Tese Cooperação em Unidades de Conservação Transfronteiras - Lange

Cofinancedby
theEuropeanUnion
M.Sc.Programme
ManagementofProtectedAreas
TransboundaryCooperation
inProtectedAreasManagement
FactorsInfluencingSuccessorFailure
Author:
Dipl.Biol.SigrunLange
Supervisor:
Mag.Martinolar
TriglavNationalPark
Ljubljanskacesta27
Sl4260Bled
Ph+386(0)4/5780200
email:martin.solar@tnp.gov.si
Carriedoutat:
DepartmentofEconomics
UniversityofKlagenfurt
Universittsstrasse6567
A9020Klagenfurt
Ph+43(0)463/27004192
email:mpa@uniklu.ac.at
Munich,November2009
Citation: Lange, S. (2009): Transboundary Cooperation in Protected Areas Management

Factors for Success or Failure. Master Thesis of the Management of Protected Areas
Programme,UniversityofKlagenfurt.
SIGRUNLANGE
DeclarationofHonour
IherewithdeclarethatIamthesoleauthorofthecurrentmasterthesisaccordingtoart.51
par. 2 no. 8 and art. 51 par. 2 no. 13 Universittsgesetz 2002 (Austrian University Law) and
thatIhaveconductedallworksconnectedwiththemasterthesisonmyown.Furthermore,I
declarethatIonlyusedthoseresourcesthatarereferencedinthework.Allformulationsand
conceptstakenfromprinted,verbaloronlinesourcesbetheywordforwordquotationsor
correspondingintheirmeaningarequotedaccordingtotherulesofgoodscientificconduct
andareindicatedbyfootnotes,inthetextorotherformsofdetailedreferences.
Supportduringtheworkincludingsignificantsupervisionisindicatedaccordingly.
Themasterthesishasnotbeenpresentedtoanyotherexaminationauthority.Theworkhas
beensubmittedinprintedandelectronicform.Iherewithconfirmthattheelectronicformis
completelycongruentwiththeprintedversion.
Iamawareoflegalconsequencesofafalsedeclarationofhonour.
Munich,November2009
Signature:
___________________________
Dipl.Biol.SigrunLange
PAGE2
SIGRUNLANGE
Acknowledgement
Iherewithwouldliketothankeverybodywhocontributedtotheresultsofthisworkeitheras
advisor,informantorrespondentininterviewsinthecasestudysites:
Sergio Barbarino, Alessandro Benzoni, Janez Bizjak, Richard Blackmann, Leo Cleiren, Christa
Eicher, Egon Fritz, Fulvio Genero, Ren Gerats, Neda Golmajer, Jrg Gnther, Josef
Hausberger, Aletta Jaeckel, Michl Jungmeier, Hubert Kaiser, Walter Lechthaler, Otto Leiner,
Kaspar Nickles, Cecilija Ostan, Rudolf Plochmann, Marko Pretner, Ansgar Reichmann, Leo
Reyrink, Georg Riesch, Sandra Roemen, Stefano Santi, Michael Schdel, Thomas
Schwarzenberger, Rainer Seelig, Mojca Smolej, Hermann Sonntag, Roland Stein, Martin
Tschoner,HenkvanderLinden,SilkeWeich,HerbertWillemsenandDanielZollner.
IhighlyappreciatethatthemembersofEUROPARCsSteeringCommitteeonTransboundary
Cooperation in Protected Areas discussed and finally approved the project proposal during
theirmeetingbeginningofMay2009.
I am grateful to the valuable input of Karin Grasenick (Convelop GmbH) with respect to the
principlesofchangemanagementinorganisationaldevelopment.
Inparticular,IwouldliketothankMartinSolar(TriglavNationalPark)whoagreedtobethe
supervisorofthestudy.BeyondthatheintroducedprojectinthediscussionsofEUROPARCs
Steering Committee and also offered to hold the scheduled oneday workshop on
transboundarycooperation(whichdidnottakeplaceinthescopeofthisstudy)nextyearin
the scope of EUROPARCs meeting on Transboundary Cooperation in Protected Areas which
willtakeplaceatlakeNeusiedlerSeeinAustria.
PAGE3
SIGRUNLANGE
TableofContents
1
Summary.....................................................................................................................6
Preface........................................................................................................................7
Theoreticalbackground...............................................................................................8
3.1
Definitions.............................................................................................................................................8
3.2
Whytransboundarycooperation?........................................................................................................8
3.3
Guidelinesfortransboundarycooperation...........................................................................................8
3.3.1
EuropeanOutlineConventiononTransfrontierCooperation.........................................................9
3.3.2
UNESCOsrecommendationsforTransboundaryBiosphereReserves.............................................9
3.3.3
IUCNsgoodpracticeguidelines........................................................................................................9
3.3.4
EUROPARCsBasicStandards............................................................................................................9
3.3.5
AdvicefortransboundaryRamsarSites..........................................................................................10
3.3.6
TheGlobalTransboundaryProtectedAreaNetwork......................................................................10
Preassumptionsandcentralresearchquestion.........................................................11
4.1
Transboundarycooperation:achallenge............................................................................................11
4.2
Recommendationsfrominternationalguidelines...............................................................................12
4.3
Recommendationsfromprevioussurveys..........................................................................................15
4.4
Summaryofpreassumptions..............................................................................................................17
4.5
Principlesofchangemanagementappliedtotransboundarycooperation........................................18
4.6
Researchquestions..............................................................................................................................19
Projectdesign............................................................................................................20
Methods....................................................................................................................22
6.1
6.1.1
Implementationofexpertinterviews.............................................................................................22
6.1.2
Qualitativecontentanalysis............................................................................................................23
6.2
Workshop(scheduledbutnotimplemented).....................................................................................24
Results.......................................................................................................................26
7.1
Levelofcooperationwithinthecasestudyareas...............................................................................26
7.1.1
NatureParkMaasSchwalmNette..................................................................................................26
7.1.2
NationalParkTriglavandNatureParkPrealpiGiulie......................................................................28
7.1.3
MountainrangeKarwendel(AT/DE)............................................................................................31
7.2
Guidedexpertinterviews....................................................................................................................22
Lessonslearntfromtheinterviews.....................................................................................................34
7.2.1
Factorsfacilitatingsuccessoftransboundarycooperation.............................................................34
7.2.2
Canprinciplesofchangemanagementbeapplied?.......................................................................44
PAGE4
SIGRUNLANGE
RecommendationsandConclusions...........................................................................52
8.1
Recommendationsforthecasestudysites.........................................................................................52
8.2
Conclusionsforresearchquestion1...................................................................................................52
8.3
Conclusionsforresearchquestion2...................................................................................................55
8.4
Finalremarks.......................................................................................................................................56
References.................................................................................................................57
ListofFigures....................................................................................................................60
ListofAcronymsandAbbreviations..................................................................................61
PAGE5
SIGRUNLANGE
SUMMARY
Mountain ranges or water bodies do not end at administrative borders. As a consequence,

conservationmeasureshavetobetakenacrossnationalborders.Internationalorganisations
strongly recommend the establishment of transboundary protected areas. In 2003,
EUROPARC Federation developed a certification system for best practice. Certainly, cross
bordercooperationaddsanotherlayerofcomplexitytothealreadydifficulttaskofmanaging
aprotectedarea.
Withinthisstudy,threeadjoiningprotectedareacomplexeshavebeenselectedascasestudy
sites, representing different levels of cooperation; crossborder Nature Park MaasSchwalm
Nette between Germany and The Netherlands with one management unit responsible for
both sides of the frontier (high cooperation level); National Park Triglav in Slovenia and
adjoining Regional Nature Park Prealpi Giulie in Italy (medium cooperation level); and the
mountain range Karwendel between Austria and Germany, where since 20 years
stakeholdersmakeanefforttowardsaninstitutionalisedcooperation,howeversofarwithout
success(lowcooperationlevel).
Intotal,30representativesofrelevantinterestgroupshavebeensurveyedinthethreesites
(phoneorfacetofaceinterviews).Theresultshavebeeninterpretedbyapplyingthequalitative
contentanalysis.Moreover,the`changeformula,abasicchangemanagementprinciple,has
beenappliedintwoofthecasestudysitesinordertoevaluateifitmayfacilitatethedecision
onwhentoestablishorhowtoimprovethecooperationintransboundaryregions.
According to the surveyed stakeholders, transboundary cooperation is indeed beneficial for
nature conservation but rather for increasing the popularity of the area and strengthening
tourism activities. In exceptional cases, nature conservation might even be affected by
increasingcrossbordercollaboration.Motivesbehindthecooperationare(amongstothers);
gaining more income for the region; having access to European funds; learning from each
otherandmaintaininghistoricrelations.Personalcontactsareconsideredakeyfactorforthe
success of cooperation. By all means, these contacts should not be restricted to staff but
extendedtolocallevel.Theimportanceofinformaleventswasstressedtoallowforbuilding
trustandfriendship.Differencesbetweenneighbouringcountrieshaverarelybeenperceived
asbeinganobstaclebutratheranenrichingsourcefornewlearningexperiences.Shalljoint
projectsbeimplementedsuccessfully,theresimplyhastobeakeypersonfamiliarwiththose
differentstructures,proceduresorattitudesonbothsidesoftheborderinordertoguarantee
asmoothflowoftheproject.Definedcoordinatorswereregardedtobequitehelpfulforthe
collaboration,butthecommitmentofindividualsseemstobeevenmoreimportant.
Applying the `change formula proved to facilitate a better understanding of the underlying
causesforsuccessorfailureoftransboundarycooperation.IncaseoftheKarwendel,noreal
needforchangesbecameevident.Themissingdrivingforcecombinedwiththelowpersonal
capacitiesintheneighbouringareasprobablywerefundamentalreasonswhynocoordinative
structures have been established so far. In contrast, for the newborn Regional Nature Park
Prealpi Giulie the advantages of cooperating with the wellestablished Triglav National Park
were obvious. The official contacts quickly developed to amicable relations which nowadays
seemtobeagoodbasisforasustainablecooperationinthefuture.
PAGE6
SIGRUNLANGE
PREFACE
Little disagreement exists today about the need of conservation measures at theecosystem
level (Zbicz 2003). Mountain ranges or water bodies do not end at administrative borders.
Shall adjoining ecosystems be preserved, ideally the conservation measures of neighbouring
countries have to be coordinated. The potential benefits of transboundary cooperation in
protected areas management seem to be manifold. However, the coordination of national
conservation activities is already a difficult task. Involving more partners from different
countries, with different languages, political systems and cultural backgrounds is even more
challenging. Therefore Zbicz (2003) rises the question of whether or not effective
internationaltransboundaryconservationisevenpossibleandworththeinvestment,butthen
statedthatwhenthefutureofourplanetisconcerneditisnotanoption,butanecessity.
Brunner(2006)assumesthatduetotheexpansionoftheEuropeanUniontheopportunityfor
transboundarynatureprotectionhasneverbeengreaterthantodayasinmanyplacesborders
arelosingtheirmeaning.
Several international organisations not only recommend crossborder cooperation between
adjoiningprotectedareasbutrathertheestablishmentoftransfrontierparks(e.g.Councilof
Europe, UNESCO, IUCN, Ramsar Convention). In 2003, EUROPARC Federation agreed on an
evaluationsystemfortransboundarycooperationinEuropeanconservationareastopromote
bestpracticeexamples.
Nevertheless,uptonowonlylittleresearchhasbeencarriedouttodeterminethesocalled
softfactorsoftransboundaryconservationefforts(Steinmetz2004).Whichbasicconditions
havetobegiveninordertomaketheestablishmentoftransfrontierprotectedareasasuccess?
PAGE7
SIGRUNLANGE
THEORETICALBACKGROUND
3.1
Definitions
IUCN (Sandwith et al. 2001) defines a Transboundary Protected Area (TBPA) as an area of
landand/orseathatstraddlesoneormoreboundariesbetweenstates,subnationalunitssuch
as provinces and regions, autonomous areas and/or areas beyond the limits of national
sovereigntyorjurisdiction,whoseconstituentpartsareespeciallydedicatedtotheprotection
andmaintenanceofbiologicaldiversity,andofnaturalandassociatedculturalresources,and
managedcooperativelythroughlegalorothereffectivemeans.
PeaceParksaredefinedastransboundaryprotectedareasthatareformallydedicatedtothe
protection and maintenance of biological diversity, and of natural and associated cultural
resources,andtothepromotionofpeaceandcooperation(Sandwithetal.2001).
3.2
Whytransboundarycooperation?
Quite often two or more countries share common natural resources (e.g. water body),
landscape features (e.g. mountain range) or cultural values (e.g. transhumance: seasonal
movement of people with their livestock to higher pastures in summer / to lower valleys in
winter).Alreadytheexistenceofsuchasharedresourceisasoundreasonforcooperationin
managementortheestablishmentofatransboundaryprotectedarea(Sandwithetal.2001).
Thepotentialbenefitsoftransboundaryprotectedareasseemtobeobvious:Theyareableto
protect and manage diverse large scale ecosystems, they provide stepping stones for the
migration of species, ensure a better control of crossborder problems (e.g. pest or fire
control)andmayalsocontributetotheeconomicdevelopmentofdisadvantagedborderlands,
the formation of a regional identity across national borders and the peaceful resolution of
conflicts(peaceparks)(e.g.Hamiltonetal.1996inSandwithetal.2001,Hanks2003,Lanfer
et al. 2003). Therefore the Programme of Work on Protected Areas of the Convention on
Biological Diversity (CBD) calls for strengthening collaboration between countries for
transboundaryprotectedareasconservation1(Target1.3ofCBDtobefulfilleduntil2010)2.
3.3
Guidelinesfortransboundarycooperation
The importance of transboundary conservation measures continuously increased since the

first peace park between Glacier (USA) and Waterton (Canada) National Park was
designated in 1932. The planning of transboundary entities was first suggested at the First
World Conference on National Parks in 1962 (UNESCO 2003). Following international
conservation conferences devoted increasing attention to crossborder cooperation.
Meanwhiledonorstendtopreferablysupporttransfrontierconservationefforts(Lanferetal.
2001).Finally,duringthelastdecade,severalguidelineshavebeendevelopedtorecommend
appropriateapproachesfortransboundarycooperationindifferentprotectedareacategories:
CBD,ProgrammeofWorkonProtectedAreas:http://www.cbd.int/protected/objectives.shtml
CBD,ProgrammeofWorkonProtectedAreas:http://www.cbd.int/protected/targets.shtml
PAGE8
SIGRUNLANGE
3.3.1 EuropeanOutlineConventiononTransfrontierCooperation
Asearlyas1980,theCouncilofEuropeagreedontheEuropeanOutlineConventiononTrans
frontier Cooperation between Territorial Communities or Authorities. In this framework a
Model Agreement on the Creation and Management of Transfrontier Parks was devised
(section1.9).Theagreementcallsforthepartiestoharmonisetheirmethodsofmanagement
and to coordinate all development projects or improvements by means of a comprehensive
action programme leading ultimately to joint management of the park based on a joint
management plan. It also suggests joint committees whose membership would include
representatives of recognized private nature conservation organisations and organisations
which contribute to the safeguarding of the landscape and the environment. The Outline
Conventionwassignedandratifiedby36Europeancountries(January20093),amongstthem
Austria,Germany,Italy,theNetherlandsandSlovenia.
3.3.2 UNESCOsrecommendationsforTransboundaryBiosphereReserves
UNESCOsMABProgrammeendorsedtheideaofcrossbordercooperationbydesignatingthe
first two transboundary biosphere reserves (TBR) in 19924. Since 1995 the Seville Strategy
officially recommends the establishment of TBRs (Objective IV.2, 16). The trend towards
fostering TBRs was further strengthened in October 2000 during the Seville + 5 Meeting in
Pamplona. Among the outputs was a set of Recommendations for the Establishment and
FunctioningofTransboundaryBiosphereReserves(UNESCO2000b),aimingatachievingone
functional conservation unit across frontiers. Efforts should be made to adopt a consistent
zonation plan, to develop a common understanding of the characteristics of the respective
zones,toharmonisemanagementstructuresonbothsidesandtocarryoutjointresearchand
monitoringprogrammes.
3.3.3 IUCNsgoodpracticeguidelines
In 2001 IUCN published Good Practice Guidelines on transboundary protected areas to
provide guidance for use in times of peace between the countries involved (Sandwith et al.
2001). The advice can be applied to all kind of conservation complexes between different
countries. The guidelines focus on the existence of shared natural and cultural resources
whichshouldbeusedtodevelopcommonvisionsandvalues.Eachsectionisaccompaniedby
goodpracticeexamplesfromdifferentprotectedareas.
3.3.4 EUROPARCsBasicStandards
Afterintensivediscussionsamongstexpertssince1999,EUROPARCFederationagreedonaset
of criteria for transboundary cooperation (four primary and five secondary criteria; one
primary and four secondary fields of work) (EUROPARC 2003). They were launched at the
5thWorldsParksCongress,heldin2003inDurban,SouthAfrica.Thesebasicstandardsare
the only comprehensive tool available in Europe to further develop and evaluate
transboundarycooperation.Transboundaryprotectedareacomplexesfulfillingaminimumof
tenoutof14criteriacanbeawardedwiththeEUROPARClabelFollowingNaturesDesign.
Convention:http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/Commun/ChercheSig.asp?NT=106&CM=0&DF=&CL=ENG
TatramountainsbetweenPolandandSlovakia;Krkonoe/KrkonoszebetweenPolandandCzechoslovakia.
PAGE9
SIGRUNLANGE
So far, six neighbouring protected area complexes have been certified throughout Europe.
During the annual EUROPARC Conference in Strmstad, Sweden, on 913 September 2009,
two additional border areas have been awarded, Triglav National Park (SI) and Nature Park
PrealpiGiulie(IT)aswellastheBavarianForestNationalPark(DE)andumavaNationalPark(CZ).
3.3.5 AdvicefortransboundaryRamsarSites
InNovember2004aninternationalconferenceonthemanagementoftransboundaryRamsar
Sites was hold at lake Neusiedlersee in Austria. 2005 during the 9th Meeting of the
Conference of the Contracting Parties, the Ramsar Convention issued guidelines for the
designation and management of transboundary Ramsar sites5. The Ramsar Handbook 17
(Ramsar Convention Secretariat 2007) covers the international cooperation amongst
transboundary wetlands and river basins as well as the management of wetlands with
importanceformigratoryspecies.
3.3.6 TheGlobalTransboundaryProtectedAreaNetwork
Since1988acommunityofresearchersandpractitionersheldatleastsevenconferencesand
meetings dedicated to transboundary issues. In 1997 the Parks for Peace Initiative was
established as a joint undertaking of the South African Peace Parks Foundation and IUCN.
FromthatcooperationtheWCPAsTaskForceonTransboundaryProtectedAreasarose,from
which in turn the Global Transboundary Protected Area Network originated (Chester 2008).
The backbone of this network is a website6 where a variety of publications (including
conference and workshop proceedings), a database of known TBPAs and a global dialogue
systemallowingcommunicationamongstmanagersareondisposal.
RamsarConvention:http://www.ramsar.org/cop9/cop9_dr06_e.htm
WebsiteofGlobalTBPANetwork:http://www.tbpa.net/
PAGE10
SIGRUNLANGE
PREASSUMPTIONSANDCENTRALRESEARCHQUESTION
4.1
Transboundarycooperation:achallenge
Over the last two decades transboundary

cooperation has become an increasingly important
issue:theglobalnumberoftransboundaryprotected
areas complexes has increased from 59 (as
identifiedbyIUCNinthelate1980ies)to227inApril
2007 (UNEPs World Conservation Monitoring
Centre). The majority, 82 of them, are located in
Europe (Fig. 1)7. This means that we have to start
thinking in networks, especially in times, where in
many places, in particular within the European
Union,bordersarelosingtheirmeaning.
Fig.1:Worldwide227transboundaryprotected
areacomplexeshavebeenidentified,82
ofthemarelocatedinEurope(Graphic:
S.Lange,datafromUNEPWCMC,2007).
However,eveniftransboundarycooperationisoften
praised as panacea for the preservation of largescale ecosystems and peace amongst
neighbouring countries, there are significant costs associated with these efforts. The
coordination of legal, institutional or cultural issues across borders can be a quite time
consuming and challenging task (Lanfer et al. 2003). Following bottomup approaches and
respecting stakeholders interests is even more challenging in transboundary areas than in
ordinaryprotectedareas.Travel,(intercultural)communicationortranslationexpensescan
benotablyhigh.Therefore,thepotentialcostsandbenefitsofcrossbordercooperationhave
tobebalanced(cp.Fig.2)inordertodetermineiftransboundaryeffortsareanappropriate
strategyforwhatshallbeachieved.
Fig.2:Dobenefitsoutweighthecostsrelatedtotransboundarycooperation(Graphic:S.Lange)?
Figuresavailableat:http://www.tbpa.net/tpa_inventory.html(assessed2009,April21st)
PAGE11
SIGRUNLANGE
4.2
Recommendationsfrominternationalguidelines
During the last decade several guidelines have been developed by international institutions
(IUCN, UNESCO, EUROPARC) and Conventions (Ramsar Convention, European Outline
Convention on Transfrontier Cooperation) to provide assistance for the transboundary
cooperationindifferentprotectedareacategories.
Inthepreparatoryphaseofthisstudy,recommendationsonhowtofacilitatetransboundary
cooperation in protected areas have been distinguished by comparing the guidelines of
UNESCO(2000b),EUROPARC(2003)andIUCN(bestpracticerecommendationsinSandwithet
al.2001).Allthreeguidelinesaddressedthefollowingtopics:
common(written)agreements,regulationsandplanning,
coordinativestructures,
staffactivities&internalcommunicationmeasures,
externalcommunicationmeasures(publicrelation),
jointprojectactivitiesand
sustainablefinancingfortransboundaryactivities.
Topic1:Common(written)agreements,regulationsandplanning
EUROPARC(2003)
UNESCO(2000b)
IUCN(Sandwithetal.2001)
Signedofficialagreement
Signedofficialagreement
Commonvisionrevealingthe
benefitsofcooperation
Jointdeterminationoffieldsof
workforcooperation
Setupofacommonmidterm
workplan
Jointnominationofwholeareaas
TBRbyUNESCO
Definitionofkeyissuesfor
cooperationbyworkinggroups
Definitionofcommonobjectives
andworkplan
Zonationplanforthewholearea;
commonunderstandingof
characteristicsofeachzone
Effortstowardsharmonised
managementpractices
Coordinationofregulationsfor
biodiversityprotection
Jointtourismpolicy
Agreementsforconsultationand
liaison
Commonvisionbasedonshared
resources
Jointstrategicplanning
Jointvisitormanagementsystem
Determinationofrulesguidingthe
cooperation
Coordinatedplanningprocess
ZoningplanforthewholeTBPA
(basedonasharedvision)
Jointorcomplementary
managementplans
Effortstowardsharmonised
legislationandregulations
Cooperationintourismpromotion
andproductdevelopment
Commoncodeofconductfor
visitors
Jointevaluationofachievements
Topic2:Coordinativestructures
EUROPARC(2003)
UNESCO(2000b)
Jointsteeringcommitteeis
recommended
Coordinatingstructurewith
representativesofadministration,
scientificcommunity,local
communities,NGOs&interest
groups(includingyouthand
PAGE12
SIGRUNLANGE
Facilitatorforcrossborder
collaborationshallbeidentified

privatesector);bodyshallmeet
regularlyanddisposeofa
permanentsecretariat+budget
Focalpointsforcooperationon
bothsidesoftheborder
Meetingsofthematicgroupson
adhocbasis
Establishmentofanassociation
withtheaimofpromotingTBR
Designationofafocalpointin
eachcountry(shouldspeakboth
languages)
Establishmentofjointtechnical
groupsforcommonissues
Setupofanonprofitcompanyto
manageTBPAfunds
Topic3:Staffactivities&internalcommunicationmeasures
EUROPARC(2003)
UNESCO(2000b)
Permanentcommunication
involvingalllevelsofstaff
Establishmentofameansof
communicationbetween
coordinators/managers
Jointstaffteamsoperationalfor
specifictasks
Encourageexchangeof
informationamongstaff
atalllevels
Holdperiodicjointtechnical
meetingstoaddressissuesof
mutualinterest
Exchangeinformation
(harmonisationofcommunication
systems)
Meetingsofstaffmembers,
responsibleforcooperative
activities
Permanentexchangeof
information
Permanentexchangeofdataand
jointmonitoringsystem
Periodicaljointfieldtripsinall
partnerareas
Translationarrangements
Facilitatedexchangeofdata
throughcommondataformats;
jointmappingandGIS;shared
scientificinformation
Jointtrainingcoursesforstaff
Promotionofstaffexchange
Linguistictrainingwhenneeded
Promotionofunderstandingof
neighbouringcountrysculture
Jointdevelopmentofstaff
Shortandlongtermstaff
exchangesorstudytours
Languagetrainingprovided
Importancetocooperation
attachedthroughleadership
Topic4:Externalcommunicationmeasures(publicrelation)
EUROPARC(2003)
UNESCO(2000b)
Transboundaryprotectedarea
complexcommunicatedasa
whole
Foreignlanguagecommunication
ensured,jointbilingual
publications
Developmentofcommon
publicrelationstrategy
Jointbi/multilingualwebsites
Commonwebsite
Commonmapsofthearea
Guidedvisitsandeventsfortarget
groupsonbothsidesoftheborder
Mapwithjointzonation
Promotionofschoolexchangesor
exchangesbetweenresearch
institutions/scientists
Jointpromotionofprotected
areas,commoninterpretative
material
Sharedresourcesassymbol(basis
forjointlogo),sharedname,
multilingualsignage,sharedvisitor
centres
Commonwebsite,newsletter
and/orradiobroadcast
Singlemaporvisitorsguide
Jointeducationandawareness
activities
Commonlogoanddesignfor
publishedmaterial
PAGE13
SIGRUNLANGE
Topic5:Jointprojectactivities
EUROPARC(2003)
UNESCO(2000b)
Jointmanagementofshared
habitats,jointprojectson
biodiversity/speciesconservation
Commonormutuallyagreed
researchactivities
Jointeventspromotingcultural
understandingwhichfacilitatethe
buildingoftrustbetweenneigh
bouringcommunitiesandpeople
Jointplanningofresearchand
monitoringactivities
Promotionofjointculturalevents
Jointmanagementofspecies,
removalofbarrierstoanimal
movement,controlofalien
species,reintroductionofspecies
Jointresearchandlongterm
monitoring
Promotionofsocialevents(field
trips,festivals,marketdays)
Jointdemonstrationprojects
Concretejointprojects
Collaborationinactivitiesforpest
andfirecontrol
EUROPARC(2003)
UNESCO(2000b)
Securedfinancingfor
transfrontierprojects
Jointpreparationofproject
proposalsforinternationalfunding
(EU,GEFetc.)
Cooperativebudgetasintegral
partoffinancialplans
Potentialfundingidentifiedfor
worktobeundertakenjointly;
jointprojectproposalsdeveloped;
newjointrevenuegenerating
activitiesimplemented
Topic6:Sustainablefinancing
Identificationofpotentialfunding
sourcesandjointorsimultaneous
application
Fig.3:Comparisonofrecommendationsgiveninthreeinternationalguidelinesfortransboundarycooperation.
The comparison shows that common ground can be detected amongst the given re
commendations for transboundary cooperation. In general, all guidelines agree on the
importanceof
anyformofwrittencommonagreementorvision,
thecoordinationofplanningprocessesandtheharmonisationofregulations,
theestablishmentofsomekindofcoordinativestructurestofacilitatetheexchangeof
informationandexperiences,
personalmeetingsbetweenalllevelsofstaffmembers,
measurestoovercomethelanguagebarriers,
thedevelopmentofstrategiesforacommonexternalcommunication,
therealisationofjointprojects,and
theavailabilityofaparticularbudgetfortransboundarycooperationactivities.
However,evenifadviceandrecommendationsareprovidedbyinternationalorganisations,in
everydayslifetransboundarycooperationinprotectedareasremainsachallenge(cp.chapter
4.3). Still protected areas are being established near borders without any thought of
coordinating measures with the neighbouring country to ensure an effective protection
(Brunner2006).
PAGE14
SIGRUNLANGE
4.3
Recommendationsfromprevioussurveys
Aglobalsurvey(Zbicz2003)amongst147pairsofadjoiningprotectedareasallovertheworld
revealed that in 18 percent of the cases there is no cooperation at all. 39 percent of the
respondents declared that there is at least any form of twoway communication, while only
sevenpercentratedthemtofullcooperation(cp.classificationsysteminFig.4).Zbiczfound
out,thathigherlevelsofcooperationoccurred(1)iftheideaoftransfrontiercooperationand
ecosystembasedmanagementwasimportanttotheprotectedareamanagersandpersonnel,
(2)iftherewereadequatecommunicationtechnologiesinplace,(3)iftherewereindividuals
willing to take leadership roles, and (4) if managers were able to make personal contacts
acrosstheborder.Notsurprisingly,itwasthelatterfactorthatcorrelatedmoststronglywith
thelevelofcooperationachieved.
Levelsofcooperation
Characteristics
Level0:Nocooperation
Stafffromadjoiningprotectedareasnevercommunicateormeet.
Noinformationisshared,nocooperationoccursonanyissue.
Level1:Communication
Level2:Consultation
Level3:Collaboration
Communicationisfrequent(atleasteverytwomonths).
Meetingsoccuratleastthreetimesayear.
ThetwoPAsactivelycooperateonatleastfouractivities,
sometimescoordinatingtheirplanningandconsultingwiththe
otherPAbeforetakingaction.
Level4:Coordinationof
planning
ThetwoPAscommunicateoftenandcoordinateactionsinsome
areas,especiallyinplanning.
ThetwoPAsworktogetheronatleastfiveactivities,holding
regularmeetingsandnotifyingeachotherincasesofemergency.
PAsusuallycoordinatetheirplanning,oftentreatingthewhole
areaasasingleecologicalunit.
Level5:Fullcooperation
PlanningforthetwoPAsisfullyintegrated,and,ifappropriate,
ecosystembased,withimpliedjointdecisionmakingand
commongoals.
Jointplanningoccurs,and,ifthetwoshareanecosystem,this
planningusuallytreatsthetwoPAsasawhole.
Jointmanagementsometimesoccurs,withcooperationonat
leastsixactivities.
Ajointcommitteeexistsforadvisingontransboundary
cooperation.
ThereissometwowaycommunicationbetweenthePAs.
Meetingsorcommunicationtakeplaceatleastonceayear.
Informationissometimesshared.
NotificationofactionswhichmayaffecttheotherPAwill
sometimestakeplace.
Communicationismorefrequent(atleastthreetimesayear).
Cooperationoccursonatleasttwodifferentactivities.
Thetwosidesusuallyshareinformation.
NotificationofactionsaffectingtheadjoiningPAusuallyoccurs.
Fig.4:Sixlevelsofcooperationbetweeninternationallyadjoiningprotectedareas(PAs)(Sandwithetal.2001,
adaptedfromclassificationsystemofZbicz1999).
PAGE15
SIGRUNLANGE
UNESCO (2003) examined the functioning of cooperation in five transboundary biosphere

reserves (TBR) in Europe (cp. results in Fig. 5). In most cases the lack of longterm available
funds dedicated to crossborder cooperation was seen as an obstacle. The example of the
Vosges du Nord / Pflzerwald TBR, however, illustrates that even large injections of money
invested in cooperation are not in themselves sufficient to guarantee immediate success
(UNESCO2003).Itseemscrucialthatbothsidesrecognizetheneedandwillforcooperation,
otherwise even the best communication technologies and institutional structures cannot be
successful.Moreover,leadershipeitherintheformofhighlymotivatedkeypersons,training
ortechnicalassistanceaddstoafunctioningcooperation.
TBPA
Keysuccessfactors
Maindifficulties
Danube
Delta
Biosphere
Reserve
Availabilityoffundsdetermines
degreeoftransboundarycooperation
Difficultaccessbetweenthetwo
countries
Lackofharmonisedlegislation
East
Carpathians
Biosphere
Reserve
Recognitionoftheneedtocooperate
Recognitionofaculturalunity
Positivepressurefromintern.donors
Marketingofauniquetransboundary
ecosystem
Recognitionoftheneedtocooperate
Personaldedicationofonemanager
Easyaccesstoelectronic
communication
LackofunderstandingofBRconcept
andlegalstatus
Difficultpoliticalcontext
Lackoffunds,lackofprioritysetting
Lackofinstitutionalframework
Krkonoe/
Krkonosze
Biosphere
Reserve
TBRseenasacommunication
platformbetweenstakeholders
Similarlanguages
Learningfromcommonexperiencesin
forestissues
Bordercrossingdifficulties
Lackoffunds
Differentlevelsofdevelopment
Tatras
Biosphere
Reserve
Commitmenttoideaofcooperation
Particularlyscientistsareinterestedto
workonthetransboundarylevel
Differentunderstandingofthe
biospherereserveconcept
Differentpoliticalandmanagement
objectives
LackoflegalrecognitionofBR
Vosgesdu
Nord/
Pflzerwald
Biosphere
Reserve
Objectiveorientedprojectplanning
workshoprevealedfivemaintopics:
Commonmanagementplan
Pilotprojectstoenhanceacceptance
amongstlocals
Enlargenetworkofpartners
Transboundarymanagement
procedures
Technicalandfinancialresourcesfor
cooperation
BRcreatedfromlandscapeparks
Coordinationofnationalactivitiesis
alreadydifficult,involvingmore
partnersisquitechallenging
Differentapproachtozonation
Impactsofformerarmedconflicts/
warsstillperceptible
Differentbudgetandstaffcapacity(in
Francebudgetistwiceaslargeasin
Germany,staffcapacityistriple)
Fig.5:KeyfactorsforsuccessandmaindifficultiesofcooperationintheEuropeantransboundarybiosphere
reserves(briefsummaryofresultsfromUNESCO2003);(T)BR:(Transboundary)BiosphereReserve.
The findings of the two surveys indicate that transboundary cooperation is foremost about
human relationships and crosscultural understanding. The seeds of transboundary
PAGE16
SIGRUNLANGE
conservationcanbeplanted,wateredandnurtured,butgrowthmustcomefromwithin,from
thegroundup(Zbicz2003).
4.4
Summaryofpreassumptions
To sum up, it is assumed that transboundary cooperation in protected areas management

shall be intensified even if the associated efforts remain a challenge (cp. Fig. 2). Many
international organisations and donors highly encourage the establishment of transfrontier
protected areas. They recommend specifying common visions or (written) agreements,
establishingcoordinativestructures,encouragingpersonalmeetingsbetweenalllevelsofstaff
members,developingappropriatestrategieshowtodealwithlanguagebarriers,harmonising
regulations and management practices, performing common external communication,
realisingjointprojectsandfinallyguaranteeingparticularbudgetsfortransboundaryactivities.
The study of Zbicz (2003) stresses the importance of a high appreciation for transboundary
cooperationwhichmeansthatthebenefitshavetobeclearandhighlyvalued.Thiswasalso
confirmed by the participants of a conference on the Viability of Transboundary Protected
Areas:Theyagreedthattransboundaryconservationwillonlybesuccessfulifpeopleonboth
sides of the border foresee a clear advantage to cooperation (Lanfer et al. 2003). UNESCO
(2003)foundoutthatafunctioningcooperationonbothsidesrequirestherecognitionofthe
need and will for cooperation and beyond that leadership either in the form of highly
motivatedkeypersons,trainingortechnicalassistance.
Alltheestablishedassumptionsonhowtofacilitatetransboundarycooperationinprotected
areasmanagementhavebeensummarisedinFig.6.
Fig.6:Factorsfacilitatingtransboundarycooperationinprotectedareasmanagement(Graphic:S.Lange,based
onrecommendationsofinternationalorganisationsandresultsfromformerstudies).
PAGE17
SIGRUNLANGE
4.5
Principlesofchangemanagementappliedtotransboundarycooperation
Evenifalreadysomeimportantaspectsofhowtoorganisetransboundarycooperationhave
been identified, they still do not answer the question under which circumstances the
establishmentoftransboundaryparksisworthtrying.Therefore,inthisstudytheprinciplesof
changemanagementacquiredinorganisationaldevelopmentprocesseshavebeenappliedto
figure out in which cases nature conservation activities can be extended successfully from
nationaltotransboundaryefforts.
Howcanpeoplebemotivatedtogiveupfamiliarhabitsandacceptchanges(inthiscase:to
start a close cooperation with their neighbours)? And how can these changes been made
sustainableand successful? Such questions have been widely discussed in the framework of
organisationaldevelopmentprocesses.Thereforetheymightbehelpfultobetterunderstand
theunderlyingprocessesoftransboundarycooperationinprotectedareasmanagementand
triggernewideasforinnovativeapproaches.
The following change equitation8 is a simple yet powerful tool that provides a quick, first
impressionofthepossibilitiesandconditionstochangeanorganization:
D[issatisfaction]xV[ision]xF[irststep]>R[esistance]toChange
Dissatisfactionwiththecurrentsituationisthekeydriverforchanges.Itgivesusareasonwhy
we need to change. Developing a common vision is important to agree on what shall be
achieved in the future. Concrete first steps have to be taken in order to demonstrate the
progress towards the vision. The change formula is multiplicative, which means that if any
factorismissingorpoorlydeveloped,resistancewillbegreaterandpositivechangewillnot
takeplace(Beckhard&Harris1987):
Ifyouareonlydissatisfiedwithyourcurrentsituation,butlackavisionandfirststeps,
theresultisusuallycomplainingandmoaning;positivechangewillnothappen.
Ifyouaredissatisfiedandhaveavision,butlackfirststeps,theresultisusuallyalotof
thinkingortalkingendinginapathyandbeingstuck;positivechangewillnothappen.
Ifyouaredissatisfiedandalreadystartwithfirststepsbeforehavingaclearvision,the
resultsoftenincludealotoffranticactivitiessuchasvoluminousreportsorfrequent
meetings lacking a clear purpose. Eventually there will be a lot of frustration since
following the latest trend is not enough to overcome resistance to change without
havingclearobjectives;positivechangewillnothappen.
If you lack clarity of dissatisfaction, eventually apathy will emerge as there is no real
needforchanges.
In Fig. 7 it has been tried to combine these general findings from the organisational
development with the established recommendations for transboundary cooperation
(cp.Fig.6).
ThechangeequitationwasdevelopedbyDavidGleicher,popularisedbyBeckhard&Harris(1987)andfurther
usedbytheDannemillerTysonAssociates(2000)intheirWholeScaleChangeApproach.
PAGE18
SIGRUNLANGE
Fig.7:Drivingforcesfortransboundarycooperation:Theresistancetocooperatewiththeneighbouringcountry
canonlybeovercomeifacriticalmassisdissatisfiedwiththecurrentsituation,ifavisioncanbeagreedon
andfirststepsaretaken(Graphic:S.Lange,basedonchangeformulaandactionsrecommendedfor
transboundarycooperation).
4.6
Researchquestions
Thesepreassumptionsledtotheformulationoftwocentralresearchquestions:
(1)
Can the established recommendations on how to facilitate transboundary
cooperationinprotectedareasmanagementbeapprovedinthechosencasestudysites?
(2)
Under which circumstances is transboundary cooperation worth the investment?
May the principles of change management in organisational development be applied in
order to facilitate decisions on whether to establish and how to handle transboundary
cooperationinprotectedareasmanagement?
PAGE19
SIGRUNLANGE
PROJECTDESIGN
Three adjoining protected area complexes in Europe have been selected as case study sites
(cp.Fig.8):
Crossborder Nature Park MaasSchwalmNette between Germany and The

Netherlandswithonemanagementunitresponsibleforbothsidesofthefrontier(high
cooperationlevel,certifiedbyEUROPARCslabelFollowingNaturesDesignin2007),
NationalParkTriglav/BiosphereReserveJulianAlpsintheNorthWestofSloveniaand
adjoining Regional Nature Park Prealpi Giulie in Italy (medium cooperation level,
certifiedbyEUROPARCinSeptember2009)and
the mountain range Karwendel between Austria (Alpenpark Karwendel which
currentlyistransformedintoaNaturePark)andGermany(natureconservationsite),
where since 20 years stakeholders make an effort towards an institutionalised
cooperation,howeversofarwithoutsuccess(lowercooperationlevel).
Thecasestudysiteshavebeenchosenaccordingtothefollowingcriteria:
Managersofsitesshouldagreetotheparticipationintheproject,
SitesshouldbelocatedinEurope,
Sitesshouldrepresentdifferentlevelsofcrossbordercooperation,
Sitesshouldhavealreadyalonghistoryintransboundarycooperation(efforts),
(Atleastinsomecases)adjacentcountriesshouldspeakdifferentlanguages.
Fig.8:LocationoftheselectedcasestudysitesinEurope(Graphic:Lange).
For each case study site, the functioning of the transboundary cooperation has briefly been
characterised (according to the basic criteria derived from the international
recommendations, cp. chapter 4.2). Their level of cooperation has been estimated and
assignedtotheclassificationofZbicz(1999,cp.Fig.4).
PAGE20
SIGRUNLANGE
Inaccordancewiththerespectivemanagersofthechosencasestudysitessomestakeholders
were asked to act as informants in guided interviews. These representatives of different
interest groups such as conservationists, user groups (e.g. farmers, lumberjacks or tourism
professionals) or administration (e.g. mayors) were surveyed on the costs and benefits of
transboundary cooperation and their motivation to engage themselves in the process. By
analysing the results of the interviews, the factors influencing success or failure of
transboundarycooperationhavebeenevaluated.
Finally,managersoftransboundaryprotectedareacomplexesinEuropehavebeeninvitedto
aworkshopwiththeaimofsystematicallyexchangingtheirexperiencesandtriggeringmutual
learning.Theyshouldhavediscussediftheprinciplesofchangemanagementinorganisational
development are useful and applicable to better understand and handle crossborder
cooperationinprotectedareasmanagement.However,duetoonlyalownumberofexperts,
who registered as participants of the scheduled workshop, it was agreed with Martin olar,
supervisorofthisstudy,topostponetheworkshop.Itwillbeheldinspring2010assideevent
during the next EUROPARC meeting on transboundary cooperation. As a consequence the
resultscannotbeincludedinthisstudy.
The conclusions of this study (lessons learnt) are meant to add to the international
discussionsontransboundarycooperationinprotectedareasmanagement.
PAGE21
SIGRUNLANGE
METHODS
6.1
Guidedexpertinterviews
6.1.1 Implementationofexpertinterviews
Duringthestudyseveralexpertsfromthechosencasestudysiteshavebeensurveyed.
Experts can generally be defined as informants with a specific knowledge on processes and
circumstances(Glser&Laudel2009).Inthiscase,representativesofrelevantinterestgroups
(protected areas managers, nature conservationist, mayors, tourism experts and land users)
havebeenchosenonbothsidesoftheborder.Bysurveyingtheseexperts,processescanbe
reconstructedinordertofindcausalities.
The surveys were realised by means of not standardised, but guided interviews (Leitfaden
Interviews).Thistechniqueisusedwheninformationabouttheopinionsofparticularpersons
shallbegatheredinordertogainqualitativeinsightsintoaproblem.Guidedinterviewsideally
compriseopen,neutralandunequivocalquestions.Theconversationbetweeninterviewerand
intervieweedoesnothavetofollowthosequestionsstrictly;thecourseoftheconversation
shouldbeasnaturalaspossible.
Despite being aware of the fact that personal facetoface interviews deliver the best
informationdensity,intwocasestudysites(NatureParkMaasSchwalmNetteandmountain
range Karwendel) only phone interviews have been carried out due to limited time and
financialresources.Besides,phoneinterviewsallowmoreflexibilityfortherespondentthan
personalmeetingsatafixeddate.Neitherthephonenorthepersonalinterviewshavebeen
recorded to avoid that the interviewees feel uncomfortable and hold off information just
becausetheyknowthateachsinglewordwillberetained.
Thefollowingquestionswereusedtoguidetheinterview:
Your country cooperates with the neighbouring country in the field of nature
conservation.Whyhasthetransboundarycooperationbeenstarted?
Imagine,therewouldbenocooperationatall.Whatcouldhardlyberealisedbyeach
individualcountry?Whatwouldyoumiss?
Canyougivemeabestpracticeexampleforsuccessfultransboundarycooperation?
Whydoyouthinkthisparticularexamplewassosuccessful?
Whatmainobstacleshadorstillhavetoberesolvedtofacilitatecooperation?
Dolanguagebarriersconstraincooperation?
Iscooperationworththeeffort?Ifyes,why.Ifno,why?
Whatpersonalexperiencedoyouassociatewithtransboundarycooperation?
IncaseoftheKarwendel,whereuptonownoformalisedcooperationtakesplace(butshould
beintensifiedinthefuture),theguidingquestionshavebeenmodifiedasfollows:
HowdoyouliketheideaofintensifyingthecooperationbetweenTyrolandBavariain
ordertoensurethepreservationofthemountainrangeKarwendel?
Imaginetherewouldbeanintensifiedcooperation,whichbenefitswouldyouexpect?
Whichproblemsandextraeffortswouldyouexpect?
PAGE22
SIGRUNLANGE
Isthecooperationworththeeffort?
Whatcouldtriggeryourmotivationtoengageyourselfinthecooperation?
Duetotimerestrictionsthenumberofinterviewswaslimitedtoamaximumoftenpercase
studysite,whichmeansfiveoneachsideoftheborder(cp.Fig.9).Intentional,expertsfrom
different stakeholder groups (e.g. administration, nature protection, land use, tourism) have
beenchosen.Theselectionoftheintervieweeswasnotdoneatrandombutalignedwiththe
respective protected areas managers. Therefore the results represent the opinion of pre
selectedindividuals;norepresentativeandgenerallyacceptedconclusionscanbedrawn.
NatureParkMaasSchwalm
Nette
Germanside
2nature
conservation
experts
1administra
tionunit
1landuse
expert(forest)
1tourism
expert
Dutchside
2nature
conservation
experts
1mayor
1landuse
expert
(tourism&
agriculture)
1tourism
expert
NationalParkTriglav/
NatureParkPrealpiGiulie
Sloveneside
2NPstaff
members(in
chargeof
marketingand
visitorcenter
respectively)
1formerNP
director
1administra
tionunit
Italianside
2NPstaff
members
1mayor
1scientist
1landuse
expert
(tourism&
agriculture)
Mountainregion
ofKarwendel
Germanside
2nature
conservation
experts
2mayors(one
ofthemalso
representinga
tourism
association)
1landuse
expert(forest)
Austrianside
1nature
conservation
expert
2mayors
1tourism
expert
1landuse
expert(forest)
1teacher
Fig.9:Overviewontheintervieweesinthedifferentcasestudysites;NP:NationalParkorNaturePark.
IntheKarwendelandinNatureParkMaasSchwalmNettetheinterviewswerecarriedoutin
German even with experts from the Dutch side. In Triglav National Park and Nature Park
PrealpiGiulietheconversationswereholdpartlydirectlyinEnglishandpartlywithtranslators
(SloveneEnglish,ItalianEnglish).Inusinginterpreters,thecomplexityoftheinformation
receivedbytheinterviewerisreducedsignificantly.However,thiswasthebestpossibilityto
copewiththelanguagebarrier.
Aprotocolhasbeenwrittendowndirectlyaftertheinterviewswerecarriedout.Theanalysis
thenfollowedtheprinciplesofqualitativeinterviewanalysisasdevelopedbyMayring(2008,
2005,2000)(cp.chapter6.1.2)andaimedatansweringthetworesearchquestions:
Which factors influence success or failure of transboundary cooperation in protected
areasmanagementaccordingtothestakeholdersperception?
Maythementionedprinciplesofchangemanagement(cp.chapter4.5)beappliedin
ordertoexplainthesuccessorfailureoftransboundaryconservationefforts?
6.1.2 Qualitativecontentanalysis
Analysinginterviewresultsisachallengingtask.Inprinciple,theanalysiscanbeeitherdoneby
applyingaquantitativeorqualitativeapproach.
Quantitativecontentanalysesfollowdefinedworksteps(GlserundLaudel2009):
Developingaclosedsystemofcategoriesbeforestartingtheanalysis(deductionfrom
theoreticalpreassumptions),
Fragmentingthetextinunits,
Browsingthetextinsearchofrelevantinformation,and
PAGE23
SIGRUNLANGE
Allocatingtheinformationtotherespectivecategories(coding).
Subsequently,thefrequencyoftheoccurrenceofcertaincategoriesisrecorded.Thereby,itis
assumedthatthefrequencyoftheoccurrenceofacategoryisrelatedtothemeaningofthe
issue.However,thismethodignoresthevaryingmeaningsoftheanswersassignedtoagiven
category(GlserundLaudel2009).Thereductionincomplexitymaybeacceptableforahigh
numberofsurveys,butnotinthecaseofthisstudy,whereonly30interviewswerecarried
outandeachanswerhastobeanalysedindetail.
Therefore, in this study the qualitative content analysis as developed by Mayring was used.
Thisapproachpreservestheadvantagesofthequantitativeanalysisandtransfersandfurther
developsthemtoqualitativeinterpretativestepsofanalysis(Mayring2000).Inprinciple,itis
based on the quantitative analysis. However, the predefined categories are permanently
adjustedinthecourseoftheanalysisdependingonthegivenvarietyofanswers(cp.Fig.10).
Fig.10:Stepmodelofinductivecategorydevelopment(GraphictakenfromMayring2000,p.4).
6.2
Workshop(scheduledbutnotimplemented)
In a second step managers of crossborder protected area complexes representing different

protected area categories (transboundary biosphere reserves and nature parks as well as
adjoining national parks, Ramsar sites and nature protection areas) have been invited to a
workshop with the objective of systematically exchanging their experiences with
transboundary cooperation. Thereby the after action review method should have been
applied.Asaresult,themostimportantlessonslearnedshouldhavebeensummarisedand
discussed amongst the participants. Thereby they should have assessed, if the principles of
changemanagementmayhelptobetterunderstandtheunderlyingprocessesandfindideas
fornewapproaches.
PAGE24
SIGRUNLANGE
However,duetoonlyalownumberofexpertsregisteringasparticipants,theworkshopwas
postponed.Itwillbeheldassideeventofthenextmeetingofthetransboundaryprotected
areascertifiedorcurrentlyassessedbyEUROPARC(whichwilltakeplaceatlakeNeusiedlersee
in Austria in 2010). Therefore the results cannot be used for this study. However the
underlyingideawillbefollowedupnextyear.
AfterActionReview
The After Action Review (AAR) method was developed by the US army to facilitate the
systematicexchangeofexperienceswithinthetroops.Meanwhileitfounditswayintohuman
developmentprocessesandprojectmanagement(vonderOelsnitz&Busch2006).
Learningexperiencesshallbepreparedandpresentedaccordingtofiveguidingquestions:
Explainbrieflytherespectiveproject/task/activity.
Whatshouldhavebeenachieved?
Whathappenedinstead?
Whatarepossiblereasonsforthedifference?
WhatcanI/welearnfromthisexample?
The feedback during an AAR compares the actual output of a process with the intended
outcome. This approach enables people to discover for themselves what happened, why it
happened,andhowtosustainstrengthsandimproveonweaknesses(USHeadquarters1993).
Bysharinglearningexperiencesnewpotentialsforimprovementcouldberecognized.
PAGE25
SIGRUNLANGE
RESULTS
7.1
Levelofcooperationwithinthecasestudyareas
7.1.1 NatureParkMaasSchwalmNette
Nature Park MaasSchwalmNette is
located between Germany and the
Netherlandsandcoversanareaofalmost
80,000 hectares (Fig. 11)9. In 1977, it was
founded as transboundary site by the
governmentsoftheGermanFederalState
North RhineWestphalia and the Dutch
kingdom as extension of the former
German Nature Park SchwalmNette. The
cultural landscape is shaped by the five
rivers Maas, Roer/Rur, Schwalm, Nette
and Niers. Inbetween the river
ecosystems a large forest area (10,000
hectares) adds to the diversity of the
landscape.Thenatureparkservesaslocal
recreation area for the agglomerations
along the rivers Rhine and Ruhr. It shall
contribute to the conservation of species
and habitats and support environmental
education,
tourism
and
regional
development (promotion of local farmers
offeringlocalproductsandrecreation).
Fig.11:LocationofcrossborderNaturePark
MaasSchwalmNette(Graphicfrom
http://www.grensparkmsn.nl).
Commonagreements,visionsandplanning
In March 1976, the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the German Federal State North Rhine
Westphalia signed an agreement to foster the development of a crossborder nature park
which was realized one year later; this agreement was renewed in 2006. After 25 years of
bilateralcooperationinthenaturepark,atransfrontierassociationwasfoundedin2002.By
signingthebylawsoftheassociation,sevenDutchcommunitiesandtheGermanNaturePark
SchwalmNetteonceagainconfirmedtocooperateinordertopreservethelandscapewhile
consideringeconomic,culturalandsocialaspects.In1989thecommonvisiontomaintainthe
openlandscapeandtoreduceharmfulimpactswasspecifiedinaframeconcept.1994abasic
ecologicalplanfollowed.Inaddition,atransboundaryvisitormanagementsystemisinplace.
All information collected from the web site (http://www.grensparkmsn.nl/) the annual reports (2002 until
2007)andtheevaluationreportofEUROPARCFederation(2007).
PAGE26
SIGRUNLANGE
Coordinativestructures
Since 1978, the EUREGIO RheinMaasNord serves as wider transboundary political region
for the cooperation between the Netherlands and Germany. The nature park can be
consideredascorezonefortheEUREGIO.
At the beginning of the transboundary cooperation within the nature park an advisory
commission was responsible for carrying out joint activities. Since 2002 the transboundary
work is facilitated by a joint management unit, based in an office in Roermond, the
Netherlands. It represents a transfrontier support association composed by the German
Nature Park SchwalmNette and spokespersons of seven Dutch communities. Two bilingual
employeesencouragetheexchangeofinformation,actasfocalpointsforallpartnersinboth
countriesandcoordinatejointprojects.
Exchangeofinformationandpersonalmeetings
Theboardmembersofthetransfrontiersupportassociationmeettwotimesayeartoagree
onacommonworkplanforthenaturepark.Thereby,theDutchpartnerprotectedareasare
represented by the respective regional politicians. Minutes are written in both languages.
Issues related to conservation are covered by jointly developed and managed projects. The
joint management unit facilitates the exchange of information between those partners who
areinvolvedinjointactivities.Inaddition,thenatureguidesmeetonceperyear.
Commonexternalcommunication
Theexternalcommunicationofthetransboundarynaturepark
is consistent. A common logo (Fig. 12) was developed and a
joint web site (in Dutch and German language) informs
interested people about the activities of the nature park. A
joint map is available just as several joint publications (e.g.

Fig.12:Logooftransboundary
hiking,cyclingandNordicwalkingguides).Intheframeworkof
NatureParkMaasSchwalm
an INTERREG IIIA project 2006 the web site cycling without
Nette.
frontiers was launched10. 21 visitor centres are in place to
informguestsandlocalsabouttheiroffers.Theyareorganisedasanetworkwhosemembers
meet twice a year to exchange experiences. A joint bilingual programme of guided tours
exists.
Jointprojects
Several projects are carried out jointly between the Netherlands and Germany whereby
differenttypesofstakeholdersareinvolved,e.g.
treeplantingactivitieswithDutchandGermanschoolchildrenontheoccasionofthe
`internationaltreeplantingdaycelebratedinthenatureparkinMarchsince1993,
abilingualexhibitiononthenatureparktouringthroughtheregionsince2006,
events like transboundary paper chases on the occasion of the Europe Day on the
9thofMay,
10
Cyclingwithoutfrontiersinthetransboundarynaturepark:http://www.grenzenlosradfahren.de/
PAGE27
SIGRUNLANGE
`nature working days offered for Dutch and German inhabitants to actively support
natureconservationmeasuresinthenaturepark,
nature park day when different organisations and visitors centres are organising
specialeventscoveredunderacertainsubjectlikeforinstancewater,biodiversityor
culturalheritage;itoccursonceayearonthelastSundayofaugust,
jointexcursionprogrammethatoffersupto600guidedexcursionsonbothsidesofthe
border;
INTERREG IIIA projects e.g. on the preservation of wetlands, the development of
habitats,thegreenbeltinitiative,thehistoricsignificanceoftheairbaseVenlo,and
symposiumstodiscusstheproblemsandchancesoftransboundarycooperationinthe
fieldofregionaldevelopment(2006)orpoliciesofnature/landscapeandtourism/rec
reation(2004).
Particularfundsforcooperation
TheofficeinRoermondisfinanciallysupportedbytheGermanFederalStateofNorthRhine
Westphalia, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Province of Limburg, the German Nature
Park SchwalmNette and seven Dutch communities. Each year a budget of 200,000 Euro is
available for staff (2 persons), office and project expenses. Additional funds up to 400,000
EuroperyeararemainlyacquiredthroughEuropeanStructuralFunds(inparticularINTERREG
IIIA,nowIVAprojects).
Conclusion:Highlevelofcooperation
Nature Park MaasSchwalmNette seems to be one of the bestpractise examples for
successful transboundary cooperation. In 2007 it was awarded with the EUROPARC label
Transboundary Parks Following Natures Design. According to the classification of Zbicz
(1999)itcanbeassignedtothehighestlevelofcooperation,level5(cp.Fig.4).
7.1.2 NationalParkTriglavandNatureParkPrealpiGiulie
Triglav National Park, established in 1981, is the only
nationalparkinSlovenia.ItcoverstheEasternJulianAlps
(total area of 83,807 hectares) with pointed summits
(cp. Fig. 13), steep rock faces and deeplycarved glacier
valleys. Forest covers two thirds of the park territory. In
2003 Triglav National Park became the core and buffer
zone of Biosphere Reserve Julian Alps. One year later it
wasawardedwiththeEuropeanDiploma.
Regional Nature Park Prealpi Giulie (parco naturale
regionale) almost adjoins National Park Triglav in the
West,ontheItaliansideoftheborder(cp.Fig.14).Both
regionssharetheecosystemoftheJulianAlps.Thenature
parkwasestablishedin1996andcoversanareaofabout
10,000 hectares in the autonomous region of Friuli
VeneziaGiulia.
PAGE28
Fig.13:ClimbingMt.TriglavinSlovenia
(Photo:W.Krieg).
SIGRUNLANGE
Fig.14:Locationofthe(almost)adjoiningprotectedareasNationalParkTriglav(Slovenia)andRegionalNature
ParkPrealpiGiulie(Italy)(Graphic:modifiedbyS.Lange,onbasisofmapsdrawnbytheprotectedareas).
Prealpi Giulie established cooperation with Triglav National Park since the early stage of its
foundationin1996.Sincethenseveralinformalbiandmultilateralcooperationagreements
havebeensigned,bothatregionalandlocallevel.EspeciallyontheItaliansidethevisionof
sharing a big natural area in the middle of Europe (slogan from a former INTERREG project
betweenTriglavNationalParkandthetwoNatureParksPrealpiGiulieandDolomitiFriulane:
threepark,onenaturalsoulintheheartofEurope)wasexpressed.
The main topics of cooperation are sustainable development, education, nature friendly
tourism and (more recently) nature conservation. In 2007, both protected areas signed an
agreementexpressingtheirwilltobecertificatedastransboundaryparksbyEUROPARC.
There is no official coordinative structure (e.g. joint office, appointed coordinator,
transboundarycommittees)inplace.Themainguarantorsfortransboundarycooperationare
theparkdirectorswhomeetonaregularbasisbutalsoaccordingtospecialneeds.Inaddition,
thestaffmembersoftheparksandtherepresentativesoftherelatedcommunitiesmeetonce
a year by combing a formal with an informal event. Meetings take also place between the
personsinchargeforthevisitorcentresofbothprotectedareas.
Personalcontactsoccurbetweenalllevelsofstaffmembersdependingonactualprojectsand
topics (e.g. a staff meeting between the two parks takes place once a year; it is always
combinedwithaninformalcomponent).However,onlytheparkdirectorsmeetonaregular
base(6to7timesayear).Inordertosimplifythepersonalexchange,oftenEnglishisusedfor
communication. Some staff members in both parks either speak or currently learn the
languageoftheneighbouringcountry.Theparkssupportandencouragethefurtherspreadof
ItalianandSloveneasmaincommunicationlanguages.
PAGE29
SIGRUNLANGE
ThereisnocommonwebsitepromotingbothparksasonebigconservationareaintheJulian
(Pre)Alps. Having a closer look on the individual web sites there is no evidence of any link
betweenthetwoparks.WhereasforthewebsiteofTriglavNationalParknoItaliantranslation
is provided, the one of Prealpi Giulie offers information in Slovene language. However, the
visitor centres in both parks provide information on the respective neighbouring park.
Differentbrochuresareavailableinthepartner'slanguage.Thereistheobjectivetoestablish
crossborderhikingtrailsbetweenthetwoparks;howeverthisisnotrealisedyet.
Jointprojects
When Slovenia joined the European Union and the Schengen Area joint festivals and
celebrationswereorganised.SincethenthetwoparkscooperatedinthreeINTERREGprojects:
20022006:Managementandinformationcentresintheprotectedterritoryofthe
EasternAlpinearcJulianPrealps,
2004 2006: ERAECO Regio Alpe Adria Project, which strengthened joint tourism
strategiesandpromotedruraldevelopment,and
2005 2007: PALPIS Crossborder participative planning in areas of major
naturalisticvalueintheSouthernJulianAlps.
CurrentlynoINTERREGprojectisinplace.Howevernewproposalsareinpreparation.During
the ERA project meetings between farmers, pupils and teachers of the two parks were
initiated. About 100 Italian and Slovene kids were invited to get to know each other and to
improve their knowledge on the protected areas. Although the ERA project has terminated
already,thesecommonDaysofNaturewithschoolchildrenstilltakeplace.TheEUROPARC
JuniorRangersProgramme,alreadyestablishedinTriglavNationalParksince2002,wasalso
introduced in Prealpi Giulie. The joint activities on ecological monitoring of wildlife are
currentlynoteffectivealthoughdataexchangehasbeenregularlycarriedoutinformeryears.
Fundsforcooperation
The main source for transboundary cooperation is the European INTERREG A programme.
Additionalactivitiesarecoveredbytheannualbudgetsoftherespectiveparks.
Conclusion
The cooperation started with the foundation of the regional nature park in Italy and was
intensified after Slovenia joined the European Union. So far no particular structures
(comittees,coordinators)havebeenestablished.Alsothepoliticalsituation(Sloveneminority
inItaly)maybecomeanobstacleforthecooperation,dependingonwhichpartyisinpower
on the Italian side of the border. However, it seems as if the regular (formal and informal)
personalcontactsbetweenthestaffmembersofthetwoparksresultedintrustandfriendship
between the neighbours, which is an important factor for sustaining the cooperation even
withoutdefinedstructuresandfunding.
In2007,bothprotectedareasexpressedtheirwishtobecertifiedastransboundaryparksby
EUROPARC.Finally,theywereawardedduringtheannualEUROPARCmeetingwhichwasheld
in September 2009 in Strmstad, Sweden. According to the classification of Zbicz (1999)
cooperationcanbeassignedtothemediumlevel,level2to3.
PAGE30
SIGRUNLANGE
7.1.3 MountainrangeKarwendel(AT/DE)
TheKarwendelisanAlpinerangeintheEasternLimestoneAlpsstretchingacrosstheborder
between Tyrol (Austria) and Bavaria (Germany) (cp. Fig. 15, left). The area is of major
importancefortheconservationofAlpinebiodiversity.Byseveralorganisationsitwaschosen
aspriorityareaforbiodiversityconservation(WWF2004).Outstandinglandscapefeatureslike
thesocalledGreatAhornboden,aplainattheendoftheEngValleydottedwitholdmaple
treescontrastingwithsteeplyslopingmountainformations,attracttourists(cp.Fig.15,right).
The mountain range serves as an oasis of pristine nature and quietness for the nearby
agglomerationsintheInnValley(totheSouth)andMunich(totheNorth).
The larger Austrian part of the Karwendel (730 km2) comprises two tranquillity areas
(Ruhegebiete),threenatureprotectionandfourlandscapeprotectionareas.Since1989the
whole area is merchandised under the umbrellabrand Alpenpark Karwendel. Until May
2008itwasmanagedbytheFederalGovernmentofTyrol.Sincethenapropermanagementis
inchargeoftheprotectedareawhichmeanwhilehasfourcollaborators.
The smaller Bavarian part (190 km2) only covers the nature protection area Karwendel and
Karwendelvorgebirge. It is administered by the Government of Upper Bavaria. In 2008 two
halftime positions were established to employ wardens who are responsible for nature
conservationmeasuresandvisitormanagement.
Since20yearsthereareongoingdiscussionsbetweenTyrolandBavariatocommonlymanage
anddevelopthemountainousregion.However,thishavenotbeenrealisedyet.
Fig.15:LocationofthemountainrangeKarwendelbetweenTyrolandBavaria(left,map:TirisTyrol).
TouristattractionGreatAhornbodeninautumn(right,photo:S.Lange).
NSG:natureprotectionarea;LSG:landscapeprotectionarea.
Despite of several attempts to agree on a common approach, there is neither a signed
agreementnorajointvisionhowtodevelopthemountainrange.
PAGE31
SIGRUNLANGE
InthecontextofanINTERREGprojectonLeisureActivitiesandRecreationintheKarwendel
between1999and2001,thevisionwasexpressedtodevelopandmerchandisetheareaasa
place for tranquility in nature (Georgii & Elmauer 2002). Six years later, in 2007, the
participantsofatransboundaryworkshopexpressedtheirwishtodeveloptheareatowardsa
leading model region for sustainability related to nature protection, tourism and
environmental education. Currently, on theAustrian sideof the Karwendel, some expressed
the vision to establish a transboundary nature park or biosphere reserve in the long term.
HoweverthisvisionisnotsharedbytheBavariancolleaguesastheyfearthattheirconcerns
are less taken into consideration as they represent the minority in the region (five
communitiesinBavaria,versus15communitiesinTyrol).
Already 20 years ago the foundation of a transboundary support association was discussed.
However,atthattimeBavariahadthefeelingthattheywouldhavetopaythemainpartof
thecostswhilegettingonlylittlebenefitsfromthecooperation11.In1999,ajointINTERREG
projectonsustainabletourismandleisureactivitieswasinitiatedtorevitalisethecooperation
between Tyrol and Bavaria. Afterwards, new discussions came up on how to set up
coordinative structures. However due to a lack of funding and staff capacities no concrete
actionfollowed.
Finally in 2008, the Tyrolese started to develop their own structure: In February a support
association was founded to coordinate all activities concerned with the Alpenpark. All
importantstakeholdershavebeeninvitedbeingmembersofthisassociation:mayorsfromthe
surroundingcommunities,touristassociations,theAustrianFederalForests(asimportantland
owner in the area), the Alpine Club and representatives of the Government of Tyrol. A
management office was opened which now employs four collaborators. In 2009, the board
decidedtofurtherdeveloptheAlpenpark(whichisnotanestablishedlabel)toanaturepark
(whichisadefinedprotectedareacategoryinAustria).
MeanwhileinBavariatherewasnotthatmuchprogress.Since2008,twoparttimewardens
are responsible for nature conservation respectively in the upper and the lower part of the
Karwendel.Themayorsofthefiverelatedcommunitiesalsostartedtodiscussifanaturepark
would be a favourable protected area category for the Bavarian side. However there is no
establishedstructureyet,whichunifiesallrelevantstakeholdersaroundonetable.
The last meeting between the persons in charge on both sides of the border, took place in
May2009whentheAustrianAlpenparkinvitedtheBavarianstakeholders.Duringthismeeting
it was agreed on to cooperate in the editing and distribution of the Karwendel journal.
However,nofurtherdecisionsweretaken.
Every now and then the most important stakeholders from Tyrol and Bavaria meet to
exchange ideas and discuss common goals. Transboundary workshops with representatives
fromnatureconservation,tourism,landuseandadministrationwereforexampleheldinthe
years2005,2007and2009.However,littleactionwastakeninbetweenthemeetings.More
11
OralinformationgivenbyKaiElmauer(elmauerinstitute)onJuly302007.
PAGE32
SIGRUNLANGE
regularpersonalmeetingsandexchangeofinformationoccuronthetechnicallevel(e.g.with
respecttonatureconservationorforestry).Since2008thetwoprotectedareamanagersmeet
fromtimetotimetodiscusscommonactivities.
So far there is no common appearance of the protected areas in the Karwendel mountain
range. The Alpenpark in the Austrian part is comprehensively presented in the web site
http://www.karwendel.org. There is also a journal produced twice a year and sent to all
householdsintheAustrianpartoftheKarwendel.Asafirststepforcooperationthejournal
shallbeextendedtotheBavariansideoftheKarwendel.
The Bavarian nature protection area however is not presented at all in public. There is no
officialwebsite,nojournalsorfolders.ThoughthreeoftheBavariancommunitieshavejoint
theirforcesandestablishedthebrandAlpenweltKarwendeltomerchandisethemountain
region on the Bavarian side. In summer 2008 an information centre (Bergwelt Karwendel)
wasopenednearMittenwaldatanaltitudeof2,244meters.Oneyearlater,inJune2009,also
in Tyrol a new visitor centre was built. During the development of the concepts for the
respectiveexhibitionstherewasnotmuchcoordinationbetweenTyrolandBavaria.
Ingeneralitcanbestatedthatinsteadofaharmonisedappearanceofthemountainrangea
confusingvarietyofdifferentnamesandlogosexistinbothcountries(cp.Fig.16).
UmbrellaLogoforninePAonthe
AustriansideoftheKarwendel
Logoforthenewinformation
centreonBavarianside
Logoforthetourismconsortiumof
threeBavariancommunities
Fig.16:ConfusingvarietyofdifferentnamesandlogosinthemountainrangeKarwendel(PA:Protectedarea).
Jointprojects
So far only two larger projects have been carried out jointly, the INTERREG IIA project on
Leisure Activities and Recreation in the Karwendel (1999 to 2001) and the INTERREG IIIA
project on the conservation of the so called humpy meadows (Buckelwiesen) (2002 to
2007).Currentlyajointprojectonthecommonsandpiper(Actitishypoleucos)willbestarted.
Fundsforcooperation
ThefundsforjointprojectssolelycomefromEuropeanStructuralFunds(INTERREGA).There
isnoofficialbudgetdedicatedtotransboundarycooperation.
However in Tyrol the management disposes of a certain budget for its activities. Four
collaboratorsareinchargeoftheprotectedarea.Theseresourcesmayalsobepartlyusedfor
intensifyingcrossbordercooperation.
Conclusion
Despiteofhavingnoproblemswithlanguagebarriers,thetransboundarycooperationinthe
Karwendelmountainrangestillisnotverywelldeveloped.Accordingtotheclassificationof
Zbicz(1999)itcanbeassignedtothelowerlevelofcooperation,level1.
PAGE33
SIGRUNLANGE
7.2
Lessonslearntfromtheinterviews
7.2.1 Factorsfacilitatingsuccessoftransboundarycooperation
Theinternationalorganisationsalreadygivealotofadviceonhowtosuccessfullyimplement
transboundarycooperationinprotectedareasmanagement(cp.Fig.6).Howeverwhatdothe
people concerned with transboundary cooperation in the case study areas consider being
important? Why is cooperation worthwhile? What benefits do they get out of this
cooperation?
Thegroupofexpertssurveyedinthecourseofthisstudyexpectedbenefitsoftransboundary
cooperation mainly in the fields of nature conservation, tourism and regional development,
funding,mutualexchangeandinterculturalaspects.Interestingly,outof30interviewees,two
thirds (67%) mentioned tourism and related issues (e.g. transboundary hiking / biking trails,
joint signposting, joint marketing, joint event calendar) as important reasons for
transboundarycooperationbetweenprotectedareas,whereasonly57percentassumedthat
for nature conservation. In case of nature protection, two experts even feared that a closer
cooperationbetweentwoadjoiningprotectedareascomingalongwithincreasedmarketing
effortsmaycounteractnatureconservationduetoasupposedincreaseintourismactivities.
Aboutonethirdoftheexpertsrespectivelytouchedonthebenefitsoffunding(betteraccess
toINTERREGfunds)andimportantlearningexperiences.
Withinthecasestudysites,differentimportancewasassignedtotherespectivefields(cp.Fig.17):
Protectedarea
NaturePark
MaasSchwalmNette
(Expectedorachieved)benefitsofTBcooperationon
Stimulationoftourisminamarginalisedarea
Betteraccesstofundingopportunities,strongmotivation
Mutuallearning,exchangeofknowhow/procedures
Smoothercooperationinthefieldofnatureconservation
NationalParkTriglav
Crossborderoffersforvisitors
Friendship
AccesstoINTERREGfunding
Learningexperience
NatureParkPrealpiGiulie
VisionofonenaturalareasintheheartofEurope
Stimulationoftourisminamarginalisedarea
StimulatinganEuropeanfeeling,friendship
Increasedfundingopportunities
KarwendelTyrol
Highbrandingpotentialforthecrossborderregion
Cooperationinnatureconservation
PAGE34
SIGRUNLANGE
KarwendelBavaria
Stimulationoftourism,highmarketingpotential
Bettercooperationinnatureconservationmeasures
Negativeimpactsonnatureconservationsuspected
Fig.17:Benefitsoftransboundarycooperationbetweenprotectedareasasperceivedbythesurveyedexperts:
++meanshighrelevance,+meansmediumrelevance,meanscontradictoryimpact.
7.2.1.1 Whatarethebenefits?
Benefitsfornatureconservation
Itseemsquiteobvious,thatacommonconcernforsharedecosystemsisthemainreasonfor
crossbordercooperationbetweentwo(ormore)protectedareas.Severalrespondentsstated
that nature does not end at administrative borders. Certain measures on one part of the
border influence the neighbouring ecosystem. Joint conservation efforts help to better
achievethemainobjectiveofanyprotectedarea,thepreservationofitsnaturalresources.
This can be highlighted by the example
of ibex (Capra ibex) conservation in
Nature Park Prealpi Giulie. The species
has been extinct on the Italian side,
whereas it is still roaming in the
mountainous area across the border in
Slovenia.TheNatureParkdecidedtore
introduce some animals from Gran
ParadisoNationalPark,hometothelast
autochthonous ibex population in the
Alps.Intheyears1988to1989and2000
Fig.18:Theconservationoftheibexpopulationrequires
to 2005, ibex' colonies were released,
cooperationbetweenRegionalNatureParkPrealpi
one on Monte Plauris and the other on
GiulieinItalyandNationalParkTriglavinSlovenia.
(Photo:PatrickFolliet)
Monte Canin near the border to
Slovenia12. However the successful
restoration of the ibex population in Nature Park Prealpi Giulie was threatened. During the
cold season the animals from Kanin massif went to the sunny slopes in Slovenia, where
huntingisallowedastheJulianAlpsinSloveniaharbourastablepopulation.Fearingthatthe
effortstoreintroducethisAlpinespecieswillbedoomed,theNatureParkstartedadialogue
with Triglav National Park and hunters on the Slovenian side of the border. Finally, an
agreement between the two parks and Slovene hunters was found: In the Kanin mountains
betweenItalyandSloveniawithimmediateeffectitwasforbiddentohuntibex13.Bynowan
ibex population of about 200 animals again inhabit Nature Park Prealpi Giulie. Without the
transboundarycooperationefforts,thishardlycouldhavebeenrealised.
12
InformationwasgivenbyStefanoSanti,managerofNatureParkPrealpiGiulie.
InformationwasgivenbyJanezBizjak,formermanagerofTriglavNationalPark.
13
PAGE35
SIGRUNLANGE
Fig.19:Crossborderconservation
effortsarenecessaryto
guaranteethesurvivalof
theCommonSandpiperalong
thegravelbanksoftheIsar.
(Photo:S.Lange)
The protection of the Common Sandpiper (Actitis

hypoleucos) in the Karwendel is another good example
for essential crossborder conservation efforts. The
Common Sandpiper is a small, greyish brown wader,
breedingbetweenMayandJulyalongAlpineriverssuch
astheRissbachortheIsarintheKarwendel.Disturbance
by people using the extensive gravel banks of the rivers
forrecreationalpurposesthreatensthesurvivaloftheshy
birdspecies.2008thepersonsinchargeoftheprotected
areas on both sides of the borders in Tyrol and Bavaria
agreedtocooperateinmapping,visitormanagementand
awareness raising activities with the objective to jointly
preserve the existing populations of the wader (Jung
meier, Zollner & Sonntag 2008). Visitor management or
signposting restricted to only one side of the border
wouldprobablyresultinadeclineofthespecies.
Although there is no doubt that in some cases effective

nature or species conservation measures require a close
cooperationbetweentwocountriesortwoadjoiningprotectedareas,thequestionremainsif
theestablishmentofatransboundaryprotectedarea(whichimpliesaformalisedcooperation)
is in fact necessary. An interviewee expressed the opinion that an institutionalised
cooperation between Tyrol and Bavaria in the Karwendel does not imply any benefits for
natureconservation.Onthetechnicallevel,agoodcooperationalreadytakesplacebetween
expertsinchargeofnatureconservation,forexample,topreservecertainspecies,suchasthe
commonsandpiperorthegoldeneagle.AtransboundaryparkintheKarwendelwillnotbring
anyfurtheradvantagesfornatureprotection.Infact,someactuallyfearedthatthemarketing
potentialofalargertransboundaryprotectedcomplexmayevenharmthenaturalecosystems
astheestablishmentofatransfrontierparkmayincreasetheimpactoftouristyactivities14.
Generally spoken, for an effective nature conservation it just has to be guaranteed, that no
contradictory measures are taken on both sides of the border of adjoining protected areas.
Therefore,personalcontactsandanexchangeofinformationareessential.Personsincharge
ofnatureorspeciesprotectionhavetoagreeoncommonconservationgoalsandapproaches,
howtojointlyachievethesegoals.Certainly,thiscanalsoberealisedwithoutestablishinga
transboundaryprotectedarea.Experiencesfromthecasestudyareasshow,thatthiskindof
technical cooperation between particular nature conservation experts often takes place to
solve specific conservation problems, regardless, if a formalised cooperation between the
parks is in place or not. However, an institutionalised cooperation between two protected
areas significantly seems to facilitate the coordination of conservation measures. In former
times,foreachsingletopicwehadtosearchfortheadequateexpertinchargeontheother
sideoftheborder,andholdseparateconversations.SincethecrossborderNatureParkMaas
SchwalmNetteexists,wesavetime,administrativeworkandformaldiplomatictalks.
14
All quotations from German speaking respondents have been translated into English. Thereby an effort was
madetoreproducethemeaningofthegivenstatements.
PAGE36
SIGRUNLANGE
Benefitsfortourismandregionaldevelopment
Accordingtothestakeholdersurveys,cross
border cooperation or the establishment of
a transboundary protected area highly
increasethemarketingpotentialofaregion.
This opinion was not only expressed by
representative of the tourism sector or the
communities but also from people
concerned with nature protection. Many
interviewees responded that by jointly
promotingtheirborderareatheycanattract
more visitors and as a consequence gain
moreincomefortheregion.Therearemany Fig.20:Beautifulplacesinprotectedareas,suchasthe
EngvalleyintheKarwendel,oftenattractmany
possibilities for cooperation, for example
visitors.Transboundarycooperationfurtherin
creatingfacilitiesforvisitorsinajointeffort
creasesthemarketingpotential(Photo:Lange).
(e.g.crossborderhikingandbikingtrailsora
consistentsignposting),developingjointtouristpackages,maintainingacommoncalendarof
eventsorevenajointwebsite,displayingpromotionmaterialfromonesideoftheborderin
theadjoiningparkorrepresentingeachotherattourismfairs.
Potentialvisitorsmaybeattractedbythefactthatinoneregionthereareseveralprotected
areas whose services are linked with each other. In this context, some respondents from
Nature Park Prealpi Giulie touched on their vision of establishing an extended nature
conservation area in the middle of Europe in a joint effort with Triglav National Park and
Nature Park Dolomiti Friulane. The slogan three parks, one natural soul in the heart of
Europe was created. Interestingly, this vision was only mentioned by interviewees from
Prealpi Giulie, though not by people from Triglav National Park. This may be explained with
the different degrees of brand awareness: While Triglav National Park is a very old, well
knownandfrequentlyvisitedpark,NatureParkPrealpiGiuliewascreatedonly13yearsago.
In the young park, tourism infrastructure still is not very well developed, and it lacks
awarenessbypotentialvisitors.Therefore,certainmeasures,suchascreatingauniqueselling
point for the whole region (one natural soul in the heart of Europe) or reintroducing key
speciesliketheibex,aretakentoincreasetheattractivenessofthenaturepark.
Benefitsforfunding
Many respondents stated that funds can be more easily
raised as transboundary protected areas are given top
prioritybymanyinternationalinstitutionsordonors.
INTERREG funds are particularly used to finance
transboundarycooperationinthechosencasestudyareas.
INTERREG is an initiative which aims to stimulate
interregionalcooperationintheEuropeanUnion.Itstarted
in 1989, and is financed under the European Regional
Development Fund (ERDF). The current programme is
INTERREG IV, covering the period 20072013. INTERREG
PAGE37
Fig.21:INTERREGIVAfundsareoften
usedtofinancecrossborder
cooperationinthechosencase
studyareas.(Photo:http://
www.deutschlandnederland.eu)
SIGRUNLANGE
IVAaimstodevelopcrossbordersocialandeconomiccentresthroughcommondevelopment
strategies.Programmeareasare(amongstothers)theborderregionsbetweenGermanyand
theNetherlands,GermanyandAustriaaswellasbetweenItalyandSlovenia.
Especially in Nature Park MaasSchwalmNette, several interviewees admitted, that some of
thejointprojectswereonlyinitiatedtogetaccesstoINTERREGAfunds.Asourownnational
fundswerenotsufficient,wehadtocooperatewithourneighbours.Ifitwouldbeuptometo
decide,Iwouldratherprefernationalfundsthancrossborderones.Themaindrivingforce
forcrossbordercooperationisthefundingcomingfromtheEuropeanUnion;ourmotivationis
above all a financial one. In these cases the cooperation is mainly a formal one. Project
partnersagreeonaspecifictopicwhichisrelevantforbothsidesoftheborder,writeajoint
proposalandfinallyimplementtheconcertedmeasureseachpartneronhisorhersideof
theborder.Nevertheless,thisfundingpolicyforcespartiesfromborderregionstocooperate
and exchange information. At best, this enforcement to cooperate finally results in some
interestinglearningexperiencesandabetterunderstandingforthemotivationandproblems
oftherespectiveneighbours.
Beneficiallearningexperiences
Especially in Nature Park Maas Schwalm Nette, many interviewees stressed that
transboundary cooperation broadens ones horizon. By sharing the experiences with the
neighboursnewideasandapproachesonhowtodealwithcertainproblemsmayarise.You
pickupdifferentperceptionsanddifferentapproachesonhowtosolvesimilarproblems.This
widensourhorizon.Grazing(withthepurposeofconservingbiodiversityinaprotectedarea)
was mentioned as one example: I was impressed, how forceful our Dutch colleagues
implement nature conservation. Recently we visited a protected area in the Netherlands,
where grazing was encouraged to conserve biodiversity. Many years ago, when I suggested
such measures in Germany, everybody was surprised. Now we learned from the Dutch
experiences:itworks!Asaconsequence,lately,weinitiatedgrazinginourprotectedareas.
The Dutch experts had some learning experiences, too: Now we are more aware of the
problemsofourneighbours.IhavelearnedhowGermannatureprotectionworks.
In general, differences between the neighbouring countries (e.g. regulations, organisation,
culturalbackgroundorperceptionofnatureconservation)rarelyhavebeenperceivedasbeing
an obstacle by the experts but rather an enriching source for new learning experiences,
triggering new ideas and new collaborations. Within the ERA project [INTERREG project
betweenAustria,ItalyandSlovenia]weexchangedmanyideas,whichalwayspayoff.Inmy
caseitledtothecooperationwithacookandafarmer.Togetherwedraftedabrochure(under
thelabeloftheNaturePark)offeringlocalfoodandexcursions.Thebrochureisdistributedin
thethreeparkswhichwerepartnerinthisproject.
Especiallyiftheconditionsoftherespectiveparksdifferalot,thecooperationandexchange
helpstoovercomeweaknesses.Weneedtoexchangeideas.TriglavNationalParkisavery
oldandimportantpark,theyhavemuchmoreexperiencethanwedo.Ournatureparkisquite
young, so they are able to push us. However, we are smaller, more flexible and therefore
sometimesfaster.Weshouldcombinethesesadvantages.
PAGE38
SIGRUNLANGE
Benefitsforinterculturalunderstanding
In the Karwendel, one respondent expressed the vision, that in transboundary conservation
areas, borders shall not be a barrier, but rather something that unifies the adjoining
countries.
Also in Nature Park MaasSchwalmNette, the border seems to lose its meaning. In former
times, when confronted with the crossborder Nature Park MaasSchwalmNette at tourism
fairs,peoplereactedirritatedandasked,towhichcountrythisparkbelongs.However,littleby
little,visitorsbegantounderstandtheconceptofsuchacrossborderpark.Thebarriersintheir
mindsseemtovanish.However,thereseemstobeabreakinsociety.Whereasbordersmore
andmorelosetheirmeaningwithinthecountriesoftheEuropeanUnion,theyounggeneration
obviouslyneedsaconceptoftheenemyinspiteofagrowingemphasisonschoolexchanges.In
faceoftheofficiallypraisedfriendshipandcooperationbetweenourtwocountries[Germany
andtheNetherlands],Idoubtthatespeciallytheyounggenerationhasmuchinterestintheir
neighboursacrosstheborder.
InTriglavNationalParksomesurveyedstakeholdersmentionedculturalaspectsasthemost
importantreasonsforaclosecooperationwithItaly.EspeciallythetwocommunitiesofBovec
(Slovenia) and Resia (Italy) had an intensive connection in the past. However, the habit of
exchanginggoodswasinterruptedbythetwoWorldWars.Cooperationslowlybegantorevive
inthe1970swithsomeexchangeoffolkloricgroups.Inthe1980s,acooperationbetweenthe
Alpinecubsfollowed.NowadaystherelationsbetweenBovecandResiaareevenbetterthan
theyhavebeenbeforethewars.TheSlovenesidestillworryabouttheSloveneminorityliving
intheItalianvalleyofResia.Theykeptaratheroldandarchaiclanguagewhichsomeconsider
tobesimilartotheolddialectspokeninBovec.Dependingonthepoliticsatatimeinpower,
the minority question causes some trouble between the two countries. The cooperation
amongsttheprotectedareasbackstheapproachtoratherfocusonspecifictopicswhichcan
bejointlydevelopedonthelocalandregionallevel,insteadofdealingwithminorityissueson
thepoliticallevel.
It was mentioned exclusively in the ItalianSlovene case study site, that a crossborder
cooperation between protected areas in combination with regular meetings of different
groups from each side of the border, can not only stimulate a common European feeling
amongst neighbours but rather create a strong respect for the other side and lasting
friendships.
Igotmanyfriends;wheneverwemeet,weenjoyalot.
Officialcontactsbecamefriendships.WheneverIvisitthecolleaguesontheotherside
oftheborder,Ifeelathomeandwarmlywelcomed.
It was a very emotional moment, when together we removed the tollgate in 2004,
whenSloveniajoinedtheEuropeanUnion.
Making friends in the adjoining park seems to be the best guarantor for a successful and
sustainablecooperationevenwithoutparticularstructuresorfunding.
7.2.1.2 Whatarethefactorsforsuccess?
Fig. 6 in chapter 4.4 summarises the recommendations of international organisations for
transboundarycooperationinprotectedareasmanagement.Butwhatdothestakeholdersin
PAGE39
SIGRUNLANGE
the region presume? Which measures guarantee the successful implementation of

transboundarycooperation?
Highvaluation
Itisquiteobviousthatsomebodyisratherwillingtoimplementcertainactivitiesifheorsheis
convinced of the benefits coming along. In case of transboundary cooperation in protected
areasmanagement,manifoldadvantageswerementioned,likejointecosystemmanagement,
betterchancesfortourismandpromotionoftheregion,accesstoEuropeanfundsaswellas
historicculturaloramicablerelations(cp.also7.2.1.1).Themorelonglastingthebenefitsare
(e.g. cultural or amicable relations, joint promotion of the region) the more sustainable the
cooperationwillprobablybe.Shorttermbenefits(e.g.INTERREGfunds,averagedurationof
threeyears),however,willretardcontinuityintransboundarycooperation.Cooperationthat
onlyisinitiatedtogetaccesstocertainfundswillprobablyendwiththelastratepaidinthe
scopeoftheproject.
Commonvision/writtenagreements
Writtenagreementsexistintwoofthecasestudysites.However,onlyonerespondentexplicit
mentioned the written agreement in Nature Park MaasSchwalmNette, which defines the
fieldsofactivityfortransboundarycooperation.
Innoneofthecasestudysites,asharedvisionwasinevidencefromtheconversations.Onlyin
Nature Park Prealpi Giulie several respondents referred to their vision of together with
Triglav National Park and Nature Park Dolomiti Friulane creating one natural soul in the
heartofEurope.HoweverthissloganwasnevertouchedonbySloveneinterviewees.
Coordinativestructures,leadership
Whatcoordinativestructuresareinplaceinthecasestudysites?
In the crossborder Nature Park MaasSchwalmNette a transfrontier support

associationcomposedoftheGermanNatureParkSchwalmNetteandspokespersons
of seven Dutch communities was founded. Regular meetings between all members
take place. Two bilingual employees act as focal points for all partners in both
countriesandcoordinatejointprojects.
TriglavNationalparkandNatureParkPrealpiGiulierepresenttwoseparateparkswhich
arelegallynotboundtoeachother.Nevertheless,regularmeetingsoccuronthe
higherstafflevel:thedirectorsmeetseveraltimesayear,
lowerstafflevel:onceayearthestaffmembersoftheparksandthecommunities
meettoexchangeinformation;thereisalwaysanaccompanyingculturalprogram,
technicalstafflevel:aparticularexchangetakesplacebetweenstaffmembersofthe
visitorcentres,
locallevel:withinthescopeofcertainprojects,meetingsoccurespeciallybetween
schoolchildrenandfarmers.
In the Karwendel there is no institutionalised cooperation structure. The persons in
charge of nature conservation meet on purpose. Besides, during the last ten years
somemeetingswereheldbetweenrepresentativesoftheconcernedcommunitiesand
natureprotection.
PAGE40
SIGRUNLANGE
Itistemptingtoassumethatacoordinatingunit,asinstalledinNatureParkMaasSchwalm
Nette, guarantees the most effective way of transboundary cooperation. In fact, several
intervieweeshighlightedthebenefitsofsuchafocalpoint:
Somebody has to be paid just for transboundary cooperation issues. Only then
contactscanbemade,projectsdevelopedandEuropeanfundsharnessed.
A good coordination of transboundary projects is essential. We have two persons in
charge of this cooperation which is quite important as they take care of the
cooperation.Withoutthem,theprojectswouldnotbefeasible.
WehadINTERREGprojectsevenbeforethecreationofthetransfrontierNaturePark.
ButnowitsmucheasiertoapplyforEuropeanfundsasourcoordinatorssupportus.
Weonlyhavetobringinideasandelaboratethetechnicalaspectsoftheprojects;our
coordinators take over the administrative duties and build contacts with relevant
institutions.
Yes, the project was quite successful [INTERREG project on wetlands] as Leo Reyrink
[officialcoordinator]speaksbothlanguages.Hecouldactasintermediary.
As owner of a guesthouse, I would like to have more contacts to other guesthouses
across the border. We could offer crossborder packages for riding tourism. However
thisefforttocontactneighbouringstakeholdersfordevelopingjointprojectscannotbe
accomplished by single entrepreneurs. The coordinating unit would have to stimulate
suchcollaborations.
InMaasSchwalmNettetherespondentsagreedthatthecoordinationunitisquitehelpfulfor
the cooperation between Germany and the Netherlands. The focal points are bilingual and
familiarwiththerespectiveproceduresandregulationsoneachsideoftheborder.However
one person guessed that successful transboundary cooperation cannot be linked to a
certainformoforganisation.Thesuccessratherdependsonthecommitmentofsingleactors.
Thiswassupportedbyanotheropinion:Italwaysdependsonthecommitmentofindividuals.
WehadagoodcooperationwithourBelgianneighbours,butsinceanewdirectorisincharge,
thecooperationcametoanend.
IntheKarwendel,itwasquestionedifaformalisedstructure[oftransboundarycooperation]
isactuallynecessary.Maybeitisenoughtogetalongwitheachotherquitewell.
Meetingsbetweenstaffmembers/Jointsocialevents
EspeciallyintheSloveneItaliancasestudysitepersonalcontactswereconsideredakeyfactor
forthesuccessoftransboundarycooperation.However,thesecontactsshouldnotonlyoccur
onthestafflevel(asrecommendedbymostoftheinternationalinstitutions)butalsoonlocal
level(asalsorecommendedbyUNESCO2003,cp.Fig.3,Topic2).Somerespondentsstressed
theimportanceofmeetingsbetweenschoolchildren,farmersortourismassociationsofthe
two countries (as occurred in the frame of the INTERREG project ERA). As perceived by the
experts, such a local exchange increases the acceptance of the protected area amongst its
inhabitants.
Likewise, the significance of informal events (e.g. cultural events, competitions or having a
beertogether)washighlightedastheyallowforbuildingtrustandfriendship.
Thenonofficialcontactsaremuchmoreimportantthantheofficialones.
PAGE41
SIGRUNLANGE
At the beginning of our cooperation, only meetings between staff members of the
protected areas management occurred. Now the exchange takes place even on the
levelofmayorsandschoolchildren.Formeitseemsimportant,thattheinhabitantsdo
notreceivetheirinformationabouttheneighbouringparkindirectly,whichmeansfrom
thedirectorsoftheparks,butdirectly,fromlocalfarmersortheirownchildren.Inthe
process,distrusttowardstheparkcanbereduced.
Thegoodpersonalcontactsfinallyresultedinmutualsupport.
Crucial are the interpersonal contacts. Without direct exchange, there are only little
opportunities.
It is important to exchange not only on the staff level, but also with respect to the
culturalandsocialpointofview.
InformaleventssuchastheskicompetitionbetweenallrangersintheAlpinespace[an
event organised by ALPARC once a year], shall also be organised for the stakeholder
groupswithintheparks.
Languagebarrier
IntheKarwendel,bothsidesspeakGermanwithanonlyslightlydifferentdialect.Therefore,
thelanguagebarrierwasonlyanissueinthetwoothercasestudysites.
InNatureParkMaasSchwalmNettethemajorityoftherespondentswerehardlybotheredby
language barriers. In the Netherlands especially in the border regions many people are
abletospeakoratleastunderstandGerman.Incontrary,ontheGermanside,onlyfewspeak
Dutch, but in particular older generations at least understand the language of their
neighbours.Besides,thebilingualcoordinatorsfacilitatethecommunicationincrossborder
projects.EnglishisspokenonlyinEuropeanprojects.
The Germans speak some Dutch, we speak some German. Leo [the coordinator]
speaks both languages. Bilingual facilitators are important as they may help out in
case the conversation is too difficult. In personal contacts, the language was never a
barrier,butwritingintheforeignlanguageisquiteachallenge.
The Dutch speak Dutch, we speak German. We understand each other as the
languages are quite similar. In case there is a gap, we switch to English. We do not
needaninterpreter.
Languageneverwasabarrier.Ihavegrownupneartheborder.Informertimeswe
spokeadialectwhichwassimilartoDutch.Thereforeitwaseasyformetounderstand
the neighbours. But the dialect dies off, which means that language evolves to be a
barrierwhichIcanobservefromthecaseofmydaughter.
In the SloveneItalian case study site, there are only some bilingual persons. The main
conversation is done in English. On the Italian side, in Resia, Slovene courses have been
offeredtothestaffofthenatureparkbutonlyfewparticipated.
In the past, more Slovene people have known Italian as this part of Slovenia once
belongedtoItaly.Nowadays,schoolchildrenlearnEnglishasfirstlanguage,assecond
languagetheycanchoosebetweenGermanandItalianlanguage.
Language is no problem. It cannot stop our cooperation. We normally exchange in
Englishbutwealsohavesomebilingualstaff.
PAGE42
SIGRUNLANGE
All in all, the communication between Triglav National Park and Prealpi Giulie Nature Park
works quite well on the staff level especially as the directors of the park speak very well
English. However, the language barrier prevents an exchange on the local level as for
example the farmers neither speak the neighbouring language nor English. In case of the
schoolchildrenexchange,thelanguagebarrierissolvedinthewaythatforthegroupwork
certain explanations or species names are given in three languages [Slovene, Italian and
German] so that everybody is able to understand it and by the way learns the terms in the
otherlanguages.Subsequentlythemixedgroupscommonlyreflectiftheymayhavesomething
in common. If there are guided tours out in nature, tour guides speaking the respective
languagesareorganisedtoaccompanythechildren.
Differentregulations
Different regulations and procedures such as different perception in nature conservation,
different ways of organising nature protection, heterogeneous maps, different rates of
taxation etc. were (mainly in MaasSchwalmNette and the Karwendel) referred to as
obstacles in transboundary collaboration. However the disparities were rarely perceived as
real problems, but rather as chance for new learning experiences (cp. chapter 7.2.1.1,
Learning experiences). Nevertheless, it is important to guarantee that no contradictory
measuresaretakeninnatureconservation.Therefore,acertaindegreeofharmonisationof
regulationsisneeded(cp.7.2.1.1,Natureconservation).
Astheregenerallyisonlyaslightchancetochangemostoftheregulationsintherespective
countries, it is rather important to work with experts, who are familiar with the different
structures, regulations and attitudes on both sides of the border in order to guarantee a
smoothflowoftheproject.
Commonprojects/Commonexternalcommunication
Inallthreecasestudysites,common(INTERREG)projectshavebeencarriedout.Theywere
dealingwithnatureconservation(e.g.wetlandconservationinMaasSchwalmNette),tourism
(e.g. environmentally friendly tourism in the Karwendel) and environmental education (e.g.
ERAprojectinSlovenia,ItalyandAustria).
Toensuresuccessfulprojectcooperation,respondentsfromNatureParkMaasSchwalmNette
recommendedthatparticipantsshouldhighlyfocusoncommongroundinsteadofdifferences.
Ifprojectteamsdoagreeoncommonobjectives,therewillbelittleproblemsincooperation.
Agreeingoncommongoalsisquitecrucial.Theyalsocomplimentedontheservicesprovided
by their coordination unit. Project application and implementation would be much more
complicatedwithoutthehelpofthebilingualteamwhichisfamiliarwithallrelevantactors
andregulationsonbothsidesoftheborder.
Budgetfortransboundaryactivities
Only in the transfrontier Nature Park MaasSchwalmNette, a certain budget is allocated
specificallyfortransboundarycooperation.
The majority of the crossborder projects in the case study areas are financed by INTERREG
funds. Even in Nature Park MaasSchwalmNette, the survival of the coordination office in
RoermonddependspartlyonEuropeanmoney.TheDutchcommunitiesarelesspreparedto
provideasustainablefundingfortheofficeincaseofexpiringINTERREGfunding.
PAGE43
SIGRUNLANGE
This means that in many cases cooperation lives or dies with funding opportunities. There
seems to be an exception from this rule in cases where social relationships replaced official
contacts, which is for example the case for the Italian community of Resia in Nature Park
PrealpiGiulie.DespiteofSloveneminorityproblemsonthepoliticallevel,thefriendshipthat
developedbetweenthetwoadjoiningparksledtothefollowingstatement:INTERREGhelps,
buttherelationbetweenourparkswouldevenexistwithoutfundsfromtheEuropeanUnion.
7.2.2 Canprinciplesofchangemanagementbeapplied?
The results of the guided interviews in the case study sites have also been analysed with
respecttothequestionifthementionedprinciplesofchangemanagement(cp.chapter4.5)
can be applied in order to facilitate decisions on whether to establish and how to handle
transboundaryprotectedareas.Howeveritturnedout,thatforNatureParkMaasSchwalm
Nette no evidence can be given. The transboundary protected area was established already
more than 30 years ago. The respondents only rarely touched on the circumstances in the
periodofitsestablishment.Thereforeitcannotbereconstructedifatthattimeacriticalmass
of people in the region had been dissatisfied with the current situation, had managed to
develop a common vision and finally disposed of sufficient resources to implement the first
concretestepstowardstheimplementationofthesharedvision.
TheanalysisthereforeconcentratesontheKarwendelandtheSloveneItaliancasestudysite.
7.2.2.1 MountainrangeKarwendel
In this case study site it was particular interesting to apply the principles of change
management, as since ten years the discussions on whether and how to institutionalise
transboundarycooperationcontinuewithoutmuchprogress.DoestheformulaDxVxF>R
helptounderstandtheunderlyingcausesforthefailure?
Resistance
Historic aspects: Bavaria and Tyrol share the same roots and language. However, they look
backonalonghistorywithmanyandoftenbloodyconflicts:BeforetheearlsofTyrolcreated
their own territory in the 13th century, Tyrol belonged to the Duchy of Bavaria. 1412 the
Bavarianearlstriedtowintheirformerterritorybackbutwerestoppedbytheresistanceof
theresidentsofHallintheInnvalley.Asaresultofthedefeat,Bavariagaveupitsclaimsto
theTyroleanterritorywhichsubsequentlycameundertheinfluenceoftheHabsburgdynasty.
Almost300yearlater,theBavarianswereagaindefeatedwhileinvadingTyrolduringtheWar
of the Spanish Succession (1703). But after the victory of Napoleon 1805 Tyrol was
retransferred to Bavaria against the will of the Tyrolean population. This led 1809 to the
famous Tyrolean struggle for freedom, headed by Andreas Hofer. After first successfully
fending off the Bavarians, Hofers troops were finally defeated at Bergisel (near Innsbruck).
This year we celebrate the 200th anniversary of this event. It was the last armed conflict
between the two Federal States of Tyrol and Bavaria which nowadays are neighbouring
regions within the European Union. Meanwhile both sides rediscovered their commonalities
andmaintaingoodneighbourlyrelations.However,thedefeatobviouslyisnotforgottenyet.
OneoftheintervieweesinjokecommentedtheinvitationtoaworkshopinTyrolasfollows:
Iappreciatethat200yearsafterAndreasHofer,finallyourTyroleseneighboursapproachus
Bavarians.
PAGE44
SIGRUNLANGE
Differentregulations/conditions:Severalstakeholdersmentionedthedifferentcircumstances
inTyrolandBavariae.g.inthefieldoftourism(whichismuchbetterpositionedinTyrolthan
in Bavaria) and regulations with respect to nature conservation (Bavarian stakeholders fear
that Tyrol takes nature protection less serious and tends to sacrifice it to a touristy
development). Furthermore, the Tyrolean side is already much better organised
(establishment of an association, supported by a management team with four employees)
thantheBavarianone(onlytwoparttimewardens).
Fears of losses: One respondent complained that during the discussions on the potential
cooperationbetweenthetwocountriesmanystakeholdersproducedideas,howevernoneof
themagreedonpayingfortheirrealisation.Heworriedthatincaseofaclosercooperationhe
wouldhavetopayforthegoalsotherstakeholderswanttoachieve.
Ingeneral,theBavariancommunitiesareafraidofdisappearingamongstthepluralityofthe
Tyrolean communities in the Karwendel. I fear that the Tyrolese colleagues are better
preparedthanweare.Ourconcernswillprobablybelessconsideredaswewouldonlybethe
smallerpartwithinabiggerandwellestablishedorganisation.However,wewouldliketobe
onaparwithourcolleaguesinAustria.
TherearealsoconcernsthattheAustriancommunitiesmightdevelopontheexpenseofthe
Bavarianones.Meanwhiletheideaofestablishingatransboundarybiospherereservecame
up. I fear that the majority of the strict protection zones would be on the Bavarian side,
whereastheactivedevelopmentareaswouldbeinTyrol.Inanycase,intheBavarianpartof
theKarwendel,wealreadyhavemanystrictnatureconservationsites.Discussingifweshould
haveevenmorenatureconservationsitesfrightensmeoff.
From nature conservation experts in Bavaria contrary concerns were expressed as nature
protection might be eroded by establishing a crossborder park. We decreed the highest
possibleprotectionstatusforourarea.Itwouldhavetobeensuredthatanewstructurewould
notbackoffthisstatus.
Dissatisfactionwithcurrentsituation
Theresultsoftheinterviewsshowedthatthereisalmostnodissatisfactionwiththecurrent
situation. Several respondents stated that cooperation will not bring any changes or further
advantagesfornatureprotection.Thecurrentpracticeofcasuallycooperatingorexchanging
experienceswithexpertsfromtheothercountryinspecificcasesseemstobesufficient.No
particular deficits were figured out. However, some reasons were given why cooperation
couldmakesenseanyhow,e.g.
the Karwendel mountain range is a geographical unit shared by two countries;

therefore,itshouldalsobepresentedasoneunitasthevisitorsdonotcareonwhich
sideofthebordertheygohikingorbiking,
atransboundaryprotectedareaholdsahighbrandingpotentialand
theaccesstoEuropeanfundswouldbefacilitated.
Vision
The visions mentioned by the interviewees have been quite divers, ranging from a casual
exchangeofinformationtoajointexternalpresentation(e.g.uniformname,onehomepage,
anofficialmapcoveringthewholearea)andfinallytotheestablishmentofatransboundary
PAGE45
SIGRUNLANGE
nature park or biosphere reserve. One respondent even warned that by aspiring towards
exaggerated visions in the end nothing will be achieved. The last agreement that has been
achieveddatesbackintheyear2007,whenAustrianandGermanstakeholdermettodiscuss
thefutureoftheKarwendelintheworkshopAlpenparkKarwendelWohin?.Thereby,the
participants announced to systematically develop the collaboration between the two
countries(Pfleger2007).
Firststeps
The first steps that have been taken between 1999 and 2001 in form of a joint INTERREG
project on sustainable tourism, have been quite encouraging, however little action followed
once the project was finalised. The project cooperation occurred mainly on the high
hierarchicalandexpertlevel.
Duringtheinterviews,severalpotentialfieldsforcollaborationhavebeensuggested,e.g.
cooperationbetweenthetwoinformationcentres,
ajointvisitormanagement,
cooperationinthefieldofenvironmentaleducation,
jointeditingoftheKarwendeljournal.
InthelastcrossbordermeetinginMay2009itwasagreedtostartwiththejointeditingofthe
Karwendeljournal.SofaritwaspublishedbytheAlpenparkKarwendelanddistributedonly
amongsttheTyrolesehouseholdsandsomeselectedstakeholdersinBavaria.Infutureitshall
beeditedjointlybybothprotectedareamanagersanddistributedamongstallhouseholdsin
thewholeKarwendelregion.SomeBavarianparticipantspromisedtocheckthefinancingof
suchanextendedjournalwiththemayorsoftheircommunities.
Fig.22:DrivingforcesforandresistancetoaninstitutionalisedcooperationintheKarwendelmountainrange
(Graphic:S.Lange).
PAGE46
SIGRUNLANGE
Summary
Applying the change management principles to the situation in the Karwendel (cp. Fig. 22)
mayexplainwhytheeffortstowardsaninstitutionalisedcooperationhavebeensodifficultin
thepast.
Thedrivingforcedissatisfaction
Apparently there never was and still is no real need for a transboundary park in the
mountain range. Benefits are mainly expected for tourism and funding opportunities.
However the Karwendel is not a marginalised region, urgently depending on more income
from tourism. Located between the agglomerations of the Inn Valley in the South, and
Munich,thecapitalofBavaria,intheNorth,theKarwendelhasalongtraditionasrecreation
area.Onsunnyweekends,somelocationscanbequitecrowdedasmanyhikersandbikersadd
to the tourists staying in the adjoining communities. Some of the communities record
between 150,000 and 350,000 overnight stays per 1,000 inhabitants which are peak values
evenforacountrysuchasAustriawhichlargelydependsontourism.However,since2000the
overnight stays are slightly declining (Lange, 2008). This could be worrying, but in general,
people tend to spend less time in a certain region and there is more competition amongst
tourism destinations on the global level. It is comprehensible that the communities aim at
increasingtheattractivenessoftheirregionpossiblybycreatingatransboundaryprotected
area.ButobviouslythisneitherinTyrolnorinBavariaisacrucialmeasureforsafeguardingthe
economicwelfareoftherespectiveregion.
Sharingavision,actinginconcert
Despite of several attempts to agree on joint objectives during the last ten years, still no
commonly shared vision for the development of the region exists. In contrast, the Bavarian
mayorsfear,thattheirconcernswouldbetakenlessseriously,andthatthecommunitiesin
Tyrolwouldprosperontheirownexpenses.Besidesnatureconservationistsworrythatnature
protection might be eroded by initiating a transboundary protected area. Obviously, the
question on how to set up coordinative structures for transboundary cooperation in the
Karwendel,wasdiscussedbeforeagreeingonajointvisionandclearadvantagesofacommon
developmentinthefuture.
Stimulatingtheprocessthroughvisibleresultsinfirststeps
Inbothsites,before2008,therewasnopropermanagementincharge.Theprotectedareas
wereadditionallyadministratedbypersonsin chargeintherespectivegovernmentalnature
conservation administrations. The issue of transboundary cooperation was mainly discussed
on the high hierarchical governmental as well as on the expert level. Casual meetings were
hold between those experts and the mayors of the concerned communities in Tyrol and
Bavaria. However, in between the meetings, there was only little capacity to work on the
achievement of the agreed objectives. Besides, nobody was willing to pay for a potential
coordinativestructure.Everybodyasked:WhatdoIhavetopay?Whatismybenefit?What
doIgetoutofthiscooperation?
Atpresent,theconditionsseemtobemorefavourable.Themanagerwhoisinchargeofthe
Alpenpark Karwendel in Tyrol is quite open to a closer cooperation. This is a very good
potential,itwasnotalwayslikethis.Informertimes[withoutaparticularmanagerincharge]
everythinghadtobedonebytheway.Duringourmeetingsweagreedoncertaingoalsand
PAGE47
SIGRUNLANGE
activitiesbutinbetweenthemeetingsnothinghappened.Nowthereismuchworkgoingon.In
only short time we already implemented many of our goals. We are able to realise several
issuessimultaneously,amongothersthingsalsothecooperationwithBavaria.
However,thecooperationonthehighhierarchicallevelinthepast,obviouslydidnotresultin
buildingtrustandfriendshipamongsttherelevantstakeholdergroupsintheregion.Especially
ontheBavarianside,stillalotofprejudicesexist.
Littleprogress,D*V*F(still)<R
Withoutastrongdrivingforceandaconcretejointvisionforthefuture,theexistingresistance
tochangescanhardlybeovercome.Empirical,apathyemergesandnobodymakesaneffortto
implementfirststeps.IntheKarwendel,thedevelopmentobjectiveswouldhavetobemade
justasclearasthebenefitsoftransboundarycooperationforachievingthosegoals.Besides,
before restarting the discussions on defined structures for transboundary cooperation, the
distrustontheBavariansidehastobesmoothed.
Thefollowingquestionsmayhelptodecidewhetheratransboundaryprotectedareashallbe
aspiredinthefuture.
Howdowewanttopreserve/developourprotectedarea/region?(Thisquestionhas
already been answered in Tyrol where in 2008 nature conservationist, communities
and tourism associations formed an alliance and agreed on a work program for the
developmentoftheKarwendelduringthenextfiveyears.Thishomeworkstillhasto
beaccomplishedontheBavariansideoftheborder.)
To what extent are the development visions consistent on both sides of the border?
Canbothagreeoncommongoals?(Thisquestionshouldbediscussedwithallrelevant
stakeholdersfrombothsidesoftheborder,notonlyashappenedinthepastwith
mayorsandhighrankingcontactsfromtheministries.)
Wouldaclosercooperationfacilitatetheachievementoftheobjectives?
Whichfieldsareadequateforintensifyingthecooperation?(Thisquestionwasraised
during the last crossborder workshop; one concrete action was already agreed on.
Howevertheproblemremains,thatthepersonsinchargeinBavariahavelesspersonal
capacitiestoimplementtheagreedactions.)
In general, it would be strongly recommended to organise informal events (e.g. cultural

events)inadditiontotheofficialcontacts(workshopsettings)inordertobuildtrustandgood
personalrelationsbetweenthevariousstakeholdersoftheneighbouringprotectedareas.
7.2.2.2 NationalParkTriglavandNatureParkPrealpiGuilie
IntheSloveneItaliancasestudysite,thesituationisquitedifferent.Thecooperationbetween
thetwoseparateparksstartedtenyearsago,directlyafterthenatureparkwasestablished.
However,itwasneverdiscussed(atleastthiswasnotmentionedintheinterviews)tocreatea
transboundaryparkintheregion.Itisonlythewishonbothsidesofthebordertomaintain
and even intensify the cooperation between the protected areas. In order to demonstrate
theireffortsontransboundarycooperation,theyappliedfortheEUROPARClabelFollowing
NaturesDesign.
PAGE48
SIGRUNLANGE
Resistance
Historicaspects:SloveniaandtheadjoiningItalianautonomousregionofFriuliVeneziaGiulia
areconnectedtoeachotherbymeansofachangeablehistorywithviolentconflicts.During
WorldWarFirstSloveniafoughtagainsttheirwesternneighboursandfinallylostbigareasto
Italy.In1941,duringWorldWarSecond,SloveniawasinvadedbyGermanandItaliantroops
and its territory divided between the conquerors before finally being liberated by Yugoslav
partisans in 1945. Hence after World War Second the country became part of the Socialist
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. While in Slovenia a communist dictatorship was established,
ontheothersideofthebordertheItalianRepublicwasformed.Duetoarisingnationalism,
severaldecadeslater,in1991,SloveniadeclareditsindependencefromYugoslavia.Whereas
ItalywasoneofthefoundingmembersoftheEuropeanUnion,Sloveniajoinedasrecentlyas
May 2004. The Euro was introduced as official currency in January 2007. Nowadays the
relationsbetweenSloveniaandItalyarequitecooperative.TheItalianAutonomousRegionof
FriuliVeneziaGiuliaandSloveniaaremembersoftheARGEAlpenAdriawhichwasfounded
1978toenhancethedevelopmentoffriendlyrelationsbetweentheborderregions.
Different regulations/conditions: On the one hand, the two case study sites have to act in
accordancewithdifferentprotectedareacategories,anationalparkandbiospherereservein
Slovenia and a regional nature park in Italy. On the other hand, political tension occurs
between the countries due to the Slovene minority in Italy. Besides, different hunting
regulationsmadeitinevitabletoacceptcompromisesinSloveniainordertosafeguardthere
introducedibexpopulationinItaly.
Fearsoflosses:
Noneoftheintervieweesmentionedanyconcernsrelatedtothetransboundarycooperation,
justbenefitsandchanceswerespecified.Probablythiscanbeexplainedbythefact,thatnone
oftheparkshadtogiveupitssovereigntyforimplementingtransboundarycooperation.The
parksremainedindependent,butestablishedcertainroutinesofcooperation.
Dissatisfactionwithcurrentsituation
The cooperation started right after Nature Park Prealpie Giulie had been nominated. The
brandnewnatureparkwasnowellknownrecreationareasuchastheTriglavarea.Itrather
wasandstillisamarginalisedregion,wherenotmuchtourisminfrastructureisinplace.At
that time, the park obviously expected benefits from a closer cooperation with Triglav
National Park, such as increasing its popularity, stabilising its ibex population and getting
betteraccesstoEuropeanfunds.
Vision
Since 1996 several informal bi and multilateral cooperation agreements have been signed,
bothatregionalandlocallevel.InthecourseoftheEUROPARCcertificationprocess,theparks
officially expressed their wish to organise regular periodical meetings between the staff
members and to inform local communities, authorities, schools, media, ONGs about the
goals of this cooperation. Further they intend to stimulate mutual understanding and
promoteacultureofpeace15.Besides,inPrealpieGiuliesomerespondentssharethevision
15
Agreement between Triglavski Narodni Park (Slovenija) and Parco naturale regionale delle Prealpi Giulie (Italia) to be certificated as
transboundaryparks.
PAGE49
SIGRUNLANGE
of creating one natural soul in the heart of Europe, a slogan which was created during an
INTERREGproject.HoweverthisvisionwasnevertouchedonbytheSloveneinterviewees.
Firststeps
ThefirststepstowardscrossbordercooperationwereinitiatedbytheItalianmayorofResia
who approached Triglav National Park in order to acquire a wellestablished partner for EU
founded projects. Beginning of the year 2000, Barbarino [mayor of Resia] suggested
cooperatinginaprojectonspelaeology.Heneededusaspartnerasthenatureparkstillwas
little known. On the contrary, our national park was wellknown, so he sought after
collaborationwithusandtheRegionalNatureParkDolomitiFriulane.Eventually,weonlygave
ourname,butwehavenotbeeninvolvedintheproject.
The reason, why Triglav National Park generously gave its name for an EU project without
itselfactuallybeinginvolvedandhavingaccesstothesefunds(SloveniawasnotaEUmember
atthattime),wasprobablyapersonalone:EvenbeforetheestablishmentoftheNaturePark
PrealpiGiuliewehadagoodrelationshipwiththeadministrationoftheforestreservationin
Tarvisio.Wemetforjointevents.TherebyIgotknowntoBarbarino.Thispersonalrelationwas
thereasonwhywehelpedeachother.
This means, that the official contacts in the early stage quickly led to amicable relations
amongstthedirectorsandstaffmembersoftheparkswhichnowadaysseemtobethemost
supportingaspectforthetransboundaryactivitiesinthisregion.
Fig.23:DrivingforcesfortransboundarycooperationbetweenTriglavNationalParkandRegionalNaturePark
PrealpiGiulie(Graphic:S.Lange).
Summary
IncomparisontotheKarwendelregion,greaterresistancewouldhavebeenexpectedforthe
crossborder cooperation between the Slovene and the Italian park: The people speak
different languages, the last armed conflict between the countries occurred only about 60
PAGE50
SIGRUNLANGE
years ago, 18 years ago the regions still belonged to different political systems (European
Union versus socialistic Yugoslavia) and even nowadays minority problems sometimes
constrain the cooperation on the political level. Nevertheless, from the initial requests from
the Italian side, the two parks succeeded in establishing and maintaining vital crossborder
collaboration.
Thedrivingforcedissatisfaction
InitiallythemostimportantdrivingforcefortheyoungItalianparkobviouslywastobenefit
from the experiences and popularity of Triglav National Park. The official contacts quickly
developed to amicable relations amongst the directors which nowadays seem an equally
fundamental driving force for transboundary activities. Several respondents emphasised the
significanceofnonofficialandinformalcontactsnotonlyonthestafflevelbutalsoonthe
localleveltoincreasetheacceptanceoftheprotectedareasinthepublic.Itseemsthatonce
goodpersonalrelationsareestablished,potentialconstraintsareeasilyresolved.Andstillthe
intentionremainstocombinethedifferentstrengthsoftheinhomogeneousparksinorderto
jointlyovercomeweaknesses(cp.chapter7.2.1.1,beneficiallearningexperiences).
Sharingavision,actinginconcert
In several agreements, the parks expressed their common vision to stimulate a mutual
understanding and promote a culture of peace by organising regular meetings between the
staff members, but also the local stakeholders. Especially the latter aspect seemed to be
equallyimportanttomostoftheinterviewees.
Stimulatingtheprocessthroughvisibleresultsinfirststeps
In 2004, after Slovenia joined the European Union, the cooperation was intensified in two
majorEUprojects,theERAECOandthePALPISproject(cp.chapter7.1.2,jointprojects).Both
projectswerepraisedbyseveralrespondentsasbestpracticefortransboundarycooperation.
Inbothprojects,differentstakeholdergroupsfromtheregionwereinvolved.
Ongoingtransboundarycooperation,D*V*F>R
In the case of Prealpi Giulie specific needs resulted in initiating the transboundary
cooperation.Soonafter,amicablerelationsdevelopedbetweentheparks.Theyfacilitatedthe
development of joint visions and projects, which were perceived as good examples for
successfulcrossbordercooperationastheyeveninvolveddifferentstakeholdergroupsonthe
locallevel.
Obviouslyinthatcase,initiallythedissatisfactionwiththecurrentsituationwasthekeydriver
for changes. Joint visions and the effective implementation of concrete first steps were
combinedwiththepersonalexperienceoffriendshipandhavingfuntogether.Theseelements
seemtobeasoundbasisforongoingcollaborationbetweenthecountries.Summedup,the
motivation seems to be much bigger than potential resistance for example from political
tensions.
PAGE51
SIGRUNLANGE
RECOMMENDATIONSANDCONCLUSIONS
8.1
Recommendationsforthecasestudysites
International organisations recommend crossborder cooperation and even encourage the

establishment of transboundary protected areas. In this study three case study sites,
representing three different approaches and levels of transboundary cooperation, were
surveyed(cp.Fig.24).
Fig.24:ComparisonoftransboundarycooperationinthethreecasestudysitesNatureParkMaasSchwalmNette
(left),TriglavNationalPark/RegionalNatureParkPrealpiGiulie(middle)andthemountainousregionof
theKarwendel(right)(Graphic:S.Lange).
Basedonthecomparisonofcooperationinthethreecasestudysitesandtheresultsofthe
expertinterviewssomegeneralrecommendationscanbedistinguished(cp.Fig.25):
CrossborderNaturePark
MaasSchwalmNette(NL/DE)
TriglavNationalPark(SI)and
NatureParkPrealpiGiulie(IT)
Karwendelmountainrange
(AT/DE)
Strongerfocusonbenefitsof
cooperationtoincrease
willingnesstopayfor
coordinatingunit
Increasedinvolvementof
localstakeholders(e.g.
ownersofguesthouses)in
cooperation
Organisationofinformal
eventsfortargetstakeholder
groupstoallowfortrustand
friendship
Improvementofcommon
externalcommunication(e.g.
cooperationeffortsvisibleon
thewebsites;Italianversion
ofTriglavNPwebsite)
Checkpotentialbenefitsof
definedstructuresfor
cooperation(committees,
appointedcoordinators)
Specificationofadefined
budgetforcooperation
Discussionofpotential
benefitsandproblems
relatedtoTBcooperation
Organisationofsocialevents
tobuildtrustandfriendship
amongstrelevant
stakeholdergroups(e.g.
mayors,touristassociations)
Agreementoncommon
objectivesand
implementationoffirststeps
towardstheirachievement
Fig.25:Recommendationsforthesurveyedcasestudysites(basedonthecomparisonandtheresultsofthe
expertinterviews);NP:NationalPark,TB:Transboundary.
8.2
Conclusionsforresearchquestion1
Itwasanalysediftheestablishedrecommendationstofacilitatetransboundarycooperationin
protected areas management can be approved in the chosen case study sites (research
question1,cp.chapter4.6).
PAGE52
SIGRUNLANGE
Altogether the surveyed experts affirmed the significance of the factors highlighted by the
international organisations (cp. Fig. 6). They were aware of the benefits of transboundary
cooperation (high valuation), touched on the relevance of coordinative structures and
personalmeetings/communicationandcarriedoutjointprojects.Interestingly,thelanguage
barrier(relevantintwocasestudysites)washardlyconsideredamajorproblem,atleastnot
between the staff members of the park, but rather for personal contacts between local
stakeholder groups (e.g. exchange between Slovene and Italian farmers). Alike, different
regulationswererarelyperceivedanobstacle.Theexpertsseemedtopragmaticallyfacethe
fact that different rules will always exist in different countries. Whereas in some cases,
harmonisationiscrucialtoachievecertaingoals(e.g.preservationofibexpopulationinPrealpi
Giulie),inmostofthecases,theexistingdifferencescanhardlybechanged.Quiteoften,they
were rather perceived as inspiring source for new learning experience than as handicap for
cooperation.Thepersonsinchargeonlyhavetobefamiliarwiththedifferencesbetweenthe
neighbouring countries in order to be able to correctly deal with them for example in the
scopeofaprojectapplication.
With respect to funding only transboundary Nature Park MaasSchwalmNette meets the
requirementtodedicateaparticularbudgettocrossbordercooperationbuteventherea
longtermassuranceoffundingisanissueofdiscussion.
Some additional aspects notably highlighted by the interviewees will be further explained
below.
Doesnaturereallybenefitfromtransboundarycooperation?
In all case study sites, the benefits of transboundary cooperation were clearly specified,
rangingfromanimprovedmanagementofnaturalecosystemstobettermarketingpotentials
intourism,mutuallearningexperiencesandbetteraccesstoEuropeanfunds.Howeveritwas
remarkable,thatacertainlevelofcooperationinnatureprotectionoftenwasinplaceeven
withoutanofficiallyagreedcooperationbetweentwoadjoiningparksortheestablishmentof
atransboundaryprotectedarea.Infact,oneofthekeydrivingforcesforcooperationbetween
neighbouring parks seems to be a better marketing potential in tourism especially for
marginalisedareaswhichhopetoincreasepopularityandincomeforthewholeregion.Itcan
bequestionediftheestablishmentofatransboundaryprotectedareaautomaticallyresultsin
moreeffectivenatureconservation(whichshouldbetheutmostconcernforeachprotected
area). In some cases it may even be the other way round (cp. concerns of nature
conservationists in the Karwendel). Therefore, a definition and prioritisation of common
objectives for transboundary cooperation seems to be quite important in order to avoid
setbacksfornatureconservation.
Arethebenefitsworthitsprice?
Transboundary cooperation is not free of charge. It adds another layer of complexity to the
already difficult task of managing a protected area. Additional costs are associated, such as
extracommunicationandtravelcosts,translationexpenses,effortstoharmoniseregulations
or expenses for setting up a coordinative structure (e.g. coordination office of Nature Park
MaasSchwalmNette).Itwasstrikingthatmanyintervieweesontheonehandmentionedthe
readilyaccesstoEuropeanfundsasmajorbenefitoftransboundarycooperation.Ontheother
hand, in some cases there is only little willingness to procure the expenses related to
PAGE53
SIGRUNLANGE
transboundarycooperation.IntheKarwendel,forexample,inthepastnobodywaswillingto
pay for a potential coordinative structure (cp. chapter 7.2.2.1, visible results through first
steps). Also in MaasSchwalmNette, where a coordinative office with two employees is in
place,financingisanissueofdiscussion.Onerespondentwhopraisedthehelpfulworkofthe
coordinators(withoutthem,theprojectswouldnotbefeasible)atthesametimeadmitted
that his administration is not willing to invest own money in the longterm financing of the
coordination unit as mainly others financially benefit from their work. This means that
transboundarycooperationsometimesisconsideredasourceforfundingonesowninterests
rather than a highranking value yielding benefits for different aspects such as nature
conservation, regional development or intercultural understanding and peace. It would be
important to come to a common understanding that transboundary cooperation cannot be
negotiatedlikeordinarygoods(howmuchmoneydoIputinthecooperationandhowmuch
moneydoIgetoutofit).Thebenefitsoftransboundarycooperationaremanifoldandsome
of them (like the preservation of larger ecosystems or the maintenance of intercultural
relations)canhardlybemeasuredfromafinancialpointofview.
ThecriticalroleoffundingwasalsodiscussedbyUNESCO(2003).Thesurveyedtransboundary
biosphere reserves complained about the lack of funds for transboundary cooperation.
Howeveritwasobservedthatevenlargeinjectionsofmoneyinvestedincooperationarenot
in themselves sufficient to guarantee immediate success. A functioning cooperation rather
requiresrecognisingtheneedandwillforcooperationonbothsidesoftheborderandbeyond
that leadership either in the form of highly motivated key persons, training or technical
assistance(UNESCO2003).
Thecrucialroleofcoordinators
EUROPARC, UNESCO and IUCN concordantly recommend the nomination of facilitators or
focal points for crossborder cooperation (Fig. 3, Topic 2). So far only Nature Park Maas
SchwalmNettemeetsthesedemands.Noneoftheintervieweesquestionedtherightofthe
focalpointtoexist.Thebenefitsofsuchacoordinationunitwereclearlyemphasisedbymany
respondents from this case study site (e.g. bilingual staff, familiar with regulations on both
sidesoftheborder,facilitatesprojectapplicationandimplementationandhasthepotentialto
bringdifferentstakeholderstogether).Nevertheless,asmentionedbefore,noteverybodywas
willing to provide money to sustain such a helpful structure. Some considered the
commitment of individuals even more significant than focal points. Because even the best
coordinatorcannotsucceedifthereisalackofactivestakeholdersdedicatedtocrossborder
cooperation.Contrary,ifthereisacriticalmassofactivepeople,transboundarycooperation
mayalsosucceedwithoutaparticularcoordinatorwhichcanbeprovedbytheexampleof
TriglavNationalParkandNatureParkPrealpiGiulie.Ingeneral,itseemsrecommendableto
carefully analyse for each case if defined focal points may facilitate the achievement of the
common objectives. Once the expected benefits of such coordinators are evident for all
parties,thequestionofprovidingsustainablefundingmaybesolvedmoreeasily.
Aboutthecommitmentofhavingfuntogether
Takentoextremes,thestatementsintheSloveneItaliancasestudysitecouldbesummarised
asfollows:Gooutandhavefuntogetheranddonotsticktoofficialmeetingsandworkshop
settings.Becauseonlypersonal,amicablerelationsensuretrustandmutualacceptance,which
PAGE54
SIGRUNLANGE
inthelongtermprovideasoundbasisforstablecooperation.AlreadyZbicz(2003)foundout
that the highest level of cooperation occurred if managers were able to make personal
contactsacrosstheborder:Theseedsoftransboundaryconservationcanbeplanted,watered
andnurtured,butgrowthmustcomefromwithin,fromthegroundup.
Several respondents highlighted the benefits of informal events. They suggested combining
officialmeetingswithculturaleventsororganisingcompetitionsamongststaffmembersand
otherstakeholdergroupsintheprotectedareas.Extendingtransboundarycooperationfrom
the staff to the local level was highly recommended. This issue was also raised in the
international recommendations. UNESCO (2000b), for example, recommends involving
stakeholder groups, including young people or the private as well as the NGO sector, in the
transboundary cooperation. All surveyed guidelines call for organising social events to
promoteaculturalunderstandingandallowfortrustandfriendship(cp.Fig.3,Topic5).
8.3
Conclusionsforresearchquestion2
Thesecondobjectiveofthisstudywastoanalyseiftheprinciplesofchangemanagementin
organisational development may be applied in order to decide on whether to establish and
howtohandletransboundaryprotectedareas(researchquestion2,cp.chapter4.6).
The simple change equitation D[issatisfaction] x V[ision] x F[irst Steps] > R[esistance] to
Change was applied to the situation in two case study sites as perceived by the surveyed
experts. This tool, derived from organisational development, seems to be quite helpful to
understandtheunderlyingcausesforsuccessorfailureoftransboundarycooperation.
IncaseoftheKarwendel,norealneedforchangesbecameevident.Themissingdrivingforce
combinedwiththelowpersonalcapacitiesintheneighbouringprotectedareasprobablywere
fundamental reasons why despite of ten years of discussions no coordinative structures
havebeenestablishedsofar.Besides,nocommonobjectiveshavebeenagreedoninfaceof
the crossborder meetings. Several declarations of intent were formulated but not officially
approved. Except for the last crossborder meeting in May 2009, in the past the Tyrolese
stakeholders mainly came together with the Bavarian mayors and one high ranking
representative from the Environmental Ministry. Agents from the lower administrative level
(e.g. district or county level) had been mainly excluded in former meetings. Today, still
different concerns are associated with intensified transboundary cooperation. Obviously the
purely official meetings on the higher hierarchy level did not sufficiently succeed in building
trusttotryforclosertransboundarycooperation.
Incontrast,RegionalNatureParkPrealpiGiulieclearlyforesawtheadvantagesofcooperating
with the wellestablished national park just across the border. The official contacts quickly
developedtoamicablerelationswhichnowadaysseemanequallyfundamentaldrivingforce
fortransboundaryactivities.Fromthebeginning,severalinformalagreementsweresignedon
differentlevels.OnceSloveniajoinedtheEuropeanUnion,firstjointprojectswerecarriedout,
demonstrating progress towards the implementation of the cooperation. By involving
differentstakeholdergroups,theyevenextendedthecrossborderrelationsintheregiontoa
broaderlevelandbuiltagoodbasisforsustainablecooperationinthefuture.
PAGE55
SIGRUNLANGE
These analysed have shown, that the application of the change formula generally seems to
yield viable results. Thus it is recommended to use such methods especially when several
attemptstoestablishmoreintensivecooperationhavenotachievedsustainedsuccess.
8.4
Finalremarks
Concludingitcanbestatedthatthesurveyedexpertsinthecasestudysitesprincipallyagreed
on and highlighted the significance of the established recommendations for transboundary
cooperation. However, as it was impossible to survey a representative crosssection of
stakeholder groups and a sufficient number of experts, the results cannot be considered
generally accepted for the respective regions or beyond. They just allow for an interesting
insight in the ongoing processes of transboundary cooperation and direct towards good
practice.
Hopefully the results of this study are interesting enough to stimulate other crossborder
areastolearnfromthepracticalexperiencesandtrysomeoftherecommendationsintheir
ownregion.
PAGE56
SIGRUNLANGE
REFERENCES
Literature
Beckhard, R.F. & R.T. Harris (1987): Organizational Transitions. Managing Complex Change.
AddisonWesley.
Brunner,R.(2006):TransboundarycooperationaEuropeanchallenge.In:Terry,A.,Ullrich,K.
&U.Riecken:TheGreenBeltofEurope.FromVisiontoReality.IUCN,Gland,Switzerlandand
Cambridge,UK:1319.
Brunner,R.(1996):Parksforlife:transboundaryprotectedareasinEurope.FinalReport.IUCN
(IUCN/WCPAParksforLifeCoordinationOffice),Ljubljana,Slovenia.
Chester, CH. (2008): Transboundary protected areas. In: Encyclopedia of Earth. Reviewed by
James Dontje and William C.G. Burns; last updated on September 24, 2008. Available at:
http://www.eoearth.org/article/Transboundary_protected_areas.
Chester,Ch.(2006):ConservationacrossBorders.BiodiversityinanIndependentWorld.Island
Press.
Council of Europe (1980): European Outline Convention on Transfrontier Cooperation
betweenTerritorialCommunitiesorAuthorities.Informationat:http://conventions.coe.int
Dannemiller Tyson Associates (2000): WholeScale Change. Unleashing the Magic in
Organizations.BerrettKoehlerPubilshers.
EUROPARCFederation(2007):VerificationreportfortheDutchGermanNaturpark/Grenspark
MaasSchwalmNette. Application for the EUROPARC certificate Transboundary Parks
FollowingNaturesDesign(verifiedbyArnoldBoer,MartinSchneiderJacoby).
EUROPARC Federation (2003): The EUROPARCs Basic Standards for Transboundary
Cooperation between Protected Areas in Europe. (Launched at the Worlds Parks Congress
holdinSeptember2003inDurban,SouthAfrica)
EUROPARCFederation(Eds.)(2001):EUROPARCExpertiseExchangeWorkingGrouponTrans
frontierProtectedAreas.
EUROPARC Federation (Eds.) (2000): Proceedings of the seminar on Basic Standards for
TransfrontierCooperationbetweenEuropeanProtectedAreas,18thtill21stofJune2000in
Retz,ThayatalNationalPark,Austria.
Georgii & Elmauer (2002): Freizeit und Erholung im Karwendel naturvertrglich. Ein EU
INTERREGIIProjekt.ImAuftragdesBayerischenStaatsministeriumfrLandesentwicklungund
UmweltfragenundderAbteilungUmweltschutzderTirolerLandesregierung.
Girtler,R.(2001):MethodenderFeldforschung.4.Aufl.BhlauUTB.
Glser, J. & G. Laudel (2009): Experteninterviews und qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Lehrbuch,
3.Auflage.VerlagfrSozialwissenschaften.
Hamilton, L.S., Mackay, J.C., Worboys, G.L., Jones, R.A. & G.B. Manson (1996): Transborder
ProtectedAreaCooperation.IUCN.
Hanks, J. (2003): Transfrontier Conservation Areas (TFCAs) in Southern Africa: Their Role in
Conserving Biodiversity, Socioeconomic Development and Promoting a Culture of Peace. In:
PAGE57
SIGRUNLANGE
Goodaleetal.(Eds.):TransboundaryProtectedAreas.TheViabilityofRegionalConservation
Strategies:127148.
Hopf, C. (1978): Die PseudoExploration. berlegungen zur Technik qualitative Interviews in
derSozialforschung.In:ZeitschriftfrSoziologie,Jg.7.
Jungmeier,M.,Zollner,D.&H.Sonntag(2008):AlpenparkKarwendelKarwendelprogramm
2013:Perspektiven,Ziele,Projekte.StudieimAuftragdesVereinsAlpenparkKarwendel.
Lanfer, A.G., Stern, M.J., Margoluis, Ch. & U. M. Goodale (2003): A Synthesis of the March
2001 Conference on the Viability of Transboundary Protected Areas at the Yale School of
ForestryandEnvironmentalStudies.In:Goodaleetal.(Eds.):TransboundaryProtectedAreas.
TheViabilityofRegionalConservationStrategies:235245.
Lange, S. (2008): Machbarkeitsstudie Biosphrenpark Karwendel. Studie im Auftrag des
sterreichischenMABKomitees.
Mayring,Ph.(2008):QualitativeInhaltsanalyse.GrundlagenundTechniken.10.Auflage.Beltz
Verlag.
Mayring,Ph.&M.GlserZikuda(2005):DiePraxisderQualitativenInhaltsanalyse.
Mayring,Ph.(2000):QualitativeContentAnalysis.In:FQSForumQualitativeSocialResearch.
Volume 1, No. 2, Art. 20, June 2000. Available at: http://www.qualitative
research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1089
Mittermeier, R. A., Kormos, C.F., Mittermeier, C.G., Gil, P.R., Sandwith, T. & C. Besancon
(2005):TransboundaryConservation:ANewVisionforPro
Pfleger,B.(2007):ProtokollForumAlpenparkKarwendelwohin?(notpublished,internal
document).
Sandwith,T.,Shine,C.,Hamilton,L.&D.Sheppard(2001):TransboundaryProtectedAreasfor
Peace and Cooperation. IUCN, Gland (Switzerland) and Cambridge (UK). Best Practice
ProtectedAreaGuidelinesSeriesNo.7.EditedbyAdrianPhillips(SeriesEditor).
Stein, R. (2004): Grenzberschreitende Schutzgebiete: Empfehlungen des WPC und
Handlungsbedarf in Deutschland. In: Stolpe, G. & W. Fischer (Hrsg.): Benefits beyond
boundaries. Ergebnisse des 5. Weltschutzgebietskongresses in Durban 2003 und ihre
BedeutungfrdeutscheSchutzgebiete.BfNSkripten112.
Steinmetz, E. (2004): Grenzbergreifende Biosphrenreservate: WinWinLsungen fr
Mensch und Natur. In: Deutsches MABNationalkomitee (Hrsg.): Voller Leben. UNESCO
BiosphrenreservateModellregionenfreineNachhaltigeEntwicklung.
Ramsar Convention Secretariat (ed.) (2007): International cooperation. Guidelines for
internationalcooperationundertheRamsarConventiononWetlands.Ramsarhandbooksfor
thewiseuseofwetlands,3rdedition,vol.17.Gland,Switzerland.
Ramsar Convention, COP9 (2005): Designation and Management of Transnational /
Transboundary Ramsar sites. Agenda item XV of the 9th Meeting of the Conference of the
ContractingPartiestotheConventiononWetlands(Ramsar,Iran,1971)"Wetlandsandwater:
supporting life, sustaining livelihoods" in Kampala, Uganda, 815 November 2005. (Available
at:http://www.ramsar.org/cop9/cop9_dr06_e.htm)
PAGE58
SIGRUNLANGE
UNECPWCMC(2007):UNEPWCMCGlobalListofTransboundaryProtectedAreas.Compiled
byLysenkoI.,BesanonC.andC.Savy(http://www.tbpa.net/tpa_inventory.html)
UNESCO, MABProgramme (Ed.) (2008): Madrid Action Plan for Biosphere Reserves (2008
2013).
UNESCO, MABProgramme (Eds.) (2005): Proceedings of the 2004 International Conference
and Expert Workshop of Transboundary Biosphere Reserves: Followingup on Seville + 5.
EditedandcompiledbyRolandStein,PeterHeilandLenkaTuek.
UNESCO, MABProgramme (Ed.) (2003): Five Transboundary Biosphere Reserves in Europe.
BiosphereReservesTechnicalNotes.UNESCO,Paris.EditedbyJulietFallandMireilleJardin.
UNESCO,MABProgramme(Ed.)(2000a):Seville+5Recommendations:ChecklistforAction.
UNESCO, MABProgramme (Ed.) (2000b): Seville+5 Recommendations for the Establishment
andFunctioningofTransboundaryBiosphereReserves(PamplonaRecommendations).
UNESCO, MABProgramme (Ed.) (1995): The Seville Strategy for Biosphere Reserves and
TheStatutoryFrameworkoftheWorldNetworkofBiosphereReserves.
US Headquarters, Department of the Army (1993): A leaders guide to afteraction reviews.
(Availableat:www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/army/tc_2520/tc2520.pdf)
Von der Oelsnitz, D. & M.W. Busch (2006): Teamlernen durch After Action Review. In:
Personalfhrung2/2006:5462.
WWF(2004):DieAlpen:daseinzigartigeNaturerbe.EinegemeinsameVisionfrdieErhaltung
ihrerbiologischenVielfalt.
Zbicz, D.C. (2003): Imposing Transboundary Conservation: Cooperation between
Internationally Adjoining Protected Areas. In: Goodale, U.M., Stern, M.J., Margoluis, Ch.,
Lanfer,A.G.&M.Fladeland(eds.):TransboundaryProtectedAreas.TheViabilityofRegional
ConservationStrategies.TheHaworthPress:2137.
Zbicz, D.C. (1999): Tansboundary Cooperation between Internationally Adjoining Areas. In:
Hamilton,D.(ed.):OntheFrontiersofConservation.GeorgWrightSociety:199204.
Zweckverband DeutschNiederlndischer Naturpark MaasSchwalmNette (Hrsg.) (2002
2007):Jahresberichtevon2002bis2007.
InternetResources
AlpenparkKarwendel:www.alpenpark.org
EuregioRheinMaasNord/RijnMaasNoord:http://www.euregiormn.de/
EUROPARC
Federation,
Initiative
Following
Natures
Design:
http://www.EUROPARC.org/whatwedo/projectsandprogrammes/transboundaryparks
followingnaturesdesign
IUCNTheWorldConservationUnion:http://www.iucn.org
IUCN,GlobalTransboundaryProtectedAreasNetwork:http://www.tbpa.net/
NationalParkTriglav:http://www.tnp.si/national_park/
NatureParkMaasSchwalmNette:http://www.naturparkmsn.de/
NatureParkPrealpiGiulie:http://www.parcoprealpigiulie.org/dovesiamoing.asp
PAGE59
SIGRUNLANGE
ListofFigures
Fig.2:Dobenefitsoutweighthecostsrelatedtotransboundarycooperation?........................11
Fig.1:Worldwide227transboundaryprotectedareacomplexeshavebeenidentified...........11
Fig.3:Comparisonofrecommendationsgivenininternationalguidelines...............................14
Fig.4:Levelsofcooperationbetweenadjoiningprotectedareas..............................................15
Fig.5:Factorsforsuccessandfailureofcooperationintransboundarybiospherereserves....16
Fig.6:FactorsfacilitatingtransboundarycooperationinPAsmanagement............................17
Fig.7:Drivingforcesfortransboundarycooperation.................................................................19
Fig.8:LocationoftheselectedcasestudysitesinEurope.........................................................20
Fig.9:Overviewontheintervieweesinthedifferentcasestudysites......................................23
Fig.10:Stepmodelofinductivecategorydevelopment............................................................24
Fig.11:LocationofcrossborderNatureParkMaasSchwalmNette.......................................26
Fig.12:LogooftransboundaryNatureParkMaasSchwalmNette..........................................27
Fig.13:ClimbingMt.TriglavinSlovenia.....................................................................................28
Fig.14:LocationofNationalParkTriglavandRegionalNatureParkPrealpiGiulie...................29
Fig.15:LocationofthemountainrangeKarwendelbetweenTyrolandBavaria......................31
Fig.16:ConfusingvarietyofdifferentnamesandlogosinthemountainrangeKarwendel.....33
Fig.17:Benefitsoftransboundarycooperationasperceivedbythesurveyedexperts............35
Fig.18:Theconservationoftheibexpopulationrequirescooperation....................................35
Fig.19:CrossborderconservationguaranteethesurvivaloftheCommonSandpiper............36
Fig.20:Protectedareasoftenattractmanyvisitors...................................................................37
Fig.21:INTERREGIVAfinancecrossbordercooperation..........................................................37
Fig.22:DrivingforcesandresistancetocooperationintheKarwendel....................................46
Fig.23:DrivingforcesinTriglavNationalParkandRegionalNatureParkPrealpiGiulie...........50
Fig.24:Comparisonoftransboundarycooperationinthethreecasestudysites.....................52
Fig.25:Recommendationsforthesurveyedcasestudysites..................................................52
PAGE60
SIGRUNLANGE
ListofAcronymsandAbbreviations
AAR
BR
CBD
EU
GEF
IUCN
MABProgramme
NGO
NP
BF
PA
TBPA
TBR
UNESCO
UNEP
WCMC
WCPA
AfterActionReview,methodtoexchangeandlearnfromexperiences
BiosphereReserve
ConventiononBiologicalDiversity
EuropeanUnion
GlobalEnvironmentalFacility,providesgrantsfordevelopingcountriesto
realiseprojectsrelatedtoissuesofbiodiversity,climatechange,etc.
InternationalUnionfortheConservationofNature
ManandtheBiosphereProgrammeofUNESCO
NonGovernmentalOrganisation
NaturePark
AustrianFederalForests(sterreichischeBundesforsteAG)
ProtectedArea
TransboundaryProtectedAreas
TransboundaryBiosphereReserve
UnitedNationsEducational,ScientificandCulturalOrganization
UnitedNationsEnvironmentalProgramme
WorldConservationMonitoringCentre
WorldCommissiononProtectedAreas
PAGE61

Tese Cooperação em Unidades de Conservação Transfronteiras - Lange

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tese Cooperação em Unidades de Conservação Transfronteiras - Lange

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cofinancedby

Citation: Lange, S. (2009): Transboundary Cooperation in Protected Areas Management

Mountain ranges or water bodies do not end at administrative borders. As a consequence,

The importance of transboundary conservation measures continuously increased since the

Over the last two decades transboundary

UNESCO (2003) examined the functioning of cooperation in five transboundary biosphere

To sum up, it is assumed that transboundary cooperation in protected areas management

Crossborder Nature Park MaasSchwalmNette between Germany and The

In a second step managers of crossborder protected area complexes representing different

joint map is available just as several joint publications (e.g.

The protection of the Common Sandpiper (Actitis

Although there is no doubt that in some cases effective

the region presume? Which measures guarantee the successful implementation of

In the crossborder Nature Park MaasSchwalmNette a transfrontier support

the Karwendel mountain range is a geographical unit shared by two countries;

In general, it would be strongly recommended to organise informal events (e.g. cultural

International organisations recommend crossborder cooperation and even encourage the

You might also like