The Problems of Large Protected Areas in the Process of Planning: A Case Study in the Municipality Ig, Slovenia Nadja PENKO SEIDL, Alenka COF, Lidija BRESKVAR ŽAUCER and Ivan MARUŠIČ 1 Introduction The aim of spatial planning is to locate different uses and activities in the most suitable place for each (MCHARG, 1969) and, at the same time, to conserve landscape qualities and to prevent, or at least reduce the negative impacts of planned activities on the environment. Spatial planning is one of the most important activities for promoting and achieving sustainable development. As Rydin (1998) emphasises, through the system of planning, environmental impact can be mitigated, resources conserved and environmentally friendly practices encouraged. Sustainable land use planning requires an in-depth analysis of development characteristics as well as of sensitivity to development (SENES AND TOCCOLINI, 1998). One of the tools developed to ensure that the spatial plans are environmentally tuned and sustainably oriented is environmental assessment. In Slovenia, municipality spatial plans should be assessed according to the European Directive 2001/42/EC (SEA Directive) and the Environmental Protection Act which were adopted by the Slovenian parliament in 2004. SEA directive requires environmental issues to be taken into account during the preparation of the plan and thus promote a sustainable spatial development. 2 Problematic The problem that has repeatedly arisen in the last few years in Slovenia in preparing some municipal plans is how to guide development in the areas of vast, intertwining, and overlaying protected areas with strict conservations demands and how to assess the newly prepared spatial plans in these areas. The problem is, first of all, methodological. Protected areas are understood by sectors as final decisions about land use. Therefore they are often meant to be directly incorporated into plans no matter what the interests of other stakeholders are. An intermediate land evaluation phase, which would present a softer, non-final definition of their interests, is missing. Without this intermediate phase, reconciliation of different interests within a municipality social tissue is very difficult, if not impossible. There are cases when municipalities are tight-handed and therefore forced to drastically reduce their development programmes or concentrate them on a few small and sometimes already highly developed remaining areas.
The Problem of Large Protected Areas in the Process of Planning; A Case Study Ig, SLO 159 Such practice makes spatial planning less sensible if we consider spatial planning as a process in which reconciliation among different societal normative principles should take place. The lack of a reconciliation phase in spatial planning cannot lead to sustainable development. Allowing sectors to impose the concept of sieve mapping for vast areas by closing them for any other use can lead to either excessive concentration of activities on small remaining areas, which increases environmental problems, or it makes the rational development of certain areas/municipalities impossible. For this reason, we argue that sustainable spatial development could and should be achieved only through integration, i.e. two types of integration: integration of all sectors, developers, local population, and other actors into one planning process, and integration of all areas within the municipality into one planning area. Both kinds of integration are missing in today s planning practice, at least in Slovenia. At this point it should be noted that we do not question the concept of protected areas in itself. But as our case study has shown, it becomes a problem when these protected areas are vast and overlaying and when the sectors have the ability to exclude them from developing a consensual spatial planning decision. Another problem which occurs at some of these areas is that, although they are vast, they are not internally evaluated in terms of their characteristics and their importance for the sector. This lack of data makes it impossible to internally evaluate the sensitivity of these areas for different types of development. 3 Case study Assessment of the municipality Ig spatial plan is presented for illustration as nearly the entire municipality area (99%) is covered by some conservation definition, e.g. nature protected areas, areas designated as cultural heritage, Natura 2000, ecologically important areas, water conservation areas, protective forests and prime agricultural land. All these conservation areas function as spatial reserves. Fig. 1: Areas protected by different sectors: (a) ecologically important areas, (b) Natura 2000, (c) cultural heritage areas, (d) water conservation areas, (e) prime agricultural land
160 N. Penko Seidl, A. Cof, L. Breskvar Žaucer and I. Marušič Development is not strictly prohibited within all these sectors spatial reserves when certain conditions are fulfilled. According to Slovenian spatial legislation (Spatial Planning Act 2002, 2007), within the process of planning, sectors are invited to prepare guidelines for a spatial plan. When a plan is conceived they have the power to reject it if it does not strictly follow their recommendations. This gives them the right to withhold any development proposal located within their area of interest without any further reconciliation, or, they can demand certain provisions to be taken which would neutralize the negative impact, if such provisions are available. What aggravates the planning process are three facts that the areas protected by sectors are: Vast in our case study more than 99% of the municipality s territory is protected by some conservation regime. In such cases, the only alternative for locating activities outside the protected areas would be not to plan any development at all, Intertwining - an issue which makes the planning process difficult is that there is no reconciliation among sectors. In practice this means that in the case when various areas protected by sectors are overlapping, the planning authority must negotiate with each sector at a time for the single development proposal. Consequently certain developments might be possible, but each of the sectors demands different provisions to be taken. In some cases the areas protected by sectors are not internally evaluated according to their importance. Lack of data which led to the protection of these areas makes planning very difficult, since the planning authority has incomplete data about which areas inside the spatial reserves are the most important for the sector and should be preserved. Two important questions arise from the current situation: How can planned activities be located when the majority of the municipal area is protected by some sectoral conservation regime? Are the areas which are not under any conservation definition really the most suitable for the planned activities? We argue that the concept of sieve mapping, where each sector literally excludes large areas from the planning consideration, does not lead to an environmentally tuned spatial development. Activities should be located according to the suitability and vulnerability analysis (MCHARG, 1969; NDUBISI, 2002), where two aspects should be confronted: (1) the developmental criteria of each planned activity, and (2) the sensitivity of the environment upon planned development, where also conservation demands from various sectors should be taken into account. Such analysis has no significance if the majority of municipal area is excluded from a planning process, in advance. How to assess the plan especially in cases where different types of protected areas are not internally evaluated? According to legislation (Directive 2001/42/EC - SEA Directive, Environmental Protection Act, and Decree, laying down the content of environmental report and on detailed procedure for the assessment of the effects on certain plans and programmes on the environment) spatial plans should be assessed. The deviations from the environmental goals should be assessed by the help of environmental indicators. The areas protected by several sectors should also be considered within the assessment of the plan. But the data which would enable the evaluation of the development sensitivity of these protected areas are often incomplete and the value system which led to their protection very often remains a black box. We argue that conservation areas are not
The Problem of Large Protected Areas in the Process of Planning; A Case Study Ig, SLO 161 completely homogenous in terms of sensitivity for development, which should be considered during the preparation and assessment of a plan. Fig. 2: The procedure of the environmental assessment of the plan case study Ig The assessment of the municipality Ig spatial plan was performed on the basis of environmental indicators, to be up with the legislation, and furthermore, the vulnerability analysis was prepared as alternative option for assessing the plan. Vulnerability analysis could be defined as a special - negative form of land suitability analysis, or more precisely, unsuitability for use (MARUŠIČ, 1993). It is a method, which helps us to identify the different levels of environmental sensitivity for planned activities. The results are presented through a series of spatial evaluation maps that cover the entire municipal area. They can serve as a basis for the development of environmentally tuned spatial alternatives for planned activities. In our case study, the vulnerability analysis was used as a basis for the final assessment of the environmental effects of the proposed plan and in order to prepare an environmental report. Vulnerability analysis was prepared as the series of maps, where the analysed landscape qualities are assessed from the viewpoint of potential threat resulting from the planned activities (MARUŠIČ, 1993). The analysis is derived form the so called impact matrix, similar to Leopold s matrix (LEOPOLD ET AL, 1971), where the actions (development proposals) which could cause environmental impact are listed on one axis, and existing environmental conditions are listed on the other one. Within the matrix the possible sensitivity of the different environmental qualities is presented. Each vulnerability map represents the sensitivity of one environmental subsystem (e.g. waters, cultural heritage, living environment, potential for farming, wildlife and ecosystems, etc.) because of a planned activity. At the end, the sensitivities of all parts of environment are united into the
162 N. Penko Seidl, A. Cof, L. Breskvar Žaucer and I. Marušič joint vulnerability map - the so called vulnerability of the environment because of the planned activity. The vulnerability analysis was carried out with the help of GIS programme Pro-Val, developed by some Slovene experts. The sensitivity of the environment was modelled by use of selected spatial data (e.g. terrain, groundwater protection areas, Natura 2000, protected forests, roads, rivers, settlements, etc.). The whole municipal area was divided into 25x25 m cells and for each of them the possible impact of each planned activity was modelled. Fig. 3: Some examples of vulnerability analysis maps In the final phase of the study, vulnerability maps were overlaid over the planned land use or, more precise, over the areas where new development activities were proposed. The size of the areas with different environmental sensitivity, affected by each planned activity, was calculated. The impact on the environment was evaluated for each planned activity according to the size and sensitivity of the areas it affects. The impact of each planned activity was evaluated on the 6-stage scale: A activity has no impact on the environment or the impact is positive, B impact is not essential, C impact is not essential because of the mitigation measures, D impact is essential, E impact is devastating, X impact cannot be assessed. For the majority of the planned activities it was found that according to the sensitivity of the whole municipal area, the planned activity would actually occupy locations which are less environmentally sensitive compared to the whole municipality. In such cases the activity was evaluated as acceptable/suitable (A or B). In cases where areas proposed for new development more sensitive than the whole municipality, the impact of the activity was evaluated as essential or devastating (D or E). In such cases it was evaluated that the planned activity could not be sited to the proposed location. If the impact of a planned activity on a specific location could be diminished with some mitigation measures (technological improvements), it was evaluated as C. When the lack of data about the technology of specific activity (if any mitigation measures were possible) did not allow us to evaluate the impact, the value X was used.
The Problem of Large Protected Areas in the Process of Planning; A Case Study Ig, SLO 163 Fig. 4: Vulnerability of potential for farming because of the planned housing and business area: left for the whole municipality, right for the areas where new housing and new business areas were planned 4 Discussion As the case study has shown, the main advantages of the vulnerability analysis for assessing spatial plans are: The vulnerability analysis could and should be included into the spatial plan elaboration phase. This enables planners to consider the environmental conservation demands before the sitting of different planned activities takes place. In such a way environmentally sensitive areas are avoided from the very beginning of the planning process. Similar procedure called the UET method (Ultimate Environmental Threshold), was used in the planning of protected areas in Italy (SENES AND TOCCOLINI, 1998). The UET method also involves the analysis of the characteristics of the development and the relations that it establishes with the natural resources found in the area the latest highlights both requirements in terms of resources for the development and the impact of the development on natural resources. The whole municipal area is included in the planning and assessment process, the process of exclusive sectoral sieve-mapping is replaced by multi-criteria evaluation system, where areas are internally evaluated according to their sensitivity for different development proposals. Only the areas which were evaluated as the most sensitive are then strictly protected. Such an approach Kühn (2000) defines as protecting by use and is established in biosphere reserve Schorfheide-Chorin in Germany, where only 3% of the area is under direct conservation regime and protected by law. Another 11% are so-called maintenance zones with strict land-use regulations, and the rest of the area is included in development zones, called also zones of harmonious cultural landscapes with lower conservation rating but likewise important for the implementation of the aims of sustainable development. Environmental constraints are socially and not scientifically determined. Limits are relationships between the natural environment and human society, and these always
164 N. Penko Seidl, A. Cof, L. Breskvar Žaucer and I. Marušič involve value judgements (JACOBS, 1997). And value judgements change even if the characteristics of the evaluated object remain unchanged (FRONDIZI, 1971). The emphasis is not on how to describe the environment this is the work of science, but on how we should treat it and how much we should use it these are moral, political and economic questions and as such they require moral, political and economic concepts to handle them (JACOBS, 1997). For this reason, planning should be the result of the consensus among all stakeholders who participate in the planning process. The plan should be environmentally and socially acceptable, and empowering the sectors for exclusive planning does not enable this. The presented Ig case study is a very good example of when several development proposals had to be excluded from the spatial plan although they were evaluated as acceptable in the environmental report just because the sectors institutionalised their normative principles (SALET AND FALUDI, 2000). Vulnerability analysis can take into consideration sectoral definitions of valuable areas as well, but the sensitivity of the certain area should be considered in regard to planned development and not in general. This enables to withdraw the environmentally aggressive development from sensitive areas and at the same time it allows some environmentally friendly activities to be sited there. Spatial reserves represent a kind of spatial normative, where development is restricted or even prohibited. But can equal normative be set up for different activities? Different activities do cause different environmental impacts and these could only be evaluated through the confrontation of each activity s spatial demands and environmental sensitivity upon that same activity. Defining spatial reserves in advance does not enable such confrontation. A deviation from environmental protection requirements is inevitable. 5 Conclusion The problems which accompany the elaboration and assessment of spatial plans in the areas with several conservation regimes definitely speak for different approaches to planning. As our case study has shown, the practice where each sector can cut off its piece of the territory and reject any other development inside this area, makes the planning of such area literally impossible. In such cases development is then concentrated into a few remaining areas which are not protected, which usually only increases environmental problems. We conclude our discussion by suggesting that sectors performing direct conservation by defining protected areas should rather provide evaluation maps similar to vulnerability maps, where the areas of different sensitivity to the development would be defined. Such maps should be considered in the process of planning and assessment of the plan. Protected areas maps, as decision maps, should be made after a spatial plan is adopted. Planning as an optimization process should always be directed towards solutions which are environmentally friendly. But certain conditions must be fulfilled. Three of them which we consider as the most important are (1) the cooperation of all stakeholders within the planning process and their willingness to negotiate, (2) the attainability of all data/studies
The Problem of Large Protected Areas in the Process of Planning; A Case Study Ig, SLO 165 which have led either to the protection of particular areas and (3) the arguments of why a certain area was chosen for a certain type of development. 6 References Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment. Official Journal of the European Communities, L 197/30. Environmental Protection Act (Zakon o varstvu okolja). Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, 39/2006. Frondizi, R. (1971): What is value? Open Court Publishing Company, La Salle, USA. Jacobs, M. (1997): Making Sense of Environmental capacity. CPRE, London, UK. Kühn, M. (2000): Biosphere Reserves as Planning Models for Sustainable development: Schorfheide-Chorin, Germany. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 43(6): 897-904. Leopold, L. B. et al (1971): A Procedure for Evaluating Environmental Impact. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. Marušič, I. (1993): Conservation planning within a framework of landscape planning in Slovenia. Landscape and Urban Planning 23: 233-237. Ndubisi, F. (2002): Managing Change in the Landscape: A Synthesis of Approaches for Ecological Planning. Landscape Journal 21(1): 138-155. McHarg, I. (1969): Design with Nature. The Natural History Press, New York, USA. Decree laying down the content of environmental report and on detailed procedure for the assessment of the effects on certain plans and programmes on the environment (Uredba o okoljskem poročilu in podrobnejšem postopku celovite presoje vplivov izvedbe planov na okolje). Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, 73/2005. Rydin, Y. (1998): Land Use Planning and Environmental Capacity: Reassessing the Use of Regulatory Policy Tools to Achieve Sustainable development. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 41(6): 749-765. Salet W., Faludi A. (2000). Three Approaches to Strategic Spatial Planning. The Revival of Strategic Spatial Planning. Senes, G., Toccolini, A. (1998): Sustainable land use planning in protected rural areas in Italy. Landscape and Urban Planning 41: 107-117. Spatial Planning Act I (Zakon o urejanju prostora), Official Gazette of Republic of Slovenia 110/2002 Spatial Planning Act II (Zakon o prostorskem načrtovanju), Official Gazette of Republic of Slovenia 33/2007