INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND RURAL INSTITUTIONS
(IDARI)
IN CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES
PROJECT UNDER THE EU 5TH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME
Contract number: QLK5-CT-2002-02718
WORKPACKAGE 3:
SOCIAL CAPITAL, GOVERNANCE AND RURAL INSTITUTIONAL
INNOVATIONS
Cooperation in an environmentally protected area
Drawa National Park case study
Background paper
Piotr Matczak, Ilona Banaszak, Viktoria Takacs
Poznań, December 2004
1
1. Introduction
Drawa National Park is situated in West North part of Poland, at the border three
administrative regions (voiwodships): Zachodniopomorskie; Lubuskie; Wielkopolskie. The
region is rich of forests and lakes, relatively less populated compared with other parts of the
country, not industrialized, with low level of agriculture activity.
1.1. A brief history of the area
The area was a borderland between Poland and Germany (Brandenburg) since 19th century.
In 19th century most of the area was a part of Prussia. The borderland character of the area
resulted with low level of human impact and relatively good state of the nature. In 17th
century wars caused depopulation of the area. In 19th century an irrigation system was
established and the proportion of agriculture use of the land increased. However, from the
middle of 19th century a depopulation process started again, strengthened in 20th century by
the World Wars. As the result of the II World War most of the population (German
inhabitants) in the area was evacuated and later populated by settlers from East and Central
Poland.
In XX proportion of forested area increased, earlier cultivated areas were left and here the
process of reforestation started. Reforestation flows were connected with the collapse of sheep
breeding, the world wars, and economic crises.
1.2. Establishment of the park
Some parts of the park were preserved already in 1930th. After the 2nd World War the
reserves network was sustained. First ideas of the National Park establishment appeared in
late 1940ties among canoers visiting the region. In 1946 Maria Podhorska – Okołów, a wellknown activist of the Polish Kayaking Union submitted a stipulation for protection of costal
zones of Brda and Drawa Rivers, two most beautiful rivers in the Northern Poland. Although
those postulates were not accomplished, they bared in minds of environmentalists. At the end
of 1960s areas along the Drawa River appeared as a subject of discussion of botanists from
Szczecin, leaded by M. Jasnowski. Simultaneously with carried out by them biological
research, they designed a nature reserve called “Drawa River”. Eventually this proposal was
accepted by the state authorities in 1974. The Reserve covered the Drawa River valley from
Drawno to Kamienna towns.
2
At the end of 1970s environmentalists from Gorzów, Szczecin and Poznań started an idea to
establish a national park along all the above mentioned nature reserves. Physiological research
which documented environmental values of that areas, support from local authorities as well
as persistent actions of a few activists (among other: J. and M. Jasnowski, L. Agapow, J.
Jackowski, H. Kujawa, B. Wiatr, M and Z. Tracz) the National Park become established in
1990. Establishment procedure can be treated as a relatively fast considering typical
circumstances. In the meantime, in 1988 a few most precious sites were recognised as
temporary nature reserves.
1.3. Nature conservation significance of the Drawa National Park
The National Park was created on the 1st of May 1990 as 16th of polish national parks.1 It is
fulfilling the requirements of IUCN II category. The Park is situated in NW Poland,
Pomeranian Lake District, Drawa River outwash plain. Most of the area (79%) is a woodland,
10% is covered by water, 5% by abandoned fields and meadows, and 6% by others.
The Drawa National Park represents the typical landscape of postglacial outwash plain, with
complicated net of gullies, partially filled by lakes. The plain is covered by big forest
complex. As a result, Drawa National Park represents "forest and lakes" landscape, typical for
the Polish Lake District.
In Drawa National Park water ecosystems and wetlands (about 15% of the area) represent a
high nature value. The two main rivers - Drawa and Płociczna – can be characterised as young
post-glacial landscape, because of their rapid current, relative stability of annual flux, winding
river-bed. Lakes of the Park represents almost the whole typology units: from mesotrophic
lakes with stoneworts (Charales) “meadows” on its bottom, through eutrophic to distrophic
peatbog lakes. Swamp communities also varying: from lake-adjoining marshes, through moss
communities on a chalk-bed, to peatbogs. Swamps supplied by spring waters are quite
common. Most forests of the Drawa National Park became transformed by the XIXth and
XXth century forestry. But some natural fragments remained of the natural rich beech woods,
acid lowland beech woods, acidophil oak-beach woods, oligotrophic, naturally renewing pine
stands, stream-adjoining alder woods. In Radęcin reserve one of the best preserved natural
beech forest of Central Europe can be found with beech trees up to 47 m high and 300 years
old.
1
In 2004 there are 23 national Parks in Poland.
3
The flora of the Drawa National Park consists of 1005 species of vascular plants, including
rare species: for example Chamaedaphne calyculata (one of 10 Polish localities is in the
Park). There are 27 native tree species recorded. Five species are mentioned in EU habitat
directive.
In the Park 200 species of mosses can be found, including rear species for Poland: Dicranum
bergeri, Sphagnum tenellum, Sphagnum fuscum, 6 species are on the Polish Red list and 17
species are included in EU Habitat directive.
Above 206 species of lichens, including rare in Poland: Lecania sylvestris, Micraea intrusa,
Opegrapha subparalella, Arthonia aspersella, Aspicilla excavata occurred in the Park. 58 of
them are included in Polish Red data Book and 6 species in EU Habitat Directive.
Numerous species of fungi, among them 21 included in the Polish Red Data Book, can also be
found.
On the area 224 plant communities were recorded. 51 of these communities are included in
EU habitat directive.
Fauna of Drawa National Park is also characteristic for the biotopes occurring there.
About 40 species of mammals live there, including numerous population of rare in Poland:
otter (Lutra lutra) and beaver (Castor fiber) is recorded. 26 mammal species are included in
Polish Red Data Book, and 15 in EU Habitat Directive.
On this area 160 bird species were recorded, out of them ca 130 breeding species, including
rare species in Poland like Haliaetus albicilla Pandion haliaetus Aquilla clanga, Bubo bubo.
Most of these species are included in Bern Convention (2 species in Appendix 2 and 93
species in Appendix 3) and a lot of them mentioned in Bird Directive (25 species in
Appendix 1, 10 species in Appendix II/1, 16 species in Appendix II/2 2 species in Appendix
III/1 and 8 species in Appendix III/2, respectively).
About 37 species of fishes noted from Drawa National Park, including rarities on a national
scale: Salmo salar, Salmo trutta, Thymallus thymallus, Vimba vimba, Coregonus lavaretus,
Coregonus albula. 9 species are included in EU Habitat Directive (among them 5 species in
Appendix II and 6 species in Appendix V, respectively).
Also numerous interesting species of invertebrates were recorded from the orders of
Trichoptera, Ephemeroptera, Odonata, Cerambycidae.
14 biotopes of Drawa National Park are included in Annex I to Habitat Directive as "biotopes
of special importance of Europe". These are the following:
-
meso-oligotrophic lakes with stonewort,
-
natural eutrophic lakes with Potamogeton-type vegetation,
4
-
dystrophic lakes, rivers vegetation with Ranunculus (Batrachium),
-
wet and fresh meadows Corynephorus grassland and heathlands, raised bogs,
calcareous fens with Cladium mariscus and Carex davalliana,
-
acidophil beech forest Luzulo-Fagetum, rich beech forest Asperulo-Fagetum, alluvial
forests (Alno-Padion),
-
Cratoneuron petrifying springs.
Currently the Drawa National Park is one of the 23 National Parks in Poland, a part of the
Ecological Network, with high nature values and as such it is essential to protect it for
preserving the overall biodiversity of the country.
5
2. Problem statement
2.1. Developmental context
Taking into account the economic circumstances, the prospects of the Drawa National Park
area are fuzzy. The level of unemployment is high – 23%, which is higher than average for
the country. The economic crises at the beginning of 1990s connected with the change of
economic system was deeper in the areas far from the business centres. The region does not
have internal resources allowing for the economic spin-off. As a result, local authorities are
searching for any kind of impulse bringing employment and economic activity. It is difficult
however, because of lack of endogenous resources and lack of sufficient external resources.
The fact is that Polish regional policy is weak in terms of development tools, especially in
case of a region which has low protest potential. It means that there are higher chance for help
for industrialized regions (like Silesia) but less for rural and “remoted” areas.
As a mater of fact, the natural state of the environment and the National Park appear to be an
important (maybe the most important) development agent of the region. Such path of
development involves balancing the nature protection and economic goals.
2.2. Nature conservation context
Drawa Nation Park has been established in a relatively natural area. However the are some
dangers for the Park. Firstly, the primer biological diversity has been reduced (as a result of
human cultivation). It results with less biological viability, for example, planted forests are
more fragile than natural ones – there is a lower chance of self recovering after fires, pests.
For young forest plantation abundance of deers can be dangerous. Secondly, results of human
activities are more crucial. Dispersed sources of pollutions cause accumulation of heavy
metals and pesticides in lakes. Increasing tourist industry enhances this process.
In 1999 a biologically precious part Cieszynka Valley was meliorated. Local and regional
authorities gave permission for this in spite of protests of local inhabitants and scientists.
Naturalists alarm that the policy of the National Park is exploitative. The level of logging is
exciding the safety level. Even the remaining of primary forest areas are logged. This policy
was proposed to be sanctioned by the prepared Park Protection Plan. The extent of wood
exploitation seems to be the main conflict issue concerning park.
6
The quality of the nature in the Drawa National Park seems to be endangered by economic
activity (esp. logging). At the same time, the park is one of few resources giving a chance for
spin-off for development (mainly through tourism) of the region.
To summarise: The main tension concerning the Drawa National Park is the conflict between
the nature protection and economic activities. To a certain extent such a tension is typical for
many national park worldwide. It is not the conflict itself but the way it is managed, what is to
be investigated. Bargaining procedures are not efficient, and the main stakeholders do not
trust each other. Years lasting process seems bringing finally some co-operation, however.
Thus, special emphasis is put on the role of institutions in the conflict resolution (or
enhancing).
2.3. Main actors
Main stakeholders active in a the nature protection and development of the region are the
following:
a) Park administration.
b) Park Advisory Council. It is nominated by the Ministry of Environment.
c) National Board of National Parks – governmental institution established to manage
national parks policies.
d) Lubuski Klub Przyrodników (Lubuski Naturalists’ Club). Nature Protection NGO,
focused on education and research. Strongly involved in the nature protection in the
Park, where has a educational station.
e) Salamandra - a nature protection association; Zachodniopomorskie Towarzystwo
Ornitologiczne (West Pomeranian Ornithological Association). Both are NGOs
involved in nature protection.
f) Local farmers
g) Local inhabitants
h) Academic institutions: Koszalin Technical University; Adam Mickiewicz University
in Poznań; University of Szczecin.
i) Drawa Landscape Reserve
j) Drawski Powiat Association for Socio-Economic Initiatives
k) Local self-governments (gmina)
l) County level of self-governments (powiat)
7
m) Regional governmental administrations and regional self-governments (urząd
marszałkowski and marszałek; urząd wojewódzki, wojewoda, Regionalny Zarząd
Gospodarki Wodnej, Wojewódzki Konserwator Przyrody)
n) Lasy Państwowe (National Forests – state agency managing the forests).
o) Media
2.4. Issues
The main conflict in the Drawa National Park concerns:
1) the style of nature conservation vs economic use of natural resources
2) the protection of the nature vs economic activity
The conflicts are briefly described below.
2.4.1. The conflict on the conservation (conservation vs economic use of natural resources)
In 1996 Nature Protection Plan Commission for the park was established. Several
management plans (on land ecosystems protection, water ecosystems protection etc.) were
ordered (with tendering procedure applied). Commission expressed doubts about the plans,
especially emphasising the lack of nature protection foundations in the management plan on
forest. In 1997 a grant from EkoFund allowed to prepare more reports on nature protection
issues. At the meetings of the council several critics were stated concerning the management
plans. Moreover the plans were not coherent. Finally in 1999, a tender for preparation of a
synthesis of the management plans was started. The synthesis was prepared and finally
approved by the Nature Protection Plan Commission. It also received a positive opinion from
academic institutions, and no objections from the local self-governments. In 2000
unexpectedly to naturalists, National Board of National Parks stopped the Plan and asked for
introduction of amendments. In the meantime a change of the nature protection law created a
new situation: a nature protection plan was to be a legal decision of a minister of environment.
It left more power to the National Board of National Parks. In 2001 a new Drawa National
Park Council was established. Lubuski Klub Przyrodników, an NGO strongly involved in
research and education in the park, was supported by seven NGOs as proposed representative
of NGOs in the council. However, former regional nature conservation director, representing
Polish Hunter’s Association and a former regional governor (at the time a member of Senate)
got the seats. After protests and media alert the minister published nature protection plans for
public consultation. The published documents were strongly criticised by nature
conservationists. Lubuski Klub Przyrodników undertook several actions (legal and informal)
8
claiming the conduct of the management of the Park as dangerous for the nature protection.
The Klub criticizes actions of the Ministry which gave fishermen access to all the lakes in the
Park, removing all deadwoods, cutting some forest areas, reduction of some hunting animals’
populations and other. The Klub was partially successful. In 2002 new members of the
council are chosen - from the Klub and other nature protection NGO: Zachodniopomorskie
Towarzystwo Ornitologiczne (Zachodniopomorskie Ornithological Association). In 2003 new
projects of ministerial nature protection plans were published for the consultation.
2.4.2. The conflict between nature conservation and economic activity
Not far from Chomętowo, there is a pig farm (for 30 000 pigs) which causes water pollution
(manure is used as a fertilizer which can cause eutrophication). This farm was legalised by the
Main Administrative Court, though the but the farm does not comply to EU environmental
standards. The company is Danish owned and was supported by the Danish governmental
investment agency. The farm does not comply to Danish environmental standards (although
till the Poland accession to EU polish standards were fulfilled). The farm is located in the
buffer zone of the park. The Park authorities, Drawno Municipality authorities, where the
piggery is located, and people living nearby try to force the owner to reduce emissions
(Kochut 2004).
Although the number of tourists visiting the park is not massive, tourism creates burden for
the environment. The main problem is that the tourism activity is concentrated in a small,
most attractive part of the park.
2.5. Unit of analysis
The research focuses on the conflicts. The conflict is understood as set of actions of actors
forcing their (opposing) interests.
2.5.1. Unclear property rights
The unclear allocation of the property rights is an important part of the conflict background.
This uncertainty is a more general problem however. Uncertainty related to property rights is
one of the major legacies of communism. It has several aspects:
a) Communist regime destroyed profoundly the property right both in a legal sense and
the awareness of the property rights. Common property promoted against private
9
property resulted with treating common property as “nobody’s”. From this point of
view, communism created environment for free-riderism in a large scale.
b) During the 2nd World War substantial amount of property rights documents was
destroyed;
c) Western part of Poland was inhabited after the II World War by people from regions
that became a part of Soviet Union. It caused a long lasting feeling of provisional
settlement.
The legacy is important especially considering the nature protection in the park, e.g. about
300 hectares within the park is an abandoned agricultural land. Generally, in the Drawa
National Park there are no conflicts on the ownership of land. Unclear and conflicting are the
usages of the resources (possibilities to enter with vehicles; collecting mashrooms; possibility
to hunt etc.)
The awareness of property rights is different in particular regions. In Tatra Mountains
National Park, in the conflict situation the mountaineers questioned the actions of the park
management by recalling rights and privileges given to their ancestors by Polish king in 16th
century. Such well-rooted property rights awareness are rather exceptional in Poland however.
Legal distribution of property rights in polish national parks are indicated in the Table 1.
10
Table 1. The ownership structure of the national parks in Poland
No National park
Area
State Treasury ownership Private
Other
Managed by Managed not ownership
park
by park
1. Babiogórski
3 392
3 255
15
27
95
2. Białowieski
10 502
10 502
0
0
0
3. Biebrzański
59 223
32 374
586
26 263
0
4. Bieszczadzki
29 202
29 057
100
0
45
5. "Bory Tucholskie"
4 798
4 797
0
0
1
6. Drawieński
11 342
11 107
188
47
0
7. Gorczański
7 030
6 512
21
416
81
8. Gór Stołowych
6 339
6 177
64
60
38
9. Kampinoski
38 544
32 081
432
5 770
261
10. Karkonoski
5 576
5 559
3
0
14
11. Magurski
19 439
19 363
76
0
0
12. Narwiański
7 350
1 642
415
5293
0
13. Ojcowski
2 146
1 330
27
706
83
14. ieniński
2 346
1 263
48
793
242
15. Poleski
9 762
8 324
43
1 305
90
16. Roztoczański
8 483
8 334
54
95
0
17. Słowiński
18 618
17 939
489
104
86
18. Świętokrzyski
7 626
7 462
29
125
10
19. Tatrzański
21 164
18 471
66
2 611
16
20. "Ujście Warty"
8 038
7 540
373
123
2
21. Wielkopolski
7 584
6 627
120
702
135
22. Wigierski
15 086
12 391
102
2 593
0
23. Woliński
10 937
10 851
66
0
20
Total [ha]
314 527
262 958
3 317
47 033
1 219
[%]
100
83,6
1,0
15,0
0,4
Source: National Board for National Parks.
11
2.5.2. Change of property rights
Establishment of a national park and new actions undertaken by a national park authorities
change the property rights allocation. Full compensation of external costs of such action is
hardly possible. As a result a conflict seems to be unavoidable since win-win decision is a
seldom exception.
2.5.3. Conflict potential
As a result of an action changing property rights allocation a potential conflict appears. Time
of the Park establishment was important factor. The Park was established in on the 1st of May
1990 after about 20 years of preparations. Although the Park was created after the collapse of
communist system (the first post-communist government had been established some months
before the establishment of the Park) almost the whole process was conducted under the
communist regime.
Generally speaking open conflicts concerning the nature conservation appeared in Poland
after 1990. The are several examples: in Białowieża National park local inhabitants violently
protested against the enlargement of the park. In Ujście Warty National Park there was a
conflict between the management and nature conservationists.
3. Presentation of the environmentally designated area
3.1. Ecological characteristic of the park
The motivation for establishing Drawa National Park was the need to protect principally
valuable tracts of Drawa and Płociczna rivers and mostly virgin woods surrounding them,
abounding in several rare or dying species of plants and animals. The waters of the Park are
particularly precious to nature and the landscape. They occupy 937 ha, that is 8,3% of the
Park area. Drawa, rising in the Połczyn Zdrój area, forms effective ravines and fractures along
substantial lengths, has a rapid midstream and thrives in several uncommon species of fish. It
is one of the most beautiful canoe routes in Poland. The second, eastern arm of the Park is
marked out by the river Płociczna, of character similar to that of the Drawa. Lakes situated in
the basin of the river Płoczina form an important element in the Park’s landscape. They are
characterised by very specific vegetation and ichtyofauna. The largest is lake Ostrowiec
(369,87 ha). Lakes in the area are at different trophic level: from calcioligotrophic (a
secondary oligotrophization casused by a surplus of calcuium ions), stoneworts lakes, through
12
eurotrophic pond-weedlakes to distrophic peatbog lakes. All the lakes in the area are
typologised by trophic level and of the water and unique fish species. All the waters in the
Park are classified in the first or second class of cleanliness.
A wide range of swamps is represented in the Drawa National Park: including lake-adjoining
marshes, moss communities on a chalk-bed, peatbog morasses. These peatbogs are the
habitat of the greatest floristic rarities of the Park – Chamaedaphne calyculata, Vaccinium
microcarpum, rich populations of Drosera anglica, and rare species of mosses and liverworts
(Kucharski, Pawlaczyk 1997).
The main tree species forming the forest along the rivers and lakes is the pine in pure stands
or mixed stands, mainly with beech. The most valuable forests are pure beech stands and
beech and oak grows growing on the most fertile soils. Some of beech and oak trees are over
tree hundred old (with a few even four hundred years old). These trees are under special
preservation. These specimens can be found in Dębina, Drawski Matecznik and Radęcin
reserves.
The world of vascular plants is characterized by 1005 species. Many of them, as for instance
above mentioned northern Chamaedaphne (the western most-stand, scare in Poland), smallleafed cranberry, black crowberry, twig rush, Turkfis cap lily, service tree, marsh sedge and
orchids sundew are registered in the “Red Book of Species under Threat and Becoming
Extinct”. Among vascular plants occurring in the Park 170 species are of a rare variety in the
Pomerania region, 32 species are subject to total protection, 11 species are subject to partial
protection, 64 under threat, and 7 become extinct.
Very rare and precious are also other species present in the Park such as the phylum
Bryophyta (about 200 species), including the glacial relicts, lichen (about 200 species), of
which 20 species are subject to total protection. Some of species such as covering Drawa and
Płociczna rivers with a red carpet Hildebrandtia rivualis are testimony species which
indicates water quality (Pawlaczyk, Łukaszewski 1997).
Fauna is represented here by a variety of such mammal as deer, wild boars, foxes, badgers and
wild dogs. A successful reintroduction of beaver enabled that species return to the waters of
the region.
Rich variety of birds nest in the forest is present, including such species as golden eagle,
osprey, eagle owl, golden-eye, merganser, wagtail, kingfisher, water ouzel and many other.
Good oxygen condition and clean water enable preservation of such fish as the wandering
bulltrout spawns in Drawa and Płociczna, mountain-stream trout, grayling, barbell, white-fin
millerfis-thumb, vimba and cyprinid. Actions for rebuilding the salmon population have been
13
undertaken since 1995. Lakes are populated by typical variety of fish like the pike, bream, eel,
roach and perch, but in some lakes, as for example Lake Ostrowiec are inhabited by very
precious species of lake trout, lavaret and the Polish whitefish.
An interesting species which unfortunately is becoming extinct very fast is marsh turtle. 13
species of amphibia, including the lowland toad, and 7 species of reptiles, including the marsh
turtle, spotted smooth snake and the zigzag viper.
3.2. A map of that area
Drawa National Park lies in the heart of the vast Drawa Forest, on the outwash Drawska Plain
in Pomerania Region in North-Western Poland. The area of the park reaches 89 square
kilometres. The Park territory is V shaped and spreads along Drawa and Płociczna Rivers. In
the Eastern part Płociczna River connects a few lakes, among other Ostrowieckie, Duże
Piaseczno, Płociczno, Jamno Gemel and Sitno Lakes. Drawsko, Zatom, Stare Osieczno and
Człopa are main tows located nearby the Park’s border.
Drawieński National Park is located on the area belonging to three voivodhips
(Wielkopolskie, Lubuskie, and Zachodnio-Pomorskie), seven poviats (Czarnków, Drawsko
Pomorskie, Szczecinek, Piła, Wałcz, Choszczno and Strzelce Krajeńskie) and six
municipalities (Bierzwno, Człopa, Drawno, Dobiegniew, Krzyż Wielkopolski and Tuczno).
The initial project of the Drawa National Park covered about 20 thousands hectars, but
eventually the park area spread only over 8,6 thousands ha. In 1996 some additional lands
were included to the Park, and its territory increased to 11 thousands ha. At the same time a
buffer zone of 35 thousands ha was created around the Park. The buffer zone extends between
Dominikowskie Lakes and Nowa Korytnica, Krępo, Tuczno, Martew, Załom, Szczuczarz,
Wołogoszcz, Radęcin, Wygoń and Drawno Towns (Kucharski, Pawlaczyk 1997).
Except the Drawa National Park, there is a Drawa Landscape reserve situated nearby. Their
territories do not overlap.
14
Map 1. The Drawa National Park
Source: Drawieński Park Narodowy, 2004
3.3. Restrictions placed on resources
The National Park functions according to organisational scheme, similarly to forestry
administration. The territory is divided into seven protected forest districts, for which
responsible are forest officers. A Park Guard, which is independent from the forest officers,
watches over obeying the law. The National Park Directorate in Drawno is in charge of doing
administration and financial work.
The rate of fines for violations against nature protection is high - 2,4 fine per 1000 tourists,
while average for all national Parks in Poland is 0,23 per 1000 tourists. It may indicate a high
quality of guard work. It is assessed that tourist activity in the park is well managed, tourists
are strictly counted, camping places are well organised (Zachrzewski 2004).
The Park authorities also run information points, rent tourist equipment and run a small
research laboratory. The director of the Park is responsible for the overall Park’s performance.
In the total the administration of the Park employs 53 people (the average for national parks in
Poland is 75,5 employed per park).
The general aim of nature protection in the Park, is sustaining the biodiversity of the
environment in this region. The methods to achieve this are designated every 20 years by
specialists in Park’s Protection Plan. In many cases, passive nature protection is sufficient,
e.g. let the nature to function without interfering in its natural processes. However, sometimes
there is a need for active nature protection. For instance planted forest requires to be replaced
15
by native mixed forests. Other areas, changed by human activity, as for instance area nearby
Stanica destroyed by fire in 1992 requires reforestation.
Intervention is also necessary to maintain habitat of some species attached to traditional
farming practises. For example rich flora present on grass lands in the river valleys dies out
without regular haymaking.
Some actions are also being undertaken in order to protect fauna. Artificial bird boxes must be
placed on trees with the purpose to replace previously inhabited by birds natural holes in old
trees cut by people. Following the extinction of salmon from the area, the Park’s authorities
(Kucharski, Pawlaczyk 1997) started reintroduction of this species.
Considering entering Drawa National Park by people, including local people as well as
tourists, camping outside some appointed places is forbidden, there is a ban on visiting some
territories (such as young trees plantations and animal sustain areas), not allowed to set fire
outside appointed places, to pollute the soil and water, to demolish bushes, trees, undergrowth
plants, ant’s nests, burrows, nests, to take eggs and nestlings from nests, to scare, catch or kill
animals, to unleash a dog and make a noise. It is also forbidden to enter the park roads by a
car, motor-bike and by a carriage of horses. Only a few roads can be accessed with the above
vehicles, but even there it is not allowed to park outside special places.
Additionally as in other forest in the Park it is prohibited to collect mushrooms, berry, nuts
and antlers of fallow deer. From early spring till June kayaking routs are closed in order to
protect nests of water birds. Tourists are asked to enter only appointed routs and to swim only
in appointed points. In summer foresters can totally close some areas or even the whole Park
when the forest becomes too dry and there is a danger of fire.
Considering the farming practises, there are no special restrictions imposed on farmers in the
buffer zone. Farmers have to stick to the same laws as in the whole country (e.g. cannot plant
genetically modified crops and use certain chemicals). However, the Park’s officials regularly
monitor contamination of waters within the Park and the buffer zone. In case the water quality
decreases, there is an effort to find the polluters and impose restrictions. One of the most
important current problems of the Park authorities is the pig farm located within the buffer
zone.
3.4. Examples of similar designations
Drawa National Park is the most valuable European outwash plain landscape. What makes the
Park more exceptional its surface sculpture is quite diversified: in the outwash there are
16
islands moraine hills, the plain is cut by a complicated net of glacial gullies, partly filled by
lakes. Post-glacial formations building the bedding of the Park are rich in calcium carbonate,
what is reflected in the geochemistry of the landscape of the Park and also in its flora, for
instance occurrence of rare calciphil plants. Generally, Drawa National Park is an example of
a park situated at biologically and geographically diverse Polish lowlands, forests, lakes,
rivers and wetlands that have remained in their natural shape. There are several parks of this
type:
1. Bialowieski NP (established 1947),
2. Biebrzanski NP (1993),
3. Borow Tucholskich (1996)
4. Kampinoski NP (1959)
5. Narwianski NP (1996)
6. Poleski NP (1990)
7. Ujscie Warty NP (2001)
8. Wielkopolski NP (1957)
9. Wigierski NP (1989)
Three of the Parks are of similar kind to Drawa National Park, namely Biebrzański National
Park located along Biebrza River in North-Eastern Poland, Bory Tucholskie National Park
located in Northern Poland (located to the West from Drawieński Park Narodowy) and
Narwiński National Park along Narew River, located likewise the Biebrza Park in NorthEastern Poland. Nevertheless, each of this Parks is exceptional and comprises unique
elements of landscape, flora, fauna and local culture.
3.6. Cooperative behaviour, conflict, and state intervention
3.6.1. The role of the central government and self-governments
All national parks in Poland are governed in accordance with bills passed by the Parliament
and decrees of the Ministry of the Environment. The Ministry for instance coordinates
protection plans for parks and designs annual decrees which contain protection task for all
national parks for which protection plans have been not yet established (Drawieński Park
Narodowy 2004).
The Park is financed almost entirely from the government’s budget. The central govenrment’s
expenditures for all National Parks in Poland are divided mainly according to number of
17
people employed by parks. Drawieński National Park employs 53 persons, what is below the
average for all parks in Poland (75,5 persons) and receives therefore fewer funds than other
parks on average. In 2004 the Park got 434,449 Euros from the central budget.
The Park can also apply every year for extra subsidies paid by The National Fund for the
Environment Protection and resources paid by the voivodship’s offices. So far the Park has
received several supports from the National Found and twice from the voivodship offices
(Kochut 2004).
The six municipalities, of which territory the Park is located, in total cover 1650 square
kilometres. The biggest is Człopa Municipality (348,4 square kilometres), and the smallest is
Krzyż Wielkopolski Municipality (175,5 square kilometres).
Within these municipalities live 32,974 of people. Krzyż Wielkopolski and Dobiegniew are
the most populated municipalities. Correspondingly 24% and 20% of the total number of
people live there.
To give indicative numbers on the municipalities budget: Człopa municipality’s budget for
2003 equals 1,8 ml euro, out of which 0,1 ml euro was spent on “communal infrastructure and
environment protection”.
18
Graph 1. Population of the Drawa National Park area.
Neighbourhood Municipalities by share in the total no.
of people within the area (GUS, 2004)
13%
14%
14%
24%
15%
20%
Bierzwik
Człopa
Drawno
Dobiegniew
Krzyż Wielkopolski
Tuczno
3.6.2. Tourism
The Park area is characterised by an intensive tourism. Yearly 9 thousands of tourists get
through the Park, what is about 0,8 person per hectare. In comparison with the average for
national parks in Poland (29 persons per ha) this is not much. However, the problem is that
the tourism in the Drawa Park is concentrated in the heart of the Park and in fact exploits only
a very few, the most attractive routs. Another problem is that the region around the Park is a
rather poor, characterised by a high unemployment, long distance to main cities (what
decreases alternative employment and education opportunities), not sufficient infrastructure,
and problems with agriculture development.
A challenge for the Park is to promote other, not only main routs in the Park, to encourage
local communities to create tourism infrastructure and to attract visitors, and also to
encourage local people to cultivate local traditions and habits, as well as protect characteristic
architecture of the region and other components of the unique local culture. That makes the
region more precious and complex, and also more attractive for tourists.
Managing the human impact on the nature involves application of policy tools restricting the
number of tourists entering the fragile area. Such restrictions bring conflicts. First of all, free
entrance to public space and very weak protection of private space against the entering is one
of the legacy of communism. Moreover, such instruments face opposition as additional costs
for tourists (Erdman et al. 2004).
19
3.6.3. Co-operation
The cases mentioned above show interests and tensions which are present in the Park and the
buffer zone. The Ministry of the Environment and other centralised authorities are not able to
follow all these concerns and pressures. More importantly, the institutions do not have
financial and institutional resources for detailed policies. Thus, much depends on local actors,
especially local self-governments, which can build a dialog and mediate between different
interests groups. Some examples show that these local communities which are characterised
by active and venturesome local governments are successful in finding a compromise between
different interests as well as finding a compromise between protection of the environment and
development of the communities. The example of the piggery located within the Drawno
Municipality shows that collective actions take place and the local society together with the
Park’s authorities and the local government organize themselves and act together in order to
achieve collective goals. Such actions are entirely bottom-up and there are not coordinated by
any central or regional authorities.
20
4. Visual presentation of the actors
Academic
Institutions
Nature
Protection
NGOs
Drawa Park
Council
Drawa Park
Administration
Drawa
Landscape
Reserve
Local
inhabitants,
local farmers
Self-governments
(gmina and
powiats)
Ministry of
Environment
National Board for
National Parks
Regional authorities
Drawa Powiat
Socio-Economic
Initiative
Association
21
5. Objectives of the case study
The study aims to verify the model of a collective action, which starts from initial interests
change provoking conflict. The conflict results in non-cooperative behaviour and finally,
through learning process, ends-up with co-operation. The model has descriptive character (not
formal) since the significance and precise influence of particular factors needs elaboration.
The structure of the model can be describe with following assumptions and statements:
1. It is assumed that the situation is possible to describe in a normative sense (cooperation brings Pareto optimal solution, while lack of co-operation increases
transaction costs and leads to sub-optimal outcomes). The optimal outcome of the
collective action is the preservation of the natural resources of the park. It is disputable
which level of conservation id the optimal one. Thus it is assumed that the optimum is
achieved through multilateral agreement. Lack of opposition is treated as the sign of
optimum agreement. Of course it is a simplified solution leaving aside common
ignorance, strategic behaviour, latent interests etc.
2. Stakeholders involved in the conflict have initially different interests and resources.
3. An action (in our case it is a preparation of the Nature Protection Plan for the Park)
involves change of the property rights and interests shift.
4. The change of the interests causes conflict.
5. The environment of the conflict is characterised by the following features:
a. Uncertainty of the property rights allocation
b. Hobbesian-like (not Millsian-like) type of the initial situation (Lubell and
Scholz 2001)
c. Low level of trust concerning transactions
d.
Formal regulation and informal regulations
6. Conflict causes non-cooperative behaviour.
a. Taking into account the assumptions and characteristics indicated above, it can
be hypothesised that from a point of view of a governmental administration (a
park administration is treated as a part of a governmental administration) it is a
rational strategy to avoid consultation and information sharing. Starting an
open discussion increases the chance for provoking protests (since the chance
of dissatisfaction of at least one actor is high), and the abilities (both skills and
institutional infrastructure) to solve the conflict is low. This hypothesis is valid
despite the park administration’s approach – to act “in defence of nature” or
22
seeking rent for itself. However, “hiding” strategy is more difficult under the
newly introduced law on public information which obliges public
administration officers to serve the information to the public.
b. The point of view of a nature protection NGOs is to protect the nature. Thus
the conflict may appear at the level of conservation definition. The interest of a
NGO is to sustain the nature as a object for research and educational activities,
intrinsic values etc. This hypothesis assumes that NGO does not behave in a
opportunistic way (i.e. does not protest with the intention of getting “protest
rent” – privatised compensation).
7. Evolution of co-operation can lead, through learning process, to co-operative
behaviour. Important intervening factors are:
a. Presence of leaders and facilitators
b. Informal and formal regulations, norms
c. Structure of the co-operation (number and frequency of iterations, number of
actors, type of resources at stake etc).
d. the initial variability of allocation of power and resources among stakeholders
(state administration having privileged position); co-operation game models
hardly include unequal distribution of resources.
In the described circumstances, the it is hypothesized that the behaviour of the selfgovernments (gmina and powiat) have the important role. Self-governments represents the
local community and play the major role in local development. They should thus support
economic development which means to define the balance between economic development
and nature protection. Basically any option can be chosen (in fact it can be observed that selfgovernments are biased to the economic development direction), but structurally local selfgovernments should play an role in the bargaining process.
The crucial role of the learning process can also be indicated. Actors are assumed:
a) to have initial knowledge on possible outcomes from the co-operation with other
actors (basically refraining from cooperation)
b) to observe other actors’ behaviour (also observing each other behaviour e.g. through
media).
As a result the role of informing (also manipulating the information understood as a part of a
strategic behaviour) in the learning process is important.
23
Generally, the research is focus on the identifying factors influencing co-operative or noncooperative behaviour of the stakeholders. The research questions are the following:
a) which actors are the important stakeholders
b) what are the stakeholders’ resources how, and how inequality of resources allocation
can influence the outcome the situation
c) what is the action changing the interests structure and property rights allocation
d) what is the role property rights in the conflict and the outcome
e) what is the level of trust among stakeholders and how this influences the structure of
the conflict and the outcome
f) who are the leaders and what is their role
g) what is the role of formal regulations in the conflict structure and the outcome
h) what is the role of informal regulations in the conflict structure and the outcome
i) what is the structure and the role of learning process concerning outcome.
24
6. Methodology considered
The aim of the study is basically descriptive (inference is possible, however, on the level of
comparing cases). A model of a conflict is to be elaborated.
The methodology is base on the case study style of research.
Data to be collected are basically qualitative, although some quantitative data will also be
collected.
Sources of data are both “objective” (documents) and subjective (opinions expressed in the
interviews).
Main sources of data are: a) statistical data; b) existing documents (statistical data;
administration records; c) in-depth interviews with the main actors and key-informants; d)
personal observation.
Units of observation are conflicts (understood in a behavioural way – as actions undertaken
by the stakeholders) provoked by a certain action.
Variables:
1. Inequality of resources possessed by stakeholders (high low)
2. Allocation of property rights (clear unclear)
3. Level of trust towards other stakeholders (high low)
4. Impacts of formal norms on the stakeholders’ actions conduct (high low)
5. Impact of informal norms on the stakeholders’ actions conduct (high low)
6. Impact of leaders on the stakeholders’ actions conduct (high low)
7. Presence of information channels (there are - there is no)
8. Number of iterations (exchange) between actions (high – low)
25
7. Expected results
The aim of the research is to explore the conflicts concerning nature conservation in national
parks. A model is to be elaborated mirroring main factors important for the initiation of
conflict its structure and the outcome.
The conflict is seen in the light of collective action approach. The role of learning process is
assumed important for the co-operation (vs non-cooperation).
After 1990 conflicts about the nature protection in polish national parks can be found. It is
assumed that such conflicts are “natural” (since they change long lasting property allocation
and interests) but outcomes of the conflict can be optimal or sub-optimal. The research aims
to recognise impact of various factors on the outcome. The model which is to be prepared can
be helpful in designing the institutional framework of the nature protection management in
national parks.
26
REFERENCES:
Drawieński Park Narodowy, 2004-11-05, official website of the Park, at:
http://www.dnp.pl;
Erdman M.V., Merrill P.R., Mongdong M., Arsyad I., Harahap Z., Pangalila R., Elverawati
R., Baworo P., 2004. Building effective co-management systems for decentralised protected
areas menagement in Indonesia: Bunken National Park Case Study, Jakarta: Natural
Resources Management Program.
GUS, 2004-11-20, Central Statistical Office of Poland, data available at: http://www.gus.pl;
Kochut, I., 2004. (employee in the headquarter of Drawieński Park Narodowy) Phone
Interview, 10th Deceber 2004;
Kucharski, B., Pawlaczyk, P, 1997, Drawieński Park Narodowy i okolice, Wydawnictwo
PTTK „Kraj”, Warszawa;
Klub Przyrodników (Naturalist Club), 2004-11-20, official website of the Naturalist Club, at:
http://www.lkp.org.pl;
Lubell M., Scholz J.T., 2001. Cooperation, reciprocity, and the collective-action heuristic,
American Journal of Political Science vol. 45, No. 1.
Pawlaczyk, P., Łukaszewski, D., 1997, Drawą przez Drawieński Park Narodowy,
Wydawnictwo PTTK Kraj, Warszawa;
Krzysztof Zacharzewski, 2004. Drawa County Socio-Economic Initiative Association leader,
Phone Interview 26th November 2004;
27
Appendix
Table 1. Comparison between Drawa National Park against the average for the country
Drawa National Park
Average for polish national
parks
Density of deers population
2,3 per 100 ha (according to
1,62 per 100 ha
administration), 2,5-4,8
according to research
Number of tourists per year
9 thousands (0,8 person per ha)
8,9 ml (it is 29 person per ha)
Tourists paths
88 km (0,8 path per km2 of park) 1,37 km of path per 1 km2
Fines for tourists for violations
2,4 fine per 1000 tourists
0,23 per 1000 tourists
Park’s employment
53 person
75,5 person per park
Percent of employee with higher
20,7%
25,8%
Number of cars
One per 3,3 of employee
5,6 per employee
Number of computers
One per 2,4 employees
One per 4 employees
Annual logging
14 200 m2
8 186 m2
Intensity of logging
149 m3 per 100 ha of forest
94 m3 per 100 ha of forest
against nature protection
education
(120 m3 in not protected
forests)
28