Introduction
European Nature Conservation Policy: Current Trends
The Natura 2000 European Ecological Network: Theory and Practice
Materials and Methods
The Study Area
Name of the municipality |
Lipnica Wielka
|
Jabłonka
|
Cisna
|
Komańcza
|
---|---|---|---|---|
Region | Orawa | Orawa | Bieszczady | Bieszczady |
Province | Małopolskie | Malopolskie | Podkarpackie | Podkarpackie |
Nature area | Babia Góra (PLB120011; PLH120001) | Czarna Orawa (PLH120002) Orawa and Nowy Targ Peat Bogs (PLB120007; PLH120016) | Bieszczady (PLC180001) | Bieszczady (PLC180001) |
Population | 5,685 | 17,031 | 1,679 | 5,134 |
Area | 67.5 km² (49% farm & 48% forest use) | 213.28 km² | 286.89 km², (5% farm & 87% forest use) | 455.18 km² (23% farm & 69% forest use) |
(60% farm & 34% forest use) | ||||
Unemployment rate (%) | 4.10 | 4.50 | 18.10 | 7.40 |
Environmental description of the Natura 2000 site | 18 types of habitats with forest communities & high mountain grassland; dwarf mountain pine; 924 vascular plants species (rare, threatened or already protected), rich (ca. 2500 species) invertebrate fauna; very important area for birds; Threats to the area: transfrontier air pollution, dumping of waste from homesteads | Czarna Orawa A need to protect rare fish species habitats; one of two in Poland natural sites of the Danube salmon; important vegetation on the streams embankments, riparian forests; Threats to the area: sewage, collection of stones & gravel from the stream bed Orawa-Nowy Targ Peat Bog Valuable peat bogs, marsh forests, meadows & riparian habitats; The most important habitats: Myricaria & willow thicket on the stony embankments of streams, high peat bogs, marshy coniferous forests & riparian forests; rich fauna: bears, wolves, otters, Yellow-bellied toads, Great Crested Newts & Carpathian Newts. Threats to the peat: General lack of water, illegal extraction by locals, water pollution & drainage. Plans to build a sewage treatment plant. | 29 protected species & 21 types of habitats; 1100 vascular plant species (many rare, threatened & legally protected); valuable forest communities, e.i. Carpathian beech, sycamore & unique to Poland mountain pasture communities. 38 bird species named in the Directive & 13 in the Polish Red Book; Important terrain for nesting (ca. 150 species) & hatching (area occupied by 1% of the national population of many important species, i.e.: the black stork, the White-backed woodpecker, Lesser Spotted Eagle, Golden Eagle, Eagle Owl); rich forest fauna: bears, wolves, lynxes; strong populations of otters, the Aeskulapian snake. | |
Other forms of nature protection within the municipality (date of creation) | Babia Góra National Park (1954) and the Babia Góra Biosphere reserve (1977) | Bieszczadzki National Park (1973) | ||
San Valley Landscape Park (1992) | ||||
“Bembeńskie” Forest Reserve (2001) | Transborder Part of the Biosphere Reserve Eastern Carpathians (1992) | |||
“Na Policy” Reserve (1972) | Cisna-Wetlina Landscape Park (1992) | |||
The whole municipality is a Protected landscape Area* | Sine Wiry Reserve (1988r.) | Jaśliski Landscape Park (1992); | ||
“Olszyna łęgowa w Kalnicy” Reserve (1971) | “Zwięzło” Reserve- Duszatyn Lakes (1957); “Przełom Osławy pod Duszatynem” Reserve (2000) |
Methodology of the Study
Results
Local Governments’ Attitudes Toward the Expansion of Nature Conservation Areas
Continental local governments (%) | Alpine local governments (%) | |
---|---|---|
Opinions on the proposed areas: | ||
Positive opinion | 19 | 20 |
Negative opinion | 42 | 64 |
Request to alter borders | 14 | 8 |
Neutral opinion / no comment | 17 | 7 |
No comment possible on the basis of provided materials | 9 | 0 |
Conflicts indicated: (total) | 34 | 39 |
On the basis of ownership of the areas | 5 | 8 |
On the development of infrastructure | 7 | 8 |
On actual and planned businesses | 8 | 15 |
On building extensions | 14 | 8 |
Types of arguments given: | ||
(a) Economic, including: | 51 | 59 |
extension of procedures and rise in costs | 11 | 18 |
procedural inconsistencies | 3 | – |
restricting the development of tourism | 11 | 23 |
restricting the development of enterprise, encompassing industrial land (e.g. mines) | 15 | 13 |
hindering and restricting the development of agriculture | 8 | 5 |
hindering and restricting the development of fishing | 3 | – |
(b) Relating to the development of infrastructure, including: (total) | 36 | 56 |
Energy | 3 | 3 |
Roads | 10 | 10 |
Flood defence | 9 | 5 |
Tourism | 8 | 33 |
Sewage systems | 6 | 5 |
(c) Conflicts indicated with existing development plans: | 24 | 41 |
(d) Environmental, including: (total) | 20 | 30 |
indicating the non-occurrence of given species and habitats | 8 | 10 |
current protection is sufficient | 11 | 15 |
imposing the sites will cause problems | 1 | 5 |
(e) Procedural, including: (total) | 21 | 26 |
lack of agreement with the local governments | 4 | 8 |
lack of agreement with local naturalists | 3 | 5 |
erroneously mapped out / on incorrect maps and templates | 14 | 13 |
(f) Social (unemployment, migration of young people, impoverishment of society): | 12 | 18 |
(g) Conflicts indicated with existing development plans for the sustainable development of the municipality | 8 | 21 |
Is Nature Conservation an Obstacle to the Economic Development of Municipalities and Regions?
Variables | Chi-square | Df | Asymptotic significance |
---|---|---|---|
Do they plan to build a house | 7.907 | 3 | 0.048 |
Do they plan to start a business | 25.322 | 3 | 0.000** |
Do they plan to run an agrotourism business | 57.941 | 3 | 0.000** |
Do they plan to farm organically | 9.038 | 3 | 0.029* |
Do they plan to sell the land | 4.372 | 3 | 0.224 |
Do they plan to apply for a farming subsidy | 28.545 | 3 | 0.000** |
Natura 2000 will make it difficult to build a house | 23.979 | 3 | 0.000** |
Natura 2000 will make it difficult to start a business | 4.442 | 3 | 0.218 |
Natura 2000 will make it difficult to run an agrotourism business | 11.722 | 3 | 0.008* |
Natura 2000 will make it difficult to farm organically | 1.869 | 3 | 0.600 |
Natura 2000 will make it difficult to sell the land | 12.586 | 3 | 0.006* |
Natura 2000 will make it difficult to apply for a farming subsidy | 3.822 | 3 | 0.281 |
Does the national park make life difficult for people here | 26.770 | 3 | 0.000** |
Is it important that the municipality has been included in the European network | 12.106 | 3 | 0.007* |
Is it worth extending the sites of protected nature in the area | 7.875 | 3 | 0.049* |
Is it also important to protect nature outside of the national park | 24.688 | 3 | 0.000** |
Would they vote for a candidate planning to extend the area of protected nature | 6.852 | 3 | 0.077 |
Should the owners of the land decide themselves about the nature on their land? | 22.745 | 3 | 0.000** |
Do organisations that protect nature disadvantage the residents | 16.575 | 3 | 0.001** |
Would the town/village develop faster without the national park | 30.098 | 3 | 0.000** |
Components | ||
---|---|---|
1—nature conservation hinders development | 2—it is worth extending the protected areas | |
The national parks makes life difficult for people here | .773 | |
Organisations protecting nature disadvantage residents | .723 | |
Without the national park the town/village would develop faster | .691 | |
It is worth extending the sites of protected nature in this area | .716 | |
It is important that the municipality has been included in the European network | .693 | |
People move here so as to live closer to protected nature | .653 | |
It is also important to protect nature outside of the national parks | .611 |
National Versus European Forms of Nature Conservation in the Opinion of Local Communities
Local and Regional Connotations of Introducing New Nature Conservation Programmes
Cisna | Komańcza | Jabłonka | Lipnica Wielka | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Running an agrotourism business |
19%
| 4% | 4% | 1% |
n = |
28
| 6 | 7 | 1 |
Running an organic farm | 1% |
6%
| 2.50% | 2% |
n = | 2 |
9
| 4 | 3 |
Owners of developed land |
78%
|
70%
|
81%
|
74%
|
n = |
63
|
53
|
77
|
64
|
Owners of cultivated agricultural land | 13% | 51% |
68%
|
69%
|
n = | 11 | 38 |
65
|
59
|
Owners of meadows | 48% |
67%
|
72%
|
72%
|
n = | 39 |
50
|
68
|
62
|
Owners of land for development | 35% | 15% |
41%
|
42%
|
n = | 28 | 11 |
39
|
36
|
Owners of forest | 25% | 25% |
76%
|
85%
|
n = | 20 | 19 |
72
|
73
|