others60.
19.2
Using multipliers at a local level.
Few studies have attempted to estimate Input-Output tables and multipliers for
areas at a sub-Scotland level61. Generally speaking, the larger the area, the
bigger the multiplier as one includes more of the “ripple” effect originating from the
original industry. Input-Output tables are available for the Shetland Isles 62, the
Orkney Isles 63 and the Western Isles 64, but these are one-off studies, and not
updated yearly as are the national multipliers. The study in the Western Isles
found a Type II employment multiplier for fin-fish farming of 2.165 (1997), which is
far lower than the comparable national multiplier of 3.423 66. This indicates that
much of the economic effect of the Western Isles fin-fish industry was not local67.
There are ways of attempting to estimate local multipliers short of running a full
local business and household consumption survey, which is clearly an expensive
and intrusive exercise. Caution must be exercised, as most non-survey methods
of estimating single-region (local) multipliers will tend to over-estimate the local
links involved. It may be possible to arrive at a reasonable estimate of local
59
Available to download as an Excel file on
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/933/0007713.xls
60
The Regional Employment contribution of the Fisheries Sector to the Scottish Economy.
Michael Thomson, Scottish Executive, Scottish Economic Report June 2002.
61
Michael Thomson,2002, op cit.
62
An Input-Output Table and Model for the Shetland Isles, 1996/97, Gillespie, McGregor, Swales
and Yin, Fraser of Allander Institute.
63
An Input-Output Table and Model for the Orkney Isles, 1995, McGregor, Swales and Yin,
Fraser of Allander Institute.
64
Modelling the Western Isles Economy, 1999, Roberts, Thomson and Snowdon,
MLURI/University of Aberdeen
65
Note how much higher this is than the recent (2001) type II employment multiplier of 2.857.
Perhaps due to changes in the structure of the industry, with more efficient feeding and
processing reducing upstream and downstream effects of work in the primary industry.
66
National type II employment multiplier relates to 1998, the most comparable year available.
67
Caution required: the national figure includes shellfish farming, which may only be a small effect
but the fact must be recognised before strict comparison may be made.
65
multipliers through spatial disaggregation of national, survey-based multipliers68,
but this is not a task for the novice.
How, and where, one obtains ready-made, recent local multipliers depends on
the area in question, and is most variable. The first line of enquiry would be the
Economic Development Unit, or equivalent, of the local authority.
19.3
Practical advice for the non-specialist.
Find out what sort of multiplier you are looking at.
To look at local issues, you need:
a recent disaggregated national multiplier, or a survey-based local one,
appropriate to the locality and to the industry
a type II multiplier (includes ALL the ripple effect, or more of it than a type I)
an employment or income multiplier, or both
to remember that a multiplier will not, on it’s own, tell you anything about
long-term employment levels.
68
Spatial interpolation and disaggregation of multipliers. Jan Oosterhaven in Geographical
Analysis 1/1/2005
66
20
APPENDIX 4
20.1
The Criteria for Selection - World Heritage List
To be included on the World Heritage List, sites must be of outstanding universal
value and meet at least one out of ten selection criteria. These criteria are
explained in the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World
Heritage Convention69 which, besides the text of the Convention, is the main
working tool on World Heritage. The criteria are regularly revised by the
Committee to reflect the evolution of the World Heritage concept itself.
Until the end of 2004, World Heritage sites were selected on the basis of six
cultural and four natural criteria. With the adoption of the revised Operational
Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention, only one set
of ten criteria exists.
Cultural criteria
Natural criteria
Operational Guidelines 2002 (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (i)
(ii) (iii) (iv)
Operational Guidelines 2005 (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (viii) (ix) (vii) (x)
Selection criteria:
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.
viii.
ix.
x.
to represent a masterpiece of human creative genius;
to exhibit an important interchange of human values, over a span of time or within a
cultural area of the world, on developments in architecture or technology, monumental arts,
town-planning or landscape design;
to bear a unique or at least exceptional testimony to a cultural tradition or to a civilization
which is living or which has disappeared;
to be an outstanding example of a type of building, architectural or technological ensemble
or landscape which illustrates (a) significant stage(s) in human history;
to be an outstanding example of a traditional human settlement, land-use, or sea-use which
is representative of a culture (or cultures), or human interaction with the environment
especially when it has become vulnerable under the impact of irreversible change;
to be directly or tangibly associated with events or living traditions, with ideas, or with
beliefs, with artistic and literary works of outstanding universal significance. (The
Committee considers that this criterion should preferably be used in conjunction with other
criteria);
to contain superlative natural phenomena or areas of exceptional natural beauty and
aesthetic importance;
to be outstanding examples representing major stages of earth's history, including the
record of life, significant on-going geological processes in the development of landforms, or
significant geomorphic or physiographic features;
to be outstanding examples representing significant on-going ecological and biological
processes in the evolution and development of terrestrial, fresh water, coastal and marine
ecosystems and communities of plants and animals;
to contain the most important and significant natural habitats for in-situ conservation of
biological diversity, including those containing threatened species of outstanding universal
value from the point of view of science or conservation.
The protection, management, authenticity and integrity of properties are also
important considerations.
Since 1992 significant interactions between people and the natural environment
have been recognized as cultural landscapes.
69
http://whc.unesco.org/pg.cfm?cid=57
67