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
Co-operation and development
in an environmentally protected area
Drawieński National Park case study
Working paper
Piotr Matczak
Poznań, November 2005
1
Table of content
1.
Introduction and problem statement.............................................5
1.1. Conservation vs economic exploitation of natural resources in Park
management ....................................................................................................... 6
1.2. The conflict between nature conservation and economic activity .......... 7
2.
Objectives of the case study and case study hypotheses..............9
2.1.
2.2.
2.3.
3.
Developmental context of the study........................................................ 9
Nature conservation context of the study .............................................. 10
Research questions ................................................................................ 10
Unit of analysis - Presentation of the Region/Community ........12
3.1.
3.2.
3.3.
3.4.
3.5.
A brief history of the area...................................................................... 13
Establishment of the Park...................................................................... 13
Nature conservation significance of the Drawieński National Park ..... 13
A situation of the area............................................................................ 14
Property rights ....................................................................................... 15
3.5.1.
3.5.2.
3.6.
3.7.
3.8.
3.9.
4.
Unclear of property right.................................................................................. 15
Change of property rights................................................................................. 15
The role of Park administration............................................................. 16
The role of the central government and self-governments.................... 16
Tourism.................................................................................................. 17
Co-operation .......................................................................................... 18
Methodology and analytical framework ....................................19
4.1.
4.2.
Methodology.......................................................................................... 19
Analytical framework............................................................................ 20
4.2.1.
Common good – nature, park; public goods – nature protection, tourist
infrastructure .................................................................................................................... 20
4.2.2.
Institutions........................................................................................................ 20
4.2.3.
Governance structure........................................................................................ 21
4.2.4.
Trust ................................................................................................................. 21
4.2.5.
Communication ................................................................................................ 23
4.2.6.
Learning ........................................................................................................... 24
4.2.7.
Institutions inside organizations and between – model of analysis ................. 24
4.3.
Data collection....................................................................................... 24
5.
Visual presentation of the actors ................................................26
6.
Determinants, effects and processes of co-operation and social
capital formation ..................................................................................29
6.1.
The role of trust ..................................................................................... 29
6.1.1.
6.1.2.
6.1.3.
6.1.4.
6.1.5.
6.1.6.
6.1.7.
Level of trust .................................................................................................... 29
Interpersonal trust - within the groups ............................................................. 29
Structure of trust between actors ...................................................................... 30
Trust in formal institutions............................................................................... 32
Bridging – bonding trust .................................................................................. 33
Source of trust, knowledge based and position based trust.............................. 33
Level of participation in elections .................................................................... 34
2
6.1.8.
6.2.
Solving conflicts within the group ........................................................ 36
6.2.1.
6.2.2.
6.2.3.
6.3.
What kind of information is shared? ................................................................ 45
What is the most important information?......................................................... 46
Is the information on the private life influential?............................................. 46
Governance structure............................................................................. 46
6.8.1.
6.8.2.
6.8.3.
6.9.
Do members of the groups know each other well? .......................................... 43
What can be learnt from others? ...................................................................... 43
Is there the agreement to differ within group? ................................................. 43
Are there different opinion on the courses of action? ...................................... 44
Is there a chance to share ideas, to discuss?..................................................... 44
What are the issues that organizes the community?......................................... 44
Have people attitude changed comparing with the communist era? ................ 44
Learning concerning nature protection ............................................................ 44
Mental models .................................................................................................. 45
Sharing information............................................................................... 45
6.7.1.
6.7.2.
6.7.3.
6.8.
Communication barriers, information withhold............................................... 42
Is the language a barrier? ................................................................................. 43
Who is outside the communication network .................................................... 43
Collective learning and mental models ................................................. 43
6.6.1.
6.6.2.
6.6.3.
6.6.4.
6.6.5.
6.6.6.
6.6.7.
6.6.8.
6.6.9.
6.7.
Internal communication.................................................................................... 39
Communication between actors ....................................................................... 39
What modes of communication are used ......................................................... 40
Is communication intense? ............................................................................... 41
Is communication effective? ............................................................................ 41
Where are the key communicators? ................................................................. 41
What are the difficulties with communication? ............................................... 42
Contacts with similar organizations ................................................................. 42
What are the reasons for external communication ........................................... 42
What are the sources for new ideas .................................................................. 42
Barriers to communication .................................................................... 42
6.5.1.
6.5.2.
6.5.3.
6.6.
Source of motivation to act .............................................................................. 38
Is the involvement in a group satisfactory?...................................................... 39
Communication ..................................................................................... 39
6.4.1.
6.4.2.
6.4.3.
6.4.4.
6.4.5.
6.4.6.
6.4.7.
6.4.8.
6.4.9.
6.4.10.
6.5.
Style of dealing with conflicts.......................................................................... 37
Social background of conflict .......................................................................... 37
Formal or informal rules when dealing with conflicts ..................................... 38
Motivation and opportunism ................................................................. 38
6.3.1.
6.3.2.
6.4.
Trust: conclusions ............................................................................................ 35
How a collective action solution is made? ....................................................... 47
What is process and outcome of collective action?.......................................... 48
Potential co-operation ...................................................................................... 48
Non market transaction costs................................................................. 49
6.9.1.
6.9.2.
6.9.3.
6.9.4.
6.9.5.
6.10.
6.10.1.
What are costs of organizing the process of collective action?........................ 49
What are costs of achieving the outcome? ....................................................... 49
What are costs of entry..................................................................................... 50
What are alternative means for outcome.......................................................... 50
Co-operations as cost saving ............................................................................ 50
The role of the state and EU............................................................... 50
Legal framework of the situation ..................................................................... 50
3
6.10.2.
6.10.3.
6.10.4.
6.10.5.
6.10.6.
6.10.7.
6.11.
Communities, networks ..................................................................... 52
6.11.1.
6.11.2.
6.11.3.
6.11.4.
6.11.5.
6.11.6.
6.11.7.
6.12.
6.13.
7.1.
7.2.
7.3.
7.4.
7.5.
What are the groups organizations? ................................................................. 52
Is vertical or hierarchical mode of organization more common?..................... 52
Can cliques be found? ...................................................................................... 52
What are the social composition of the groups? .............................................. 52
How the members define the group?................................................................ 52
How active are social networks?...................................................................... 53
Are the members ready to contribute to community benefits? ........................ 53
Informal institutions........................................................................... 53
The role of market and competition................................................... 54
6.13.1.
6.13.2.
6.13.3.
6.13.4.
6.13.5.
6.13.6.
7.
Does the state intervene in the conflicts? ......................................................... 50
Does the state plays active role e.g. offers funds? ........................................... 51
Would be the actions possible in communist regime? ..................................... 51
Were there any bad experiences with the state in the past? ............................. 51
Have EU accession changed people behaviour? .............................................. 51
Are national institutions more promising than EU?......................................... 51
Is the market an environment of the groups? ................................................... 54
Are there new products in market? .................................................................. 57
Is there a competition? Are the products competitive? .................................... 57
Is the advertising necessary? ............................................................................ 57
What are the trends in the market?................................................................... 57
Can product displacement be observed? .......................................................... 57
Conclusions.................................................................................57
The development trap ............................................................................ 58
Chances for agrotourism........................................................................ 58
Institutions ............................................................................................. 59
The role of local inhabitants .................................................................. 59
Possibilities of co-operation .................................................................. 59
8.
Appendix 1: Interview guidelines ..............................................62
9.
Appendix 2: List of interviews...................................................68
10. Appendix 3: Statistical data........................................................69
4
1. Introduction and problem statement1
For many national parks the balance between nature protection and local development is a
problematic issue. To a certain extent there is a contradiction between developmental and
protective goals. Thus it is not the conflict itself, but the way to solve it what is of crucial
importance. In a particular context, actors have a variety of interests and opinions on the
development. Those views are often contradictory. Certain level of co-operation among the
actors is necessary to work out a balance between nature protection and development.
In Poland the year 1989 brought the change of economic and political system and as a result a
new framework for solving environmental conflicts appeared.
The heritage of the communist system is important when considering the space where conflict
solving takes place. The crucial feature of the communist system was the top down decision
making approach and direct execution of power. Setting a relation between nature protection
and development was a matter of the administrative decision without real participation of
stakeholders. Conflicts existed, but they hardly could reach the level of public discussion.
It is not only nature protection was organized this way, but the top down approach
characterized the whole political and economic system. As a result, from 1989 the process of
reaching the consensus between nature protection and economic development has been taking
place in a lack of institutional background. There were two basic institutional frameworks
possible to apply: a) newly established, formal, governmental regulations, and b) the norms of
conduct learnt from the previous era. The former included laws and regulations, passed by
parliament. The latter led to expectation of the solution given by “authority”. As a matter of
fact it has been a common situation where actors attributed the responsibility of conflict
solution in a sometimes “accidentally” chosen body (ombudsman, mayors etc.). The factual
area of competency had in many cases little to do with attributed competences (Drozdowski
and Pawłowska 1995). The structure of polish society leaving the communist era was
described as amorphous (Jałowiecki 1991). Social stratification system was dissolved and
social groups and strata were not able to articulate their interests. As a result social life was
structured on the micro- level, based on the family-friendship relationships and focused on
informal norms enforcement. Conflicts were hidden and misplaced, e.g. industrial conflict
was blurred by the opposition – post-communists division, by general reservation towards the
state, and by sustaining the “we – they” division. Information exchange served the identity
strengthening rather than discursive search for solutions. Differentiation of the opinion was
disintegrative for groups. Groups were the “solidarity building-like” not “task undertaking
like” and they lacked institutional infrastructure for achieving an operational agreement. The
lack of the institutional infrastructure was present on a higher, inter-group level, too. Blocking
roads by farmers not paid by their own co-operative in 1990 can be an example of the absence
of a forum to negotiate.
Problems stemming from lack of institutional infrastructure in co-operation building can be
find in the areas where local development has to be combined with nature protection. A case
taken for analysis of the co-operation in the nature protection context is the Drawieński
1
Chapter 3 of the paper are based on the background paper prepared by Piotr Matczak, Ilona
Banaszak, Viktoria Takacs. For this paper Maciej Markiewicz, Marcin Wojtkowiak, Ilona
Banaszak, Viktoria Takacs offered valuable comments. Marta Drela and Marcin Wojtkowiak
helped in editorial work.
5
National Park, one of 21 national parks in Poland. Situated in the north-west part of the
country, the area is in a very difficult economic situation. The main problem is 30% of
unemployment. The severity of the situation is connected with the fact that 15 years ago there
was full employment, then most of the employers’ business collapsed and - most importantly
– there is no real employment alternative – neither in the area nor in other part of the country).
The local development in the area is a matter of basic importance but is not progressing
without difficulties. There can be conflicts found influencing the development. The main
conflict in the Drawieński National Park concerns the style of nature conservation vs.
economic exploitation of natural resources in Park management, and the protection of the
nature vs. economic activity. The conflicts are briefly described below.
1.1. Conservation vs. economic exploitation of natural resources in Park
management
In 1996 Nature Protection Plan Commission for the Park was established. The Nature
Protection Plan, is a legally required document designing the long time nature protection
principles. In has to be done in all the national parks in Poland. 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 opened. 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 Drawieński National Park Council was
established. Lubuski Klub Przyrodników (Lubuski Naturalists Club2 - LNC), 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. LNC undertook several actions (legal and
informal) claiming the conduct of the management of the Park as dangerous for the nature
protection. The LNC 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 game
animals’ populations. LNC was partially successful. In 2002 new members of the council are
chosen - from LNC 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. Finally, the Plan is not
officially accepted and the Park operates on basis of annual plans.
2
The Lubuski Naturalists Club change its name in 2001 into Naturalists Club. The old name
is used in the paper.
6
1.2. The conflict between nature conservation and economic activity
Pig farm. Not far from Chomętowo (a village in the vicinity of the Park), there is a pig farm
(for 30 000 pigs) which causes water pollution (manure is used as a fertilizer which increases
eutrophication process). This farm was legalised by the Main Administrative Court, though
the farm does not comply to EU environmental standards (although former Polish standards
were fulfilled, till the Poland accession to EU). The company is Danish owned and was
supported by the Danish governmental investment agency. 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).
The Park. Although the number of tourists visiting the Park is not massive, tourism creates a
burden for the environment. The main problem is that the tourism activity is concentrated in a
small, most attractive part of the Park.
The conflicts described above, have to be overcome if the local development is to be
significantly strengthened. In some cases national parks worldwide, the establishment of the
Park was destructive for the local inhabitants (indigenous people). The tension appears there
between the interests of local, fragile cultures and the changes, e.g. tourism brought by the
Park development. In the case, the Park establishment can be – contrary - treated as a chance
for a development. It disturbs local communities because they rely on use of the forest (etc.)
resources. The dependence however was because of the lack of other options (a kind of the
low level Nash equilibrium).
The issue of co-operation is the main interest of the study. Lack of the institutional
infrastructure is hypothesized as a main obstacle for the co-operation. The difficult situation
of the area produces a pressure for the development solutions. Thus, the way the system
operates is under the scrutiny. The co-operation is weak but anyway exists. How it evolves,
what are factors strengthening (and weakening) it is explored.
The area around the national Park is the unit of analysis treated as a place where processes of
co-operation, communication, exchange, competition, etc. occur. Social capital, norms and
values, institutions shape the processes. Development of the area is a reference point for the
processes. The study is focused on trust, institutions, and communication in the area. They are
not treated as characteristics of the unit however. The intension is to explore the dynamics of
them: how they influence the course of actors actions. Thus emphasis is put on evolutionary
aspect.
Trust
Institutions
Development
Co-operation
7
Fig. 1. Relations between main factors used in the analysis of the local development
The problem undertaken in the paper is related to some discussed topics. The main are the
following: the role of trust in the co-operation; the role of social capital in the development;
the role of institutions for the co-operation. Also the sustainable development notion is related
to the case.
The trust is treated as an important feature of groups and individuals influencing the cooperation. For some authors it is a component of the social capital while for others it has
fundamental significance. Putnam’s works can be an example of the former approach while
Fukuyama uses the notion of trust as a fundamental explanatory variable for macro level
analysis. In the Central and Eastern European Countries context Rose and Mishler’s research
program treat trust as important for legitimacy and political system stability in the transition.
Low level of trust in formal institutions and trust located in the informal personal relations
creates certain peculiarity of the countries.3 The role of trust is noticed also in the context of
game theory, where it is a factor influencing efficiency of optimization strategies.
Concerning the role of social capital in the development - since Putnam work it is a topic of
intense discussion. The link between the social capital and development is widely accepted.4
The Putnam’s work is dealing with the relation in the long run and on macro level. The
application of the Putnam’s approach to development processes of shorter time horizon and
narrower space is disputable. Coleman’s (1988, 1990) approach seems to offer better tools in
this case.
D. North put emphasis on the role of institutions for the economic and social development. He
explores the role of established institutional framework for the economic development,
mainly on the macro level. E.Ostrom deals with institutions in micro context. According to
the scholars of new institutional economics, the type of commodities, time horizon, intensity
of exchanges etc. require specific institutional arrangements. Proper institutions help to
achieve efficiency. The role of both formal and informal institutions is emphasized.
The discussion on the sustainable development is especially relevant to the areas close to
national Park. The idea aims at integrating both developmental and environmental concerns.
In the context of sustainable development of local communities Bridger and Luloff (1999)
differentiate five dimensions of the concept:
a) increase local economic diversity
b) building of self reliance (as development of local market etc.)
c) reduction of energy use
d) protection of biological diversity
e) social justice.
The authors suggest that the way of achieving the dimensions is not clear. Also proportions of
the dimensions are probably different in particular cases. Moreover the ability of a community
to pursue sustainability is restricted in a modern world.
3
Not the feature itself is peculiar but the fact that it is a result of a learning process. Societies
under the communist regime developed it as a measure to survive.
4
Although about the direction of the influence there is a discussion.
8
2. Objectives of the case study and case study hypotheses
The central problem of the paper is the problem of development – how a community can find
a momentum for prosperity building. The case is specific for it concerns: a) situated in a postcommunist country (important is the change of institutional framework); b) the study area is
remote (without industry; far from economic centers); c) nature is a capital for the
community.
The development based on the use of tourism leads to the contradiction between nature
protection and economic development. The conflict can undermine the course of the
development.
The institutions are the measures of dealing with conflicts since they can help to co-operate
and to decrease the transaction costs. The aim of the study is to:
a) describe the institutions used (are they formal or informal, how they were introduced –
path dependence),
b) describe how they are used (who is building the institutions, who uses and misuses
them, who monitors them, why it is profitable to follow the rule),
c) assess whether the institutions are efficient (reducing the transaction costs).
In the paper, the role of co-operation is of main interest as it is recognized important factor for
development. Trust and social capital, and both formal and informal institutions are treated as
the main factors influencing co-operation. Also communication and learning, transactions
costs and governance structure, the role of state, and the role of social networks are described.
Institutions are treated from a dynamic perspective – their origins and evolution are described.
The institutions are recognized as a crucial factor of the collective action, in the sense of sets
of co-operative and non-co-operative strategies. The role of learning process is assumed
important for the co-operation (vs. non-co-operation).
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.
2.1. Developmental context of the study
Taking into account the economic circumstances, the prospects of the area surrounding the
Drawieński National Park are fuzzy. The unemployment rate is high – 23%, which is higher
than average for the country. The economic crises connected with the change of economic
system, at the beginning of 1990’s, 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 is a higher
chance for helping industrialized regions (like for instance Silesia) than for rural and “remote”
areas.
9
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 of the study
Drawieński National 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 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 a high abundance of deer 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 sector 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. According to them, the
level of logging is over the safety level. Even the remaining patches 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.
The quality of the nature in the Drawieński 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.
Taking into account both developmental and conservation context the certain strategy is
necessary for development set up. The reference point is a development which can be
simplified into increasing the employment possibilities for the area. High level of
unemployment is a antidevelopment factor itself (for the unemployed illegal use of natural
resources can be an important survival option, also rate of crime is higher which undermines
the tourist industry). Several potential options of development can be sketched for the area.
Any of them if to be feasible have to integrate development with nature protection. Moreover,
a development requires an integrated approach involving all stakeholders and actors. Freeriderism can be destructive for plan.
2.3. Research questions
The study aims to describe collective action which is necessary for the development of this
region. Particular case of preparing the nature protection plan starts from initial interests
change provoking conflict. The conflict results in non-co-operative behaviour, and finally,
through learning process, can end up with co-operation. The study has descriptive character
since the significance and precise influence of particular factors is difficult to measure.
The structure of the model of collective action can be describe with following assumptions:
a) 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 saving the natural resources of the Park. It is disputable what is the
optimal level of conservation. 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.
10
b) Stakeholders involved in the conflict have initially different interests and resources.
c) 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.
d) Conflicts are connected with free-riderism.
The environment of the collective action 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) Presence of both formal and informal regulations
Generally, the research is focused on the identifying factors influencing co-operative or nonco-operative behaviour of the stakeholders. The research questions are the following:
a) which actors are the important stakeholders
b) what are the stakeholders’ resources, and how inequality of resources allocation can
influence the outcome the situation
c) what are the actions with development potential (innovations), how do they change 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.
Taking into account the assumptions and characteristics indicated above, in the special case of
preparing the nature protection plan, it can be assumed 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. 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.
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
an object for research and educational activities, intrinsic values etc. This hypothesis assumes
that NGO does not behave in an opportunistic way (i.e. does not protest with the intention of
getting “protest rent” – privatised compensation). NGO is involved in the nature protection
and - consequently - the prosperity of tourist sector is basically out of its scope.
Evolution of co-operation can lead, through learning process, to co-operative behaviour. The
following factors can be treated as important for the outcome:
11
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).
In the described circumstances, it is hypothesized that the behaviour of the self-governments
(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 a role in the mediating 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 co-operation)
b) to observe other actors’ behaviour (also observing each other behaviour e.g. through
media).
Based on the assumptions presented above, the following hypothesis are formed for the study:
1. Low level of trust and embeddedness of trust in personal relations create obstacle to cooperation for the development. Consequently, without establishing higher level of trust
the co-operation leading to development is blocked.
2. Taking into account the initial conditions and the rational strategies of the main actors –
the co-operation for the development, meant as win-win strategy seems not probable.
Co-operation can appear however as a result of a learning process resulting in
establishing institutions enhancing co-operation.
3. Without proper information leading to innovation and changes of mental models the cooperation is impossible.
4. Without the change of governance structure (adjusting it according to type of transaction
costs) the co-operation is blocked.
5. Without active role of state (or other bodies “above” the level of community) the cooperation is impossible.
6. Without a shift from the personal networks to the more formal ones the co-operation is
impossible.
7. Without market incentives the co-operation is impossible.
3. Unit of analysis - Presentation of the Region/Community
The unit of the analysis is the set of actions (and non-actions) undertaken by the actors
relevant for the development of the area around Drawieński National Park. The actors are: the
Park administration, self-governments; farmers, inhabitants; NGOs, tourist sector, the Park
Council, the Ministry of Environment, National Board for National Parks. Actions undertaken
are following the existing institutions and mutual reactions of actors.
12
Drawieński National Park, the area investigated, is situated in West North part of Poland, at
the border of three administrative regions (voivodships): 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.
3.1. 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 nature. In 17th century
wars caused depopulation of the area. In the 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 border changes after 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 the 20th century the 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.
3.2. Establishment of the Park
Some parts of the Park were preserved already in 1930th. After the 2nd World War the
reserves network was sustained. At the end of 1960s areas along the Drawa River appeared as
a subject of discussion of botanists from Szczecin, lead 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.
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. Supporters of the Park
establishment were mainly from academically rooted environmentalists. There were several
physiological research projects conducted in the area, documenting the value of the nature.
The research raised attention of the issue. Local authorities supported the idea, since it bought
a chance for appreciation of the area. The was little public consultation. A few open meetings
were organized in the course of park establishment, but the attendance was limited. In 1988 a
few most precious sites were recognised as temporary nature reserves. Finally, the National
Park was established in 1990. Establishment procedure can be treated as a relatively fast,
compared to other national parks in Poland. Some of the early supporters were further (and
still they are) involved in the Park Council.
3.3. Nature conservation significance of the Drawieński National Park
The National Park was created on the 1st of May 1990 as 16th of Polish national parks.5 It is
fulfilling the requirements of IUCN II category. Most of the area (79%) is a woodland, 10% is
covered by water, 5% by abandoned fields and meadows, and 6% by others.
The Drawieński 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. In Drawieński 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
5
In 2005 there are 23 national Parks in Poland.
13
of annual flux, winding river-bed. Most forests of the Drawieński National Park became
effected by forestry activities, during the XIX-th and XX-th century. But some natural
fragments remained of the natural acidophil lowland beech-, and oak-beach woods,
oligotrophic, naturally renewing pine stands, stream-adjoining alder woods.
Currently the Drawieński National Park is one of the 23 National Parks in Poland, a part of
the EcoNet-Polska, included to the European centers of protected areas: NATURA 2000. It
has high nature values and as such, it is essential to protect it for preserving the overall
biodiversity of the country.
Drawieński National Park is one of the most valuable European outwash plain landscapes.
What makes the Park more exceptional its surface sculpture is quite diversified: in the
outwash there are 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 calcidophil plants. Generally, Drawieński 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 in Poland.
Three of the Parks are of similar kind to Drawieński 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 North-Eastern Poland. Nevertheless, each of this Parks is exceptional and comprises
unique elements of landscape, flora, fauna and local culture.
3.4. A situation of the area
Drawieński 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 voivodships
(Wielkopolskie, Lubuskie, and Zachodnio-Pomorskie), four poviats (counties –
Czarnkowsko-trzcianiecki; Wałecki; Drawski, Choszczenski) and six municipalities
(Bierzwno, Człopa, Drawno, Dobiegniew, Krzyż Wielkopolski and Tuczno). There is a
military area in the vicinity of the Park, upstream of the Drawa river.
The initial project of the Drawieński National Park covered about 20 thousand hectares, 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 Drawieński National Park, there is a Drawa Landscape Reserve situated nearby.
Their territories do not overlap.
Investments in the area mainly focused of the infrastructure (sewage, gas pipelines, building
renovation, roads). Some of the investments are aimed to tourism
14
3.5. Property rights
Property rights’ allocation are institutions of widely recognized significance in terms of
common goods maintaining. Long standing tradition of common property use help to protect
and improve the resources (Bruns and Bruns 2004). The establishment of such collective
action devices is a spontaneous process. The lack of evolutionary emerged institutions posses
a serious problem of dealing with the common property.
3.5.1. Unclear of property right
In the area the unclear allocation of the property rights is an important part of the conflicts
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 (mental models) of the property rights. Common property promoted against private
property resulted with treating common property as “nobody’s”. From this point of view, the
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 2nd 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 Drawieński
National Park there are no conflicts on the ownership of land. Unclear and conflicting are the
usage of natural resources (possibilities to enter with vehicles; collecting mushrooms;
possibility to hunt etc.).
The awareness of property rights is different in particular regions of the country. 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 (Komorowska 2000). Such well-rooted property rights awareness are rather
exceptional in Poland however.
3.5.2. Change of property rights
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.
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.
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 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.
15
3.6. The role of Park administration
The National Park functions similarly to forestry administration as far as organisational
scheme concerns. The Park’s territory is divided into seven protected districts, for which
officers are responsible. A Park Guard, which is independent from the forest officers, watches
over obeying the regulations. The National Park Directorate in Drawno is in charge of
performing administration and accountancy obligations.
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. 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 monocultural forest requires to be
replaced by native-like mixed forest stands. 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 grasslands in the river valleys dies out
without regular hay cutting. 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 started reintroduction of this species (Kucharski, Pawlaczyk
1997).
3.7. 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 mainly from the government’s budget. The central government’s
expenditures for all National Parks in Poland are divided mainly according to number of
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 less 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
16
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”.
Self-governments are run by elected mayors and elected councils. They are a structure of the
state independent of central government. Areas of competencies cover the issues important
for the local community: education, social policy, environmental issues, technical
infrastructure etc.
Fig.2. Population of the Drawieński National Park area.
Neighbourhood Municipalities by share in the total
no. of people within the area (GUS, 2004)
Bierzwik
13%
14%
14%
Człopa
Drawno
24%
Dobiegniew
15%
20%
Krzyż Wielkopolski
Tuczno
3.8. Tourism
The Park area is characterised by relatively intensive tourism. Yearly more than 10 thousands
of tourists get through the Park, what is about 1,0 person per hectare. In comparison with the
average for national parks in Poland (30 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 poor 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, 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. This would make
the region more precious and 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).
17
3.9. Co-operation
The conflicts presented above show interests and tensions which are present in the Park and
the buffer zone. The Ministry of the Environment and other central 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
interest 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 pig farm 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 initiatives and there are not
coordinated by any central or regional authorities.
Fig 3. Number of visitors in three national parks – of similar characteristics (in thousands of
tourists per 100 ha).
vistors in national parks - per 100 hectars
0,25
0,22
0,20
Biebrzański
N
0,15
0,10
0,11
0,09
0,07
0,05
0,07
0,05
Drawieński
0,11
0,08
0,06
Narwiański
0,00
2001
2002
2003
year
18
4. Methodology and analytical framework
4.1. Methodology
The study is a part of a wider project focused on the role of co-operation in strengthening
integrated development in Central and Eastern Europe. Co-operation is understood as product
of a process in which social capital, trust, and institutions are involved. The role of institutions
is especially important since institutions shape the co-operation. In this respect
communication structures, governance are networks are considered to be important. Mental
models as forces driving certain behavioural patterns are included into the model as well.
The approach is dynamic, searching for the abilities of social and institutional systems to
adopt for a change. Thus innovations - their production and implementation is of the main
interest. There are three main settings where co-operation can appear and plays different role:
a) market; b) in and between communities; c) environmentally protected areas. The paper
deals with the third setting. And the governance is a reference point. As a principle, when
local development is connected with nature protection, co-operation is necessary for a
successful adoption of innovations.
Lehtonen (2004) suggests that analysing the environmental – social interface requires
contextual framework instead of rigid model. Following this idea, the aim of the study is
basically descriptive (inference is possible, however, on the level of comparing cases). The
methodology is based on the case study style of research and attention is put on the processes
which lead towards co-operation , or non-co-operative behaviour.
The actors identified as important for the set up of innovation and implementation are: the
Park administration, self-governments; farmers, inhabitants; NGOs, tourist sector, the Park
Council, the Ministry of Environment, National Board for National Parks. In most cases they
were involved in the preparation of the nature protection plan. Other actors were taken based
on the information received at the interviews.
In most of the cases several representatives of an actor were interviewed. The exception was
the environmental NGO, where the leader was the only one to be interviewed. It was caused
by difficulties to arrange meetings. However, the interviewed leader was the main figure
opposing the park administration in the process of Nature Protection Plan preparation. The
interviewed persons were identified through official records; internet search, personal
contacts.
Data collected are mostly qualitative. Sources of data are both “objective” (documents) and
subjective (opinions expressed in the interviews).
Sources of data are following: a) statistical data; b) existing documents (administration
records and documents; articles and news in newspapers); c) in-depth interviews with the
representatives of main actors and key-informants; d) personal observation.
The variety of data sources and interviewing several person in case of an actor allowed for the
data triangulation.
19
4.2. Analytical framework
4.2.1. Common good – nature, park; public goods – nature protection, tourist
infrastructure
The park can be treated as a resource for the communities – since it generates income from
tourism. To sustain the quality of environment, a prerequisite for tourist, involves overcoming
the collective action problem. The ways of overusing the resources are the following:
a) via tourist sector (e.g. overcrowding the park);
b) park administration (e.g. allow logging);
c) local inhabitants (e.g. use of timber, mushrooming etc.)
d) self-governments (e.g. allowing for housing in the vicinity of park)
In the cases above the nature is treated as a common good (main problem is overuse and the
measures to restrict it). The typical free-rider strategy is to use a good and move the necessary
effort to sustain the quality of the good to other – as an external cost. From this point of view,
conflict is connected with parallel attempts of the actors to move the burden of the external
costs to others.
There is also problem with nature resources as – indirectly - public good. The park is a
potential good to sell in order to improve the local economy. It is through organizing the
infrastructure for tourism. Horse riding tours infrastructure, bike lanes, tourist path can
increase attractiveness of the whole area and produce added value. It presumes however, cooperation between self-governments, park administration, and tourist sector. The problem is
connected with the necessity to co-operate in order to produce the good, which is available
free if once produced. Free-rider strategy seeks for avoiding the contribution and to use the
good for free.
From this point of view conflicts can be defined in terms of avoiding costs of public good
production.
When a co-operation is reasonable for actors? It is in a situation where splitting reduces the
income of participants or when staying alone means, for the potential participants, loosing the
income.
Introducing norms can force individuals to stay co-operating, since violating norms brings
additional costs. In this case, the two conditions mentioned by Coleman (1990) have to be
fulfilled: a) there is an external costs upon the group of individuals, without a market which
could help to negotiate the price of compensation; b) there is a second level enforcement
encouraging rationally individuals to sanction the norm.
Policing the functioning of the norms can be treated as a transaction cost. In such expanded
sense, transaction costs can be informal and formal: starting from rising the eyebrow, to
money spending on the police.
4.2.2. Institutions
After North, institutions are understood in the paper as the rules of the game (as different
from organizations) and treated equally with norms (especially in J. Coleman’s usage of the
term), since norms are in the sense the prescriptions for actions.
For the analysis of the case two levels of institutions can be differentiated, loosely invoking
J.Coleman’s idea of first and second order public good (Coleman 1990). First level of
institutions is the behavioural one. It encompasses the rules of behaviour connected with the
20
everyday activities of actors. The norm forcing tourists to segregate waste in a camp can be an
example of an institution of the first level.
Second level is a “constitutional” one. It means institutions which are designed for defining
the rules of producing agreements (outcomes). They are the devices to produce conflicts
resolution, without predefined assumption about the features of the solution. Second level is a
formal one. How to decide on giving building permissions in the buffer zone of the national
park is a matter of the agreement. The arrangement how to reach the agreement is the on the
second level of the institutional arrangement. Norms on both the first and the second level can
be formal and/or informal.
The main issue of development can be framed into social dilemma terms, since co-operation
is conditional but brings optimality. As Ostrom (2000) emphasizes, individuals are able to
find innovative measures to solve the social dilemmas. In the paper institutions are examined
as measures to solve social dilemmas.
4.2.3. Governance structure
Governance is understood as a mode of governing where multiple agencies, coalitions,
networks are playing certain role in administration. Multiplicity of actors form a influence and
exchange system.
Williamson (1979) points out three characteristics of the transactions - important for the
governance structure efficiently assessment. These are: a) uncertainty, b) frequency of the
transactions and c) level to which a transaction is idiosyncratic (ad hoc, non standardized,
concerning specialized assets). Williamson distinguishes three types of governance structures
based on: non-specific; semi-specific; and highly specific transactions.
In the case analyzed all three types can be observed. The tourist market is close to nonspecific governance (although some specialized tourist products can be semi specific). The
park and self-governments work in a highly specific regime (they deliver certain services to
locally specific receivers, in a monopolistic mode).
Kayaking tours can be treated as an example of the semi-specific mode. The regulations and
attempts to restrict the access to the market move the governance structure towards semispecific one. It is a dynamic process however.
The very issue of development can be treated as ruled by the highly specific governance. To
strengthen development is a deal of high uncertainty; low frequency; and idiosyncratic. In
fact, vertical integration is a solution, but it is not possible because of differentiation of actors.
Nevertheless, the co-operation can be treated as a kind of it.
The co-operation is difficult because of incentive for free riderism among actors. It took a
form of an open conflicts: the environmental NGO against the park administration
(concerning the form of the nature protection plan); some of the tourist companies against the
park administration (concerning access to the park resources). Certain reluctance to cooperation from the self-government side adds to non-co-operation. The park administration
seems to have the power of refrain from co-operation without a serious loss.
The conflict concerning the Nature Protection Plan appeared within the legal framework, as to
prepare the document is obligatory.
4.2.4. Trust
Trust is understood as a element facilitating collective action and introducing innovations. In
the context a low level of trust makes it necessary to introduce formal rules, thus –
21
consequently - more important role of a state (and higher transaction costs, of course). Trust is
an equivalent of a state. It is not so in a case of high level of trust societies, where trust can
reduce the role of state.
Again the problem is of a move from low a level of trust to high level of trust. Such a change
involves certain institutional innovation. Lin (1989) differentiates two types of institutional
change: a) spontaneously induced and b) enforced (top–down). At the level of individuals,
when the trust system exist in a group, then individuals can engage in productive exchanges.
Trust makes easier initial co-operation. Trust as a crucial element of social capital, can be
beneficial for environment through the management of common property resources.
Yamagishi (cited in Ostrom 2000) found that individuals ranking trust higher are more willing
to contribute to collective good, although those with lower level of trust are willing to
contribute to sanctioning system. It suggests that low level of trust is not inescapable.
Low level of trust, which is generally noted in post-communist countries (Rose-Ackerman
2001; Chloupkova et al. 2003; Mishler and Rose) is treated in the paper as Nash equilibrium.
The social and economic life works, basing on the amount of trust which is available.
The trust is treated an important feature of the social relation, influencing the co-operation.
Basic assumptions are:
a) It is assumed that the higher level of trust the easier is co-operation. However, low level of
trust combined with the direct command regime can also lead to co-operation, as in a case of
authoritarian regime. Co-ordination is enforced in such systems. Moreover, as in the cases of
Poland (also in other CEE countries) low level of trust in the formal, public space (as in the
relations to state institutions) is combined with a shift of trust, which is channelled into
personal, face to face relations. The move from low level to high level of trust is difficult as it
involves loss of coordination efficiency in the transition period. The simplified model of the
relation between co-operation and trust/coercion is presented in Fig. 4.
Figure 4. Simplified, dynamic relation between trust and co-operation
co-operation
trust / coercion
b) Trust can stem from formal and informal institutions. Lack of trust in former sphere can be,
to a certain extent, compensated by the trust located in the latter.
c) Low level of trust involves higher transactions costs. Thus increasing trust is efficient,
providing that the cost of increasing trust is lower than savings brought by the lower
transaction costs.
Exact impact of trust on the social relations not as simple as depicted in the assumptions
above, since it is entangled with economic, social, and cultural context.
22
Below, the following issues are explored:
a) level of trust in different groups and between them
b) structure of trust between groups
c) trust in formal and informal institutions
d) bridging – bonding trust
e) sources of trust (knowledge, position)
f) temporal changes of the level of trust
Trust based on the knowledge or position assumes that even if an action seems to be strange
or not understandable, an actor accepts it assuming that a responsible body or person act
according to the rules. It is of course a very idealistic point of view, it never happens fully in a
real world. However, the problem is the scale of trust, in a group where there is a
overwhelming suspicious feeling abut the decision makers as acting according to their
interests (and not according to the rules), the governance is very expensive.
Also, the role of trust in successful co-operation is explored, and the hypothesis tested stating
that that where trust in formal institutions is low, high transaction costs are experienced in
dealing with the State. As a result actors rely on informal institutions to solve their problems
of collective action.
Another issue is the relation between trust and conflicts. In a simplified form it is presented in
the Fig. below. In the absence of trust the most important is the potential move from “war” to
“negotiable conflict” – as indicated by array in the Fig. 5.
Lack of conflict
conflict
Figure 5. Relations between trust and conflict.
Trust
Lack of trust
Negotiable
conflict
„warfare”
Smooth operating
Egoistic, peaceful
independence
4.2.5. Communication
As theoretical considerations and studies show, communication helps to solve social
dilemmas (Ostrom 2000). In the post communist countries, information asymmetry is
especially important (Theesfeld 2003). Access to information is connected with power
structure. More importantly, information can be a valuable resource, and the way the scarcity
of information is produced is an important factor influencing co-operation.
23
4.2.6. Learning
Learning within the NIE (in North’s version) is a concept taken at the level of individuals and
organizations. Mental models are used to process information. Through learning individuals
and organizations gain the abilities to operate in the uncertain world. At the same time it is the
learning that brings the innovations and economic change and finally differences in economic
performance.
Saxena (2005) treats a region as an entity, where learning process occurs. It is an ability to
take advantage of an innovation in order to pursue local economic development.
The concept of learning is especially important for tourism analysis, since it is knowledge
driven activity (Saxena 2005).
4.2.7. Institutions inside organizations and between – model of analysis
The region is treated as a unit of analysis. Basic characteristics of the region are: economic,
and social background. The sustainable development6 of the region is a reference point.
Sustainability is meant here as an achievement of collective action. Development of the
region involves certain balance between economic development and nature protection. This
human-environmental interface is of key interest here. Collective action involves difficulties.
The role of institutions is emphasized as crucial for overcoming the problems with the
collective action. Trust, communication, learning, mental models, social networks, the
functioning of market are the concepts employed to model the collective action (and more
generally – governance structure). They depict features of both actors and relations.
Basic elements of the unit of research are actors: they are corporate actors. The most
important are relations between them but also internal structure of the actors are described.
Thus, certain issues are found on two levels: within actors and on the region level.
The approach of the study is the normative one. The existing governance structure is assessed
against the proposed efficiency measures. It is based on the theoretical prediction of social
dilemmas concept.
4.3. Data collection
Data were collected from March 2005 to August 2005. Thirty in-depth interviews were done,
by five interviewers. All interviews except three (refused)7 were recorded. Most of the
interviews were done in the area.8 Interviewers prepared reports on the interviews, containing
the contexts of the interviews, the reliability of the interviewees, additional information on the
area.
The reports based on personal observation were also prepared. The interviewed were in most
of the case ready to answer. Also 27 questionnaires were collected. In two cases there were
refusals and in once case the data was lost due to technical reasons.
There were seven actors (categories) and in most of them several persons were interviewed.
As a principle, information about an actor was based on several interviewed informers. First
category is the tourist sector (10 interviews): 3 owners of firms organizing the kayak tours; 5
owners agro-tourist farms or other accommodation facilities; renter of the camping site, the
director of the castle in Tuczno. Second category is the park management – 3 interviewed.
Third category is the Park Supervisory Board: three members – from academic intuitions
were interviewed. Fourth category consists of self-governments. Six person were interviewed:
6
In a weak sense.
The lacking three had a form of notes.
8
Except the interviews with the Park’s Supervisory Board, which were done in Poznań.
7
24
4 administration officers, a mayor, and a employee of the tourist information point. Fifth
group is the environmental NGO sector: it is represented by the leader of the Lubuski
naturalists Club. Sixth category is the non-environmental NGO sector. Three representatives
were interviewed (Association of Unemployed; Association of Economic Initiatives;
Drawieńskie Agrotourist Association). Seventh actor is the local farmers – two farmers were
interviewed.
Independently and informally one person was interviewed – a forester.
Web pages were also treated as a data source. Leaflets, brochures and similar materials were
collected. Reports material published by the self-governments (on tourism, investments etc.)
as well as statistical data were collected and use to confront the oral information.
The data from the interviews were analysed with QSR software (program designed for
qualitative data analysis).
25
5. Visual presentation of the actors
Stakeholders, which could be identified in the area, 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 Naturalists’ Club, a nature protection NGO, focused on education and
research. Strongly involved in the nature protection in the Park, where it has a
educational station. Salamandra - a nature protection association and
Zachodniopomorskie Towarzystwo Ornitologiczne (West Pomeranian Ornithological
Association) are both NGOs involved in nature protection and indirectly involved in
the Park issues.
e) Local farmers
f) Local inhabitants
g) Academic institutions: Koszalin Technical University; Adam Mickiewicz University
in Poznań; University of Szczecin.
h) Drawa Landscape Reserve
i) Drawski Powiat Association for Socio-Economic Initiatives
j) Local self-governments
k) County level of self-governments
l) Regional governmental administrations and regional self-governments
m) National Forestry Association – state agency managing the forests
n) Media
o) NGOs: Enterprises’ Association in Drawa area; Stowarzyszenie Ludzi Bezrobotnych
(Association of Unemployed); sport clubs; fire brigades; association connected with
the church.
Among the actors, not all play an important role in a the nature protection and development of
the region. Main actors are presented in Fig. 6
The main actor responsible for the local development is the local self-government (gmina).
There are five of them in the park area. Members of the council are elected in the direct
elections. In 2002 mayors (the executive body) are also elected in the direct elections. They
are responsible for all the issues and services of the local community (education; local
physical planning; environment protection; local infrastructure – like roads, water supply
system, etc.). The council and the mayor are entirely responsible for local development.
Surveys in Poland show that self-governments are trusted more than central institutions:
central government and parliament. Moreover, in smaller, countryside communities (which is
the case) the trust is higher, than in big cities.
Self-governments are financially partially independent: they share (with central government)
income from taxes, have their own assets, but substantial part of their income come from
subsidies given by the central government.
26
Self-governments are active in attracting tourists etc. However, there is little inter-selfgovernmental co-operation.
The park management is the actor responsible for nature protection within the national park.
The management is financed basically by the central government. Nevertheless, being in a
financial squeeze, important part of income comes from its own sources. Anyway the park is
not financed by the local self-governments. The park independence from the local financing is
understandable, since the park is of national importance. It allows however for reservation
concerning the co-operation for the local development. Formally, the role of park in not
directly involving work for the local development. At the same time, the nature (the Park) is
the main asset of the local communities. Lack of active role of the park is problematic. The
park’s necessity to search for additional income, locates park in a competitive position against
local business.
The bodies related to the park do not play important role in the local development. The Park
Council is mainly involved in monitoring of the park management from nature protection
point of view, while the ministry and National Board for National Parks monitor the park
performance from legal point of view.
Tourist industry is in an early stage. The fact that at least some of the entrepreneurs are
outsiders (having bridging relations) is in accordance with the innovation cycle theory, where
the early innovators are often outsiders. The tourism is a knowledge-based industry and
involves both co-operation (virtual and horizontal integration in terms of Williamson) and
competition. The co-operation seems to work to a certain extent within a personal contacts
network. More formalised co-operation is very weak however. There is a difficulty to move to
a “higher level” of co-operation – like setting a common definition of the areas of cooperation and competition, defining the size of the market etc.
Nature protection NGO involved strongly in the nature protection plan preparation consists
mostly of enthusiasts and professionals. In the park area their activities were connected with
the fact that the main activists worked for the park and were professionals. As a result the
partner for them was the park management. They did not mobilize the local inhabitants.
Economically the area is mainly based on agriculture. Formerly, state owned agricultural
enterprises dominated. Their collapse was a trauma for the people working there previously.
Generally, high level of unemployment is combined with passive approach and claims for
support – in a financial sense but also in a broader sense - connected with their inability to
find the way to tackle with new economic circumstances.
For some, illegal use of park’s nature resources contributes to their income. And it is the only
opportunity which they can use. The scale of illegal poaching and etc. is difficult to assess
however.
There is very little spontaneous co-operation among the inhabitants – except direct, personal
relations, based on family and neighbourhood ties. Parochial life hardly precipitate to secular
one.
27
Fig 6. Main actors in the Drawieński National Park area.
Tourist
sector
Nature
Protection
NGOs
Drawieński Park
Council
Drawieński Park
Administration
Local
inhabitants,
local farmers
Ministry of
Environment
National Board for
National Parks
Self-governments
(gminas)
28
6. Determinants, effects and processes of co-operation and social
capital formation
6.1. The role of trust
6.1.1. Level of trust
Data offer a mixed view of the general trust in the area. Interviews suggest that level of trust
is generally low, especially among general public. First of all, inhabitants of the communities
around the Park are not keen on trusting each other. Few organizations (NGOs) working in
area, and weak public life are symptoms of low level of trust. Within last 15 years only few
attempts to act together can be found in the area. Directly asked interviewees expressed
mostly a moderate trust, with a certain variability: higher trust was expressed by
representatives of self-governments, non-environmental NGOs and the park managers, while
lower level by the farmers, and supervisory board. The opinion expressed in the scaled
question suggests that the level of trust is surprisingly high – all the groups are located in the
upper half of the scale (contrary to results of previous research). The interviewees do not form
however a representative sample – mostly they are active, influential people.
The supportive evidence for the low level of trust can be anxiety of some people interviewed.
Farmers interviewed did not allow to record interviews. In a few cases interviewee were
afraid of expressing the critical opinion on the local authorities. Some interviewed people
were suspicious about the interview, expecting that the research itself or the results could
bring troubles to them. They were conscious about the giving opinion. These were the cases
of the park, supervisory board; NGO. Visibly, aftermath of the conflicts still remain.
Leader of one of the NGO complained about low level of trust which makes the co-operation
costly. Co-operation involves time and money and there is no will for it.
6.1.2. Interpersonal trust - within the groups
The level of trust among actors in the area is low – the interviews suggest. Representatives of
the tourist sector do not trust each other. Potentially beneficial could be a co-operation
concerning common purchase of equipment etc. It does not succeed however. Also actions,
like cleaning the area or organizing a feast are done separately. At the same time there is not a
cut throat competition within the tourist sector in the area. More competition can rather bring
less co-operation than establishing measures to close the access to market. It seems like there
is not enough trust for such solution.
Within the park management trust is less important as it is a bureaucratic organization.
However, there are tensions there – between the managers.
Self-governments declare co-operation but practical results are not optimistic. Outsiders think
that self-governments are focused on their internal issues and are not willing to co-operate.
The fact is that most initiatives (few were recorded) failed, are postponed and proceed very
slowly.
NGOs are not co-operating with each other. They are mostly work on their field having
practically monopoly. As a result there is no incentive to co-operate with the others. The
special case is the Lubuski Klub Przyrodników (Lubuski Naturalists Club), the organization
29
which to large extent can be an example of the “outsider NGO” acting to defend nature but
ignoring local circumstances and local people.9
The general distrust can be confirmed by the fact that only one person among interviewed
declared that there are people outside the public scene which could be better that the ones in
charge now. Most of the actors interviewed are skeptical about the others, without having
hope for better candidates.
6.1.3. Structure of trust between actors
The level trust in the Drawa region is low, but varies at the inter-group level. Below the trust
and distrust structure towards different actors is presented.
Tourist sector
There is a mixed feeling towards the co-operation with the self-governments. Generally, cooperation with the self-governments is good (concerning e.g. waste water treatment
installation). Yet, some plans are not successful and self-government does not treat tourist
sector as a chance. Even if they are helpful – they have to be forced. Self-governments are
accused also of not having a long term plans. They are rather focused on the day by day
activities. Critical opinions about the competence of self-governmental officers were
expressed as well.
The sector is suspicious about NGOs, as potential, subsidized or tax freed competitors.
EU institutions and regulations are not trustful according to tourist sector. But national
institutions neither. If compared, local institutions are more trusted. Since there is not to much
direct experience with the EU institutions the declarations are loose. What is experienced is
severity of taxes and their instability, corruption in political life which cause distrust of the
tourist sector towards national institutions.
Similarly to self-government the Park co-operates with the tourist sector but is not interested
in the tourist sector growth. The Park is just focused on the conservation and does not actively
search for co-operation. For instance, according to the tourist entrepreneurs, the
administration is restrictive concerning entrance to the park. The example can be a story about
a visit of Dutch ornithologists not allowed to the Park: „ornithologists could not understand
this, because in all the countries they visited - they were allowed. They were not noisy people,
they just wanted to spend four days kayaking and identifying bird species. I am not sure if it is
so disturbing” (tourist sector member).
The park insists on the obligation of keeping the regulations, and on being informed on the
tourists’ movements (according to the park regulations). The organizers of kayaking tours
complain about too restrictive approach (e.g. in order to enter the river, which is on the
territory of the park it is necessary to inform the park about the tour), and condemn that park
is cause harm to sector by not making the standard of the camps higher. They suspect that it is
the interest of the Park, not to allow the tourist sector to grow (since the park has it is own
company dealing with the tourists).
One of the tours organizer uses various methods to defend his interest: sends letter to the
press; sends official protests to administration etc. The park management accuses the
organizer of violating the rules which are to be kept in the interest of all the parties, and at
least partially explains the conflict as caused by the personal reasons.
9
Typical examples of such a movement are international, environmental nongovernmental
organisations.
30
The sector feels not being trusted by the community members. Local inhabitants do not
respect ownership rights, according to the sector. And there is envy feeling caused by the fact
that they are wealthier. Environmental NGO is treated as working de facto for its own interest
not for the public one.
Park management
Park is open for co-operation with all the actors in the area. Indeed, in most cases cooperations exists. The only case where the was a cold war is the Lubuski Naturalists Club,
which started a serious argument about the way of nature protection. The conflict was serious
enough to be still remembered, but now it seems to be cooled. Anyway the Club is distrusted
as narrow-minded.
The relation with tourist sector is good, but strict when the issue of regulations are considered.
There are hot moments in everyday operations, but generally there is not too much tension
(except one person attacking the park fiercely for producing obstacles to the tourist sector).
As a result the Park presents certain reservation to the tourist sector, seemingly assuming that
allowing too much leads to control loose. The reservation is also a characteristic for the
relations to other actors. It is partially explainable by the fact that the park is independent and
powerful enough to stay alone. The independence of park is also declared, as well as the
necessity of self reliance (“if we do not take care of ourselves – nobody does” - the Park
representative). It applies also to the state - the park has to survive itself, according to the park
representatives.
Concerning the local inhabitants there is a problem with entering illegally the park, picking
mushroom and berries. The most serious is poaching. These are partially attributed to poor
economic situation. There is also a certain understanding to the poor, but anyway the
poaching is a sensitive point in the park – inhabitants’ relationship.
According to the park representatives local inhabitants trust the park and are not against them,
although it seems that the park is rather ignored by the locals.
Mayors and self-government officers are trusted by the park. There is co-operation. There was
an attempt to organize association for INTERREG project but it was unsuccessful.
For self-governments the park is a part of a state – since it is financed centrally.
Park claims that pests causing harm to the park’s forest are coming from other forests, the
forest management argues that it is opposite. Anyway, the forest management is special case:
it co-operates both with the park and with NGO, and it is a smooth co-operation. According to
supervisory board the communication between the park and State Forestry is not perfect.
Supervisory Board
The park Supervisory Board consists mostly of scientist. The body trusts in the park
management. This trust is based on the Park’s managers’ knowledge (as specialists). Park
administration works well and keeps the balance between nature protection and economic
development (better than NGOs).
Opinion varies along the specialty of a particular person, for some the park administration is
too much forest oriented for the other – it has a good approach.
The board’s members are not interested in and not aware of the local social and economic
situation.
EU legislation can be useful (trusted) but regulations are very complicated and involve
training and education, according to the Board’s members. English language and formalities
31
form the obstacles. These are technical difficulties, according to the Board. National
legislation is changeable, and regulations are inconsistent in many cases or fuzzy.
Self-governments
There are examples of good relations and co-between the Park and self-government. For
instance, if there is a group which wants to visit the Park, the director, asked by the selfgovernment, gives permission (where possible). .
According to self-governments they are in a very uncomfortable position towards inhabitants.
All the difficulties of the everyday life caused by the economic change are to be solved by
self-governments – according to the inhabitants, especially those which previously were
employed in the state owned farms. Notwithstanding actions like offering job for
unemployed, the substantial help are basically impossible. It brought disappointment on the
inhabitants’ side.
There is not easy co-operation between self-government concerning establishing tourist paths.
It goes with troubles.
A worker in a tourist information point complains about difficulties to get any information
from the agrotourist farms. At the same time the farms owners expect sending them clients.
According to self-governments tourist sector demands help but they are not able to organize
themselves. There were meetings for the tourist sector but the attendance was modest.
EU is seen as a potential provider of the development funds.
NGOs
Nongovernmental organizations have mostly good co-operation with the city (Fishing Society
is supported by the city in the monitoring activities). Association of economic initiatives
expects more help from the self-government.
NGO working for unemployed is expecting more co-operation from the Park. The park is
treated by the NGO as not being interested in local development. Tourist sector do not trust
the NGO, they suspect that it is a way to build popularity for the mayor or the city council.
Also the very idea of cheap labour working for city is treated is not clear. These feeling may
be however caused by the danger of spoiling the labour market.
Representatives of NGOs feel that there is no support from inhabitants which are passive and
concentrated on the basic, everyday life.
EU regulations are trusted, because they are not directly related to the local interests, they are
not distorted by the local lobbies, they can work better.
6.1.4. Trust in formal institutions
There is still the feeling of temporariness among inhabitants. It is stronger among older ones.
The very basic property rights are uncertain. Thus trust in formal, state institutions must be
low (since the state is not able to provide basic security).
There is a distrust concerning the procedures. They are treated as formally clear, but biased in
reality. The regulations are used by those in power to act in accordance with their interests. At
the same time if procedures are formally fulfilled it gives safety to decisions makers. Cases
which were indicated as examples are: logging; pig farm in Chomętowo, melioration of the
Cieszynka valley.
In the reports on tourism published by the Drawno municipality, some of the owners of tourist
infrastructure did not give data on the number of visitors. It shows distrust to the self-
32
government. Probably it is rooted in the fact that, some tourists are not booked, and giving the
real data could cause conflict with the taxation office.
Surveys in Poland show that self-government is more trusted than central government. Data
collected support the statement. Questionnaires show higher trust to self-governments than to
EU and central government (lowest rank of all).10
6.1.5. Bridging – bonding trust
Mostly, actors in the region have direct contacts. It is worth noting, that despite certain
suspicious approach of the most of interviewees, the representative of the tourist sector were
the most open and willing to talk. Most of them are outsiders (that have come to the region
from other parts of the country) or – were studying or living outside for sometime. This group
is exceptional however. In case of the Park’s Supervisory Board, most of the members are
outsiders, but they are hardly involved in the local issues. Their activities is focused of the
nature protection. There were some meetings organized but they were not impulses for new
ideas of the development.
6.1.6. Source of trust, knowledge based and position based trust
Knowledge, education and professional record is a source of trust to the Park administration.
Members of the Supervisory Board present this approach. It is not without reservation
however, because in some cases educational background is treated as leading to narrowminded view. In the conflict connected with the Nature Protection Plan, knowledge and
professional background were important factors. Opponents argued that the position of the
other parties are caused by narrowed view connected with the lack of the proper knowledge.
Interestingly, it is not only the argument between professionals and lay people (“farmers
cannot understand how to mange the forest”) that appeared but also among professionals
(foresters against biologists etc.).
For the some outsiders, the Park management can be trusted despite knowledge – since the
specific education gives particular view.
For Park managers trust is based on the knowledge. Certain actions undertaken by particular
bodies are sometimes not completely understood but accepted on the basis of trust. If an
animal is killed in the autumn by the body responsible for the wild animals management and
then it is assumed that this the is right conduct of action, even if it looks strange at the first
sight.
The Park administration combines trust with engagement. According to them only these
people can be trusted which bear the results of the actions. For them, pure scientists are
specialists which are not dependent on the results of their actions. They do not bear the
responsibility. Such stakeholders cannot be really trusted. The same applies to environmental
NGOs.
There was also opinion about the Lubuski Naturalists Club linking trust to them with their
engagement in nature protection. In this case it is not the knowledge itself, neither interest but
the service to intrinsic intentions which brings trust. Worth repeating that exactly the same
reason provokes distrust for other stakeholders.
Trust to EU regulations is connected with the fact that it is designed outside and that’s why
rules and not spoiled in local circumstances. Thus the resistance to a local swing makes the
EU rules attractive.
10
The data on trust can be treated as a reference point. Since answers were given by the
members of the institutions asked in the questionnaire, certain bias is probable.
33
Interestingly, it hardly possible to observe trust rooted in the position. It is explainable with
the generally low level of trust. This situation involves treating the authority of a position as
consequence of the power. At the same time one would expect the trust located in the
informal networks. These are however treated as connected with interests. The only exception
are mayors – trusted because of position (also because their position is the outcome of the
elections). The scale of it is difficult to assess however.
6.1.7. Level of participation in elections
Important information about trust (and more generally – the public activity of the community)
is the about participation in elections. It is presented in the tables below.
Table 1. Participations in the presidential elections 2000.
Number of votes
%
choszczeński
1990
52,80
Człopa
wałecki
2079
53,64
Dobiegniew
strzelecko-drezdenecki
2925
54,29
Drawno
choszczeński
2091
51,01
Krzyż Wielkopolski
czarnkowsko-trzcianecki
4105
62,09
Tuczno
wałecki
2150
55,21
Community
County
Bierzwnik
61,08%
Poland
Table 2. Participations in the parliament elections 2001.
Community
County
Number of votes
%
Bierzwnik
choszczeński
1611
42,14
Człopa
wałecki
1367
34,87
Dobiegniew
strzelecko-drezdenecki
2018
36,71
Drawno
choszczeński
1561
37,48
Krzyż Wielkopolski
czarnkowsko-trzcianecki
2903
43,62
Tuczno
wałecki
1573
39,96
Poland
46,29%
34
Table 3. Participations in the self-governmental elections 2002.
Number of votes
%
Bierzwnik
2339
60,43
Człopa
2524
64
Dobiegniew
3163
56,83
Drawno
2343
55,64
Krzyz Wlkp.
3793
55,88
Tuczno
2420
60,58
Poland
13061867
44,24%
Community
Table 4. Participations in the referendum about EU accession 2004.
Community
%
Bierzwnik
49,12%
Człopa
48,24%
Dobiegniew 49,78%
Drawno
45,19%
Krzyż Wlkp. 55,64%
Tuczno
50,48%
Poland
58,85%
Generally in the area the participation in the elections is lower than average for Poland. This
low level of participation in the election supports the thesis on the low level of trust. The only
exception are local elections in 2002. This particular case of higher level of turnout is difficult
to explain.
6.1.8. Trust: conclusions
The level of trust is low among the actors around of the Drawieński National Park. What are
the reasons for it? First reason is based on lack of roots - the area was inhabited after the
World War II. The second reason can be attributed to the communist past, generally breaking
apart social ties. Thirdly, many people, in the communist times were employed in the state
owned farms. Theses farms were heavily subsidized and promoted to make them attractive
against the individual farms.11 They offered comfortable social and economic security to farm
workers. When the state farms collapsed, after 1989, the workers previously employed there
were left in difficult situation. Not only they lack employment but also they were used to the
situation, that somebody takes care of their life. Their current dissatisfaction adds to a general
11
Individual farms in Poland, contrary to other communist countries survived the communist
era.
35
distrust. Thus during the life of two generations the distrust were caused by the principles of
the communist system, then in the last generation, there additional source of distrust caused
by economic difficulties. At the same time, after the first elections in 1990 regain of trust to
the self-governments has occurred. The self-governments in the area are not very active agent
of innovations. There are no influential plans for development, neither substantial leadership
in the municipalities. They seem to simply adopt to the circumstances. As a result public
participation is very weak. At the same time inhabitants are anomic communities, without
social ties and informal leaders.
Tourist sector works independently, the park administration also takes care of its own
interests first. Since all of the actors have very restricted resources, the established non-cooperative strategy is difficult to change. The cases of built co-operation are connected with
protests.
The existing level of trust makes a spontaneous co-operation difficult. Thus for enhancing the
co-operation the top down approach seems to be necessary. Success in such an attempt can lift
the level of trust, which could further be a basis for co-operation. The local authorities must
play a decisive role in the process.
6.2. Solving conflicts within the group
Conflicts are treated as open arguments (observable) concerning issues important to some
members of the community or the whole community.
The reference point for the conflicts is the Park as a resource important for the local
development. The following conflicts were detected:
a) Conflict between the Park administration and local community: the restrictions
imposed by the Park (on the entrance to the Park) weaken the tourism which has
negative impact on the local community.
b) Conflict between local community, self-governments, the Park administration, tourist
sector and the Danish-owned pig farm. The pig production causes disturbances to
people (bad smells) and to environment (water pollution). It has also bad impact in the
tourist sector.
c) Conflict between the senator and the community members: about melioration.
d) Conflict within Park administration (after the last competition for the director position,
some people left the office).
e) Conflict between the Park administration, part of the supervisory board and
proponents of the strict protection of the forest (the NGO, some members of the
community): about the style of forest management in the park (logging)
f) Conflict on the wild animals protection: between the Park and some members of the
local community (on poaching)
g) Conflict between tourists (their behaviour), tourist sector (avoiding paying) and the
park.
Conflicts are treated as an indication of lack or weakness of institutional system. Conflicts are
also contestation over the governance structure.
36
6.2.1. Style of dealing with conflicts
Collective, spontaneous action is possible in case of a danger. There was a massive protest,
and establishment of organization when K.H., a businessman and a member of the Senate
started a plan of melioration of Cieszynka (conflict c above). The pig farm operations also
caused public protests (conflict b). It was supported by the park administration and Drawno
municipality. In both cases however, the protest were unsuccessful. The public opposition
failed. The legal procedures were in favor of the pig company and the melioration.
Conflict between the park administration and local community on the restrictions about the
park (conflict a) are relatively latent. It could be a crucial conflict but involves representation
of the community’s interests. At the moment a forum hardly can be found. Conflict e) – about
the nature management could have been a place for designing development but it is focused
on the nature protection style. It is only indirectly connected with the development of the area
and communities around the park. The conflict e) is solved within the institutional framework.
Conflict f) is basically solved within the policing and legal system, poaching is simply illegal.
It is based however on the common definition what does the poaching mean. Certain type of
action are not necessarily punished (if the violating the law is not serious one and done by
really poor locals). So simple fishing can be tolerated, but massive ones already not.
The conflict g) seems to touch a serious problem. At the moment it is caused by violation the
rules by tourist sector or by tourist. However, the rules may be too strict. Anyway they are not
always clear, and not always well-advertised. It is the interest of the tourist sector to have the
rules as loosen as possible (to increase the business) but strict enough not too endanger the
quality of the environment which is the basis for the business.
Additionally tourists are in conflict with the tours organizes (concerning cleaning etc.).
People from community do not respect ownership right. Owner of the tourist infrastructure,
try to step by step teaching them to take care about other’s property.
6.2.2. Social background of conflict
Some of the conflicts are directly or indirectly connected with the poor economic situation
and high level of unemployment. The vicinity of the Park involves certain restrictions about
economic development and – at the same time – opens a path of tourism development. It
assumes the protection of the nature. The communities members can benefit from tourist
development. In can decrease the level of unemployment and bring certain prosperity. The
fact is however, that those unemployed and other potential gainers of the development are not
active actors of the game.
At the same time free-riders’ behaviour (poaching, picking mushrooms etc.) are potentially
dangerous for the nature as a common good. Such behaviour is caused (at least partially) by
the fact of no employment alternatives.
High level of unemployment is a crucial factor of the social and economic situation of
communities. It gives a disproportionate power to employers. The biggest employers are the
Park, the self-governmental offices. For most of the communities’ members there are no real
alternative for the job they have (if they do). This situation gives also power to employment
bringing entrepreneurs. The case of a pig farm shows, that disturbance and wide opposition
coalition is not able to stop the company. After all, it brings taxes and there is no alternative
source of tax for self-governments.
37
6.2.3. Formal or informal rules when dealing with conflicts
Mostly formal regulations are used to deal with conflicts. The power of the legal framework is
especially visible in the cases of conflicts b) and c), where public opposition demanded
stopping the operations but the demand was legally overruled.
Informal rules are used in dealing with slight violation of the park protection regulations
(picking mushrooms, berries etc.). The rules are based on the general feelings of not blaming
the unemployed for their poor situation.
6.3. Motivation and opportunism
Opportunism is treated as hiding information important for the outcome of the transactions
(Williamson 1985). Below the motivations of the actors are described with emphasis on the
opportunism. The opportunistic motives are not necessarily applicable to each member of a
group. Moreover, they are simply reported, without deep explorations whether they could be
suggested as a part of the strategic bias.
6.3.1. Source of motivation to act
Tourist sector is blamed for intending the free riderism behind the demand for better
performance of the Park management. The sector wants the rules to be less strict or generally
the strategy of the park management to be changed just because it would have allowed
avoiding payments (fees etc.).
The Park administration is also accused to generate rules restricting the use of park resources
in the way it is beneficial indirectly to park (and even to park managers). It acts also in a
surprising way: e.g. tourist sector needs a guiding service, which is available but difficult to
obtain.
In case of the Supervisory Board the intention behind the participation in the body is to
combine participation with the scientific advantages. Research project in the park area are
linking the membership in the Board with the collecting data for publications. This motivation
can hardly be treated as opportunism, since it is not hidden (although advertised neither).
Self-governments. Literature on of theory of democracy emphasis the opportunistic behaviour
of the representative bodies (as budget maximisers). The problem cannot be easily explored
and proven. The lack of will to co-operate between self-governments and with other actors
was noted however. The self-governments are focused on the internal issues.
NGO (Lubuski Klub Przyrodników) is accused for having private interest behind the strong
position taken in the Nature Protection Plan building process. They have interests, according
to the critics, in enlarging the scope of protection and, further on, to be included in the tenders
for producing reports and collecting data on the various species.
Agro-tourist association is treated as established not for the development of the business (for
the members) but rather as an artificial body to pretend helping the sector. People involved in
the association are generally satisfied but the association does not contribute to the wider
benefit.
The is a vast passive approach of the local inhabitants. Unemployment pensions given to
people made them helpless and demanding. Also young people have been expecting to be
employed just because they are graduated. Help offered to unemployed after 1990, quickly
taught the people that it is something to be obligatory given.
38
Despite rather dark picture of the actors motivations to act in non-opportunistic way, the data
obtained from a directly asked question on the willingness to act pro publico bono
(willingness to money or time for the projects benefiting community) suggest high level of
altruistic feelings. In fact, the results present almost no variance – with only the farmers and
tourist entrepreneurs declaring reservation to the contribution. Of course one have to be
suspicious about the results, which seems to be a product of interviewees presenting
themselves as “good members of a community”.
6.3.2. Is the involvement in a group satisfactory?
There is no Hirschmanian voice detected among the groups under scrutiny. There were
however exit options taken. These were the cases of agrotourist association (members left the
group) and the park administration (leaving the organization). The were individual cases
however. They seems not to be connected with opposition building.
In the other cases the involvement seems to bring satisfaction. The share of benefits within
groups is not causing conflicts. The main issue is that the density of group involvement is
low, and – as a result - the dissatisfaction potential is also low. Problem with fair benefits
sharing, and with keeping the effective measures against free-riders refrain the actors from cooperation.
6.4. Communication
6.4.1. Internal communication
Communication among the tourist sector entrepreneurs is weak. There is informal flow of
information, like informing about free accommodation etc., but it seems it does not lead to
establishment a more durable network. The tourist agency operating there is not treated by the
owner of agrotourist farms as a partner. The agency has difficulties to convince farmer to cooperate.
Supervisory board is satisfied with information. The members are provided with necessary
package in advance (normally via email) so they can be prepared for a meeting.
6.4.2. Communication between actors
There is not a very intensive communication between Park, inhabitants and municipalities.
The Park is, in fact, called a “separated kingdom”.
Formally, there is the information exchange. If a municipality needs information, it gets it
from the Park. There are formal meetings, also information point is conducted by the Park.
Yet, Park is concentrated on the nature protection and management issues. It is also involved
in tourist sector, but this activity seems to be enforced by the necessity to find additional
source of income. On the web page a vast information on the park is presented and also
accommodation option in the vicinity of Park. The information flow from the research side to
the park administration is not perfect according to academic partners – the results of the
research are not “digested” by the Park.
Information about the Park is not disseminated to tourist sector – according to tourist
entrepreneurs. It does not seem to be crucial for the sector to be informed about everyday
operations but they would have been more comfortable to have access to information. The
tourist sector complains about the lack of information from the Park. Maps should be
provided to avoid problems connected with entering by car to forbidden places and kayaking
39
routs. There was a meeting organized, at which there was a dispute about fees for entering the
Park. Generally, at least some of the tourist managers feel not being informed.
At the same time the Park declares to offer the information, and the problem according to the
Park administration lies in the fact that there are regulations given which are obligatory to the
tourist sector. As a result, “some of them do not want to know it”. They explain non
compliance by not being informed. The fact is that information is not send directly – it is
possible to get free is at the information offices. The Park also disseminates leaflets, posters at
the feasts (also subsidizes events) to inhabitants, and tourists.
The information from the Park to self-governments is given. Except the case of preparing the
nature protection plan there is not institutionalized way of information exchange between
actors playing key roles in the development of the area.
Communication with inhabitants is mostly based on the written leaflets left on the boards in
the information boards. There are also meetings. The Association of Agrotourism
disseminates information about tourism for farms that could be interested starting a business.
The most intensive is the information disseminated by the Association of Unemployed. There
is lack of interest in information from the local inhabitants’ side.
The special case was the conflict connected with the nature Protection Plan preparation. The
controversy between the Lubuski Naturalists Clubs and the Park representatives and others
attracted certain attention from media. There were several documents on the issue published
in the internet.
A feast called The Drawno Picnic is organized in Drawno. It is a concert with attractions,
advertised in the main papers in North–West Poland. It gets attention and thousands of
visitors.
6.4.3. What modes of communication are used
Tourists sector has contacts with local papers. The Park is not often mentioned as a topic of
media coverage, although the basic information is presented. The information on the Park is
possible to find in the internet. Internet is an important information channel. It is used for
promoting the agrotourist farms. The co-operation to prepare a professional web page failed –
because it involved investments. Internet is used by the tourist sector as information source
(about Park etc.) easier available than other sources.
There is a well–equipped internet café organized by the Association of Unemployed (they
received a grant from the ministry labour. It plays a role of a center for youth and for other
people – the main intention is to help for job searching. The association leaves a paper
messages in the main points of the community informing about meeting, jobs etc. This NGO
is very active and grant–oriented, prepares applications and wins tenders.
There are two information points offering necessary information for tourists. They serve also
as a general information point – for tourist sector etc.
Necessary information (also about accommodation and addresses of agrotourist farms located
in the vicinity of the Park) can be found on the Park web page.
Printed information are also possible to find in the camp sites and parking sites.
Concerning media – one can find a monthly magazine and bimonthly “Ziemia Drawieńska” in
the region. They are not treated a very influential, according to the interviewed, only basic
information and ads are given there. Weekly “Ziemia Wałecka” covers five counties among
them Człopa and Tuczno; “Pojezierze Wałeckie” is a weekly , “Kurier Szczeciński” is a daily
paper, covering north-west Poland.
Finally, oral and written information spread by the church is another channel. It is mostly
focused on religious and parochial issues, but sometimes has a broader coverage.
40
Comparing different channels of the information, both for information concerning the
community issues and governmental (and the EU) actions the personal contacts with the
family, friends, neighbors are treated as the main source of the information. Local market and
local shops are also places where the information can be found. Community bulletin board,
and local papers are also important. Sources coming from more formalized relations like
organizations (NGOs), colleagues at the work place, political parties, governmental agencies
are the least important.
6.4.4. Is communication intense?
Generally, the intensity of the information in the area can be assessed as not high. There are
complaints about it. Partially it is caused by relatively loose social ties. Actors taking part in
public life are also not numerous. Passive approach of the inhabitants contributes to the low
density of communication.
The media are not well developed around the Park, although for most of the interviewed the
coverage is satisfactory. For example, media informed vastly at the time of protests on the pig
farm in Chomętowo. They do not play a role of a separated actor, however. The special events
are advertised to Szczecin regional TV.
Basic information concerning issues important to communities are advertised on the boards.
Oral information exchanged in a shop or in front of a church is an important source.
Meetings about issues, connected with Park are seldom organized. There were few when the
Park was to be established. Also some more were organized by the Park – on the regulations
and co-operation concerning tourism. They were not successful – according to organizers
because if low attendance and the approach of the guests focused on claims and complaints.
Meetings on the nature protection plan were organized by the Park, and it was a forum were
the conflict on the issue appeared.
6.4.5. Is communication effective?
The communication effectiveness is satisfactory for most of the actors. Most complaints come
from tourist entrepreneur’s side. Some of them want more information about the Park
operation and regulations, while the others only basic. The copies of the all necessary
information is possible to get. They are also available on the Park’s web page.
However, one aspect of the communication is operational. The communication in this sense is
effective. Another aspect is strategic. It means decision about plans for future development.
Here, the communication is missing among of the crucial actors. The tourist sector is
dissatisfied. The future of the business depends on the strategic decisions about the Park, and
the relations between the Park and the self-governments. Lack of involvement of the tourist
sector in the discussion on the issues is not comfortable for them.
6.4.6. Where are the key communicators?
Generally, the key communicators are: the Park administration, tourist sector, selfgovernments, and NGOs. The Park administration advertises the Park’s attractions, through
the web page and publications. Also self-governments are active in this field. The Drawno
Picnic is well advertised and gets attention.
Environmental NGO – the Lubuski Naturalists Club is active in the nature protection field. It
raises attentions of the interested parties. The Association of Unemployed is very active – and
focuses the attention on inhabitants. Their web page is well managed.
41
6.4.7. What are the difficulties with communication?
There are problems with communication concerning tourism: advertising co-ordination is
difficult to achieve. The failure to establish a web page suggest that lack of financial resources
undermined the co-operation attempt . At the same time the co-operation and competition are
tied in this case. Co-ordination the information activities is not obvious the win – win
strategy.
6.4.8. Contacts with similar organizations
Some representatives of the tourist sector have contacts with similar business outside the
region. In fact, these are more critical about the situation in the area. Some members of the
Supervisory Board have contacts with other Parks.
NGOs have contacts and support from similar NGOs from other regions.
6.4.9. What are the reasons for external communication
The most important reason for external communication is advertising the area to tourists. The
basis for the local economy is tourism, and it depends on the attracting the tourist. Mostly the
adds are directed to German tourists (web pages have normally German and English
versions). Some of the agrotouristic sites are just prepared for well-off visitors (horses, tennis
courts etc.).
6.4.10. What are the sources for new ideas
Generally the external contacts are the sources of new ideas. The innovative activities of the
Association of Unemployed can be at least partially attributed to the fact that the leader of the
association is a member of the self-government body.
6.5. Barriers to communication
Sometimes kayaking tours take place in the protection period. It is difficult to find whether
tourist were not informed or the tour organizer allowed for it. There could be a
communication block here.
Self-governments are not well-informed about each other’s plans and actions. Definitely the
information does not reach the medium level officers.
6.5.1. Communication barriers, information withhold
The tourist sector feels being uninformed – both the Park and self-governments are accused.
Mostly, it is rather a matter of trust and a matter of co-operation which provokes this feeling
than mere communication.
The tourist sector accuses the Park administration (and particularly the information service
there) on not informing about the tourist services which are delivered by the Park itself
(kayaks’ renting). Indeed, it is a conflict of interest, and since the Park provides such a
service, to inform about competitive ones is not reasonable.
There are mutual complaints about information delivery between the tourist sector (expecting
more information about their services being offered by the information points) and the
information points (disappointed that agrotourist farmers are not willing to give any
information to them).
There are accusations that information point conducted by the Association of Unemployed is
not fair in sharing the information about job opportunities, hiding the most attractive ones.
42
The Park director wants to be informed about the camps, kayaking tours etc. Tourist sector is
reluctant to do so. There are two possible explanations: a) informing is costly; b) informing is
dangerous since the tourist activities violate the regulations (even if these are minor).
6.5.2. Is the language a barrier?
The Nature Protection Plan preparation brought a large amount of documents (some
thousands pages) focused on the specialized fields. Even people directly involved in the Plan
preparation were not able to digest the documents. It was not prepared for the lay reader.
Language is serious barrier concerning the unemployed searching for a job. Most of the
people are undereducated and for them advertisements in the media, given sometimes in
technical jargon is not useful.
6.5.3. Who is outside the communication network
The main actors are relatively independent. The privileged positions are occupied by the Park
administration and self-governments, leaving aside the tourist sector. There is also not too
much attempt of participatory information strategy. This is strengthened by the passive
approach of most of inhabitants. The position in the information network occupied by the
NGOs depends on their activity, and abilities.
6.6. Collective learning and mental models
6.6.1. Do members of the groups know each other well?
The tourist sector know each other well. They are aware about others’ performance. Some of
them are newcomers but they have links with people in the area. Generally, inhabitants of the
area know each other well. They are able to monitor each other. Members of the group
working on the nature protection plan also know each other. They met, knew each other’s
publications, style of thinking. They did not know each other privately in most of the cases,
however.
6.6.2. What can be learnt from others?
The work on the nature protection plan helps the members of the committee to understand
other’s point of view. Moreover, the members with scientific background emphasized the
possibility to learn about the local community’s point of view. Generally, members of the
committee have sustained their own points of view.
6.6.3. Is there the agreement to differ within group?
In case of the tourist sector group norms can hardly be found. Entrepreneurs differ in the
business strategy, plans to grow etc. and it is a natural situation.
In the Park management the differences are not welcomed – at least partially because it is a
formal organization.
The Supervisory Board consists of specialists of different fields. As a result they differ in
opinion. There is a competition whose approach is to be taken, but generally it is part of the
game to defend a specialists’ position.
The Lubuski Naturalists Club is a relatively big organization. There are several subgroups
with specific focuses and this is the basis of the organization.
Actors involved in the dispute on the nature protection plan have certain ideas why the
opponents are keeping their position. There are two main lines of attributed reasons: material
interests and lack of ability to understand the complexity of the issue.
43
6.6.4. Are there different opinion on the courses of action?
There is a variety of position about the groups’ conduct of activities. Among the tourist sector
there are a lot of ideas about the future development, the Park’s performance etc. Similarly,
the sector assess the activities of the self-governments. In any case the opinion differ. Cooperation within the group is not taken as a serious alternative. It is treated a unrealistic, either
because of the egoistic approach of the others, or lack of necessity etc.
Concerning the Nature Protection Plan, the very plan itself is treated as not necessary, and
artificial burden. Others agree with the idea of preparing a plan. All disagree with way the
plan was conducted: as lost of time, energy, and money.
6.6.5. Is there a chance to share ideas, to discuss?
The tourist sector seem to be outside the flow of ideas. The nature protection plan – the well
established institution did include them and otherwise there is not too much space for the
discussion. They feel excluded by the Park, which treats them in a technical way (informing
about rules and fees), and by self-governments which do not have ideas and co-operate
neither.
6.6.6. What are the issues that organizes the community?
The main headache provoking issue is unemployment. The level is high but also there are no
impulses for change and no signs of hope.
The nature protection is not an issue for the communities. Many inhabitants in fact, have
never visited the Park, and they disregard the very fact the Park exists.
6.6.7. Have people’s ?? attitude changed comparing with the communist era?
There is a shared opinion (expressed by the tourist sector, the Park management, the
communes officers) about inhabitants of the region as the people without initiative, learned to
be provided job and all the services, unable to find an active way to cope with demanding,
free market circumstances. Such opinion is given sometimes with sympathy sometimes
without, but it is a common picture of the group.
Concerning others, there is a mixed view: for some there is a decline, people are more
egoistic, less active, pessimistic, compared with communist times. For others, it is opposite:
people are more active, willing to co-operate - which was not the case during the communist
regime.
6.6.8. Learning concerning nature protection
Some cases of the learning process were found.
a) The process of the Nature Protection Plan preparation has taken many years of
discussions and conflicts. The main conflict was connected with the two ideas about
nature protection: one promoted by the Lubuski Naturalists Club, emphasized the
preservation of the natural assets intact if possible. Second option was promoted by
the Park administration representatives and most of other participants (members of the
Supervisory Board). The procedure of preparing a document was long and not
transparent, which meant disadvantage for the LNC. During the course of the
procedure the new law on public access to information was passed in the parliament. It
gave a stronger position to the Club. Finally a representative of the Club became a
member of the committee. The parties have not changed the positions too much, but
the conflict is calmed down.
44
b) At the beginning of the Park establishment, the local inhabitants treated the
restrictions on the Park entrance and use of resources as nuisance. They were not
willing to obey the regulations. Moreover they started a “cold war” with the Park.
Also, there were attempts to destroy tyres of the guard’s cars. At the same time the
guard started softening the conduct since picking the mushrooms started to be
important source of the income for some families falling into the poverty. Finally, the
equilibrium was achieved: there no more attempts to destroy the guard cars, and the
guard tolerates minor breaking of rules.
6.6.9. Mental models
For unemployed inhabitants picking mushrooms, blueberries, fishing etc. are important
sources of additional income. These activities are not necessarily connected with breaking the
law, but anyway restriction imposed by the law because of the Park, cause certain
inconvenience for the locals. Poaching is another issue: there are different opinion about the
scale of it, but it seems to be quite serious. It seems that for the local inhabitants undertaking
the action which breaks the regulations is not treated as illegal. Their mental representation of
the property rights allows the locals to use the common property. This is a legacy of the
communist regime where the property rights were fuzzy.
For the tourist sector some protection measures (e.g. protection periods) are not clear.
Although they do not undermine the very idea, the exact regulations seem to them irrational.
As a result they either attribute irrational motivations of the law makers or – they try to find
hidden intentions (as e.g. favoring somebody’s interests). Partially it can be a problem of
informing. Better informed tourist sector could easier accept the regulations.
Other issue is an obvious mistake of regulators. There was a regulation missing and as a result
the Park Guard could not for sometime fine the tourists. It was understandable for the Park
(although annoying).
Ambiguities what is allowed and what is not in the Park are expressed even by the highest
municipal officers. It is caused partially by general ambiguity at the starting point (1989) and
by the changes of regulations.
The interesting view was presented by the Park administration representatives. For them,
outsiders (people from the ministry, NGOs etc.) have particular, narrow approaches. They are
not able to deal with complexity of the Park management. It is not possible without
engagement, according to the Park officers. Thus, the workers of the Park share certain mental
models giving them distinctive advantage.
Members of the Supervisory Board are based on the objective, professional, external
knowledge. For the body, the natural resources offer certain services – other than for local
people. The role of scientists is to provide independent expertise. The development of the area
is not perceive as account to be included to the interest of the Board.
6.7. Sharing information
6.7.1. What kind of information is shared?
Among the tourist sector the information shared is connected with possible co-operation (e.g.
accommodation service providers ask kayaks providers about renting the equipment for their
customers).
The Park administration disseminates information about the natural resources and other
important issues connected with the Park. The Park’s web page is professionally carried.
45
There are leaflets and other publications available in the information center. Some
information is also left on the boards in the villages and camping sites.
Information about the Nature Protection Plan had basically technical background with certain
policy assumptions. It was the policy that provoked the argument.
A vast majority of information on the job opportunities is delivered by the Information Center
organized by the Association of Unemployed.
6.7.2. What is the most important information?
For the tourist sector the most important information concerns the strategy of tourism
development (e.g. whether there are possibilities for buying the property or – just renting; new
sites designing, new tourist paths etc.). There are information that give advantages for those
who know them first.
For the Park administration the changes of nature protection law are the most important, since
they trace the budget, obligations etc.
More generally it is the strategy of the development which is important to the actors. The
crucial role in preparing it is to be played by the self-governments. But participation of the
other actors is necessary. In the sense informing overlaps with participating.
6.7.3. Is the information on the private life influential?
In several cases private issues were mentioned. These were situations when family relations
intervened with formal relations – logrolling cases. It does not seem to be a severe problem
but seemingly private life is monitored. Since the communities are relatively small, cross
relations between family and employment relations are unavoidable. They are marked as
wrong when there is influence from one part to another. Kinship however, is not the main
organizing factor of the communities’ life.
6.8. Governance structure
The main problem the Drawieński National Park area faces is the economic and social
development. The sudden economic decline, high level of unemployment, the lack of
endogenous development impulses, restrictions connected with the Park force to devise an
innovative strategy for development. The Park can be treated as an economic resource for the
development of the area. Co-operation of the actors is needed for the use of the potential.
The strategy can hardly rely on the external resources. The co-operation of the Park
administration, self-governments, NGOs, tourist entrepreneurs is necessary to design the
strategy. The co-operation can enhance the tourist sector and further higher employment.
Finally, the whole area can be better off.
The co-operation however is weak. It faces the collective action difficulties strengthened by
the social and economic context typical for the post communist conditions (low level of trust,
lack of institutional infrastructure; high level of uncertainty connected with changes of the
legal environment). As a result, transaction costs are high enough to block the very initiation
of the process. Transactions costs can be estimated as high because of two main reasons:
mutual distrust among the partners, and lack of links between various actors (e.g. membership
in clubs; organizations) which could be a basis for initial communication and further cooperation. The situation fits the model of failure of building a public good.
The self-governments do not co-operate with the Park intensely. There are contacts but
without innovative ideas. Mostly, the self-government officers had little information on the
Park and generally about the Park. Drawno municipality is more involved. There are three
46
explanations of this. Firstly, some of the municipalities are at the edge of the Park and they
neither are disadvantaged nor advantaged by the Park. As a result they are not involved and
not too much interested in the Park issues. Secondly, Park is divided not only into 5
municipalities but also by 3 voivodships, which makes the co-operation more difficult.
Thirdly, co-operation involves innovative ideas, but also resources and institutions – which
are lacking.
Example of failure: the was a project of preparing the tourist path, along castles, going
through the region. The investor required the co-operation with the municipalities, which
established an association, but finally were not able to co-operate.
The Park organized a shop for selling the fish, in order to build the market structure for those
fishing. Since fishing can be a source of additional income for the inhabitants a market could
be helpful, otherwise it is necessary to find a customer case by case. The idea failed probably
because a shop, formalizing the trade was not competitive to black market.
Scare resources narrows the point of view of municipalities to their own territory, and
separated strategies.
Lack of innovative activities and common action is partially rooted in the social-economic
conditions. Before 1989, inhabitants were mostly employed by the state owned farms,
providing secure employment, accommodation etc. When the companies collapsed the former
employees were not able to find themselves in the new conditions (so called “learned
helplessness” syndrome). Most of them live out of small social security pensions.
There are initiatives which can serve as network building and expanding the governance
structure. One case is the feast organized which links self-government (the main organizer),
tourist sector and the Park. Also, the NGO working for unemployed managed to settle a
relatively stable position as an information center. This gives them certain power to influence
the other actors.
6.8.1. How a collective action solution is made?
The interviewees declare optimism concerning common tackling with problem (answer for
the question: “If there was a problem within your community which required different people
coming together to solve it, how likely do you think they would be successful”?). The Park
management and self-government present highest optimism and environmental NGO and
farmers the lowest. The distribution of the opinion is understandable. Self-governmental
officers and Park managers have experience with co-operation, although they work in a
formally hierarchical organizations. That’s why they overestimate the chance for common
action. At the same time, farmers are the main victims of the economic troubles and they are
pessimistic. Environmental NGO is a special case – they work for the “interest of the nature”
and get little support from the local community, which can be a source of the reservation.
An example of overcoming collective action problems can be a program in Tuczno. The selfgovernment started a program of building playgrounds for children. In order to get the
subsidy a village had to prepare local plan of development (in the sense of physical planning).
It started co-operation but still is not very successful – according to the mayor. The measure
used here to overcome the collective action problem is the second order level incentive.
Another attempt was the preparation of the Nature Protection Plan, which brought together
most of the actors. However, the program was basically focused on the nature protection and
was not reshaped into a developmental initiative. It was long lasting and expensive project.
Only at the beginning in the years 1996-2000 preparation of the Plan cost 0,75 ml euro.
Finally, the plan has not been successfully finished.
47
There is an attempt to establish an Association of Drawieński National Park Selfgovernments. It consists of four municipalities: Bierzwnik, Człopa, Drawno, Tuczno. The aim
is to strengthen the tourism and environment protection in the area. The establishment of the
association goes rather slowly. The fact is that the establishment is not beneficial per se.
There is no incentive except the potential gains of the co-operation.
6.8.2. What is process and outcome of collective action?
The co-operation on the development of the area involves institutionalization of co-operation.
It is a costly process. First of all, the group to be included is not defined by any precise means.
For the stakeholders to be excluded is disadvantageous, but to be included involves costs:
mostly it is time necessary to spend. Moreover, there is not a presumed aim, method and style
of work. Hence all of these issues must be taken under deliberation. It is a costly process.
Finally, the benefits are vague and mostly indirect. Altogether, costs of organizing the process
are mostly not financial. Most of the actors are local, so costs of transportation is not high.
However, if the co-operation is to be effective, it means additionally costs of informing –
which is already higher, since it involves sending letters, invitations etc. It cannot be done by
email, since it does not seem to be feasible.
Furthermore, if the co-operation is to be connected with any effectiveness, it involves
financial contribution. It is obvious in case of association of self-government – they have
similar budgets and the contribution to a common initiative is within their competences.
Taking other stakeholders, they form usually a heterogeneous set of actors (the Park, selfgovernments, tourist sector; NGOs - environmental and non-environmental). It makes the
possible co-operation (in the sense of the financial contribution) difficult.
The problems with co-operation are not only connected with investments. Creating rules of
conduct (e.g. concerning dealing with non-co-operation, avoiding cheating etc.). Building the
trust, which could be a solution, is also costly and time consuming process. The danger is, that
for a particular actor the exit is a more comfortable solution than to search for agreement (the
loyalty). Moreover the potential gains from the co-operation are not obvious (for all the
participants). It makes the investment into co-operation risky. That’s why stakeholders refrain
from it.
6.8.3. Potential co-operation
The current situation of the area is difficult, in terms of economic development and social
conditions. The lack of co-operation seems to be rational option for the actors. How this can
be overcome? One possible solution is an externally offered incentive. Some EU and
ministerial funds require co-operation. One can assume that such externally driven cooperation can help in establishment of institutions which can further serve as a basis of
development activities.
For the interviewed, the most important factors influencing the co-operation are: mutual
understanding of the actors (emphasized by the Park management and environmental NGO)
and market incentives (empathized by environmental NGO and farmers). Influence of the
governmental agencies is treated as the least important (especially by farmers and selfgovernments). (See Table ).
48
Table 5. Answers for the question: “How would you rank the relative importance of the
following factors concerning co-operation for community development (with emphasis on
role of the Park).
Actors understanding each other and sharing the
same objectives
Market driven incentives -for co-operation
Having good communication between all actors
Active involvement of the local community
Keeping well informed and having enough
information to make decision
Involvement of governmental agencies in the
process
Other
N
Average
Scale: 1= Not important at all
2=Somewhat unimportant 3=Neither
important nor unimportant 4=Somewhat
important 5= Very important
26
26
26
26
4,36
4,22
3,92
3,92
26
3,76
26
1
3,73
2,00
6.9. Non market transaction costs
To reach co-operation involves potential costs - since broad co-operation (of all the main
stakeholders in the area) does not function. Costs of partial co-operation, like the preparation
of the Nature Protection Plan are possible to measure more precisely.
6.9.1. What are costs of organizing the process of collective action?
The costs include: a) time (necessary to invest – also time of travel); b) overcoming distrust
(e.g. suspicious feelings about the intentions of others); c) overcoming the lack of interest of
some partners.
In case of the nature protection plan, the costs in the years 1996-2000 was 0,75 ml euro. It
includes however costs of reports.
Additional costs are connected with the complication of the procedures gives the power to
decision makers. The more difficult is the comprehension the bigger investment of time and
money is necessary to argue. As a result trying to find a “translator” somebody which is able
to give advise is reasonable strategy. This can be a lawyer but rather somebody known,
working in the office etc. Of course it opens the opportunities for corruption.
6.9.2. What are costs of achieving the outcome?
Basically, in order to achieve co-operation and - consequently – economic development, an
incentive is necessary. It can come from governmental, from EU sources or from private
investors. Alternatively, the co-operation can be achieved in an evolutionary process, through
the step-by-step building of institutional framework of co-operation. The costs of building the
institutional framework includes: meetings, small scale projects etc. The ultimate results are
difficult to predict. Financial contribution is hardly possible to get from the tourist sector side
(they refused ideas of common web page or co-operation with tourist agency because of lack
of money), without financial contribution the exit option is very handy.
49
6.9.3. What are costs of entry
Costs of entry are measurable in case of the association of self-governments, it is a matter of
agreement. Other stakeholders have to be invited and for them the cost contains the use of
social resources (contacts) to be involved.
6.9.4. What are alternative means for outcome
The development program can also be prepared within the administrative structure: the selfgovernmental regional council or the regional representation of government. The possible
alternative costs are the relation between the costs of this option and the external incentive
driven co-operation.
6.9.5. Co-operations as cost saving
To reach co-operations is costly, but it can bring benefits. Thus, why co-operation does not
appear because of cost saving? According to the theory (e.g. Coleman 1990) costs of
achieving co-operation are higher that savings (or additional benefits) to be reached by actors.
6.10.The role of the state and EU
6.10.1. Legal framework of the situation
In the Poland Physical Zoning Program, Drawno Municipality is included to the European
centers of protected areas: NATURA 2000. The Drawa reserve is a part of Polish
environmental network: ECONET-Polska. Zachodniopomorskie regional self-government
included the Drawno municipality to the areas where strong nature protection is to be
undertaken. In the year 1997 Drawno Sustainable Development Program was prepared, and
similar programs were established by other municipalities in the Park area. Similar situation is
in the other municipalities. Thus the legal framework shapes the possible development paths.
However, it is not completely strict, since the pig farm exists in the area.
Important aspect of the conflict over the Nature Protection Plan was the public access to
information passed by the parliament. The law helps citizens and NGO to obtain information
on the performance of the governmental and self-governmental institutions. It strengthened
the position of the Lubuski Naturalists Club in the process.
6.10.2. Does the state intervene in the conflicts?
The State does not directly intervene in the conflicts. A national institution (the National
Parks Directorate) played certain role in the conflict over the Nature Protection Plan
(supporting the Park’s approach against the Lubuski Naturalists Club). It was not involved as
an active actor, however.
Generally, in the conflicts the state is present through the legal system. These were the cases
of the pig farm and the Cieszynka melioration. Some of the informantors think that the legal
system work in accordance with the more powerful.
Historically, the role of the state has changed. The decision of Park establishment was
prepared in the communist regime. Those days the state had a dominant position and other
actors influence was only conditional. Also the present of the rule of law was questionable.
Thus the initial steps were done within the top down decision making scheme. The role of
other actors (e.g. the academic supporters of the idea of the Park) was important but of
secondary importance in the decision making. There were internal interest groups within the
communist administration, but how the balance was achieved is difficult to undercover. After
50
1990 the system was changed and various actors, within their legal competences have impact
on the decision making concerning the Park and local development of the area.
6.10.3. Does the state plays active role e.g. offers funds?
The responsibility for the area is mostly allocated to the self-governments (municipalities,
counties, regional self-government). From this point of view the case cannot be treated as a
government failure.
For the self-governments, there are some possibilities to get the state funds. One spectacular
case is the information center with internet café. It was prepared with the help of the Ministry
of Labor, which subsidized the centre (the grant is within the employment support scheme).
The grant is dealing with only one sector - employment. It is a crucial sector but it is not an
integrated support scheme.
There is a scheme of microloans for farmers starting agrotourism – 8 persons were granted in
2004. There are training and study visits (also abroad), and possibilities to learn foreign
languages. These are governmental sources offered on the local level.
There are also funds from EU sources. In order to apply well prepared and costly project
proposals must be produced.
6.10.4. Would be the actions possible in communist regime?
The co-operation which is based on self-organization of the communities, represented by the
self-governments NGOs, private business, and other actors was simply not possible during the
communist times. Although, development plans were prepared under the communist regime.
They were however, done within top-down scheme, and participation was basically not
necessary or taken into consideration only in a very formal and artificial way.
National Parks were established during the communist time. As a matter of fact, the
Drawieński National Park was established at the end of the communist era. Establishing
national Parks is anyway a centralized procedure.
6.10.5. Were there any bad experiences with the state in the past?
The transition trauma is a major experience for many of the citizens in the area. The economic
change of 1989/90 is by many inhabitants still treated as a enforced, and unfair experiment.
During the communist time the state was generally treated as illegitimate. Its legitimacy was
based on the physical power and on the social security it provided. The transition for many
resulted in strengthened distrust to the state.
The distrust mentioned above is not a general approach, however. But even these whose
situations relatively improved (e.g. entrepreneurs) are suspicious about the state’s behaviour.
It involves rather shortsighted attitude.
6.10.6. Have EU accession changed people behaviour?
The general opinion of the informants is that EU accession has not changed people behaviour.
Personally, they have not experienced changes.
6.10.7. Are national institutions more promising than EU?
National institutions are more trustful for most of the informants than the EU’s. It is
particularly true in case of nature protection. At the same time some, for some interviewed the
fact that European institutions are distant can be better because it strengthens objectivity.
51
6.11.Communities, networks
More than half of the persons interviewed belong to organizations. Some of them are
members of more than one organization. It is a high score but it is explainable by the fact that
partially interviewees were chosen as members of organizations.
Taking into account the information flow, the organizations are much less important than
personal contacts – with neighbors, friends, families. It supports the more general statement
that informal, personal contacts are much more dense and important framework of a social
structure than more formalized relations.
6.11.1. What are the groups organizations?
There is no a platform for all the actors important for the development. Association of
Municipalities has a formal, legal form. Tourist sector does not have a representation. There
are associations of agrotourist farms, but their representativeness is questionable. NGO (The
Lubuski Naturalists Club) is an association, while the Park is itself a formal, administrativelike institution.
6.11.2. Is vertical or hierarchical mode of organization more common?
There is a variety of group organization in the area. The municipalities are formal,
hierarchical institutions. The Park management is the similar organization type. The Lubuski
Naturalists Club is a relatively big organization, consists of more than 200 members. It is
decentralized both in territorial and specialization terms.
6.11.3. Can cliques be found?
Cliques in a strict sense were not identified. There was however an opinion, that around the
Park managers there is a clique-like network. So the information about the new options
concerning the tourist facilities etc. are restricted. This opinion is given however by a person
which feels disadvantaged by the Park management activities.
6.11.4. What are the social composition of the groups?
The tourist entrepreneurs are mostly higher educated. Most of them are relatively young: at
the age of 30-40 years. Members of the Lubuski Naturalists Club are also relatively young
and have higher education. The leaders are biologists.
Within the tourist sector some most active entrepreneurs are either newcomers to the area or
people which studied (in Poznań, Warsaw). They have mostly higher education.
The director of the Park is a forester.
6.11.5. How the members define the group?
Members of the Park management are very committed and responsible for the park. They
treat outsiders as having not enough information and lacking the feeling of the generalized
responsibility. The Supervisory Board shares the deep interest in the nature protection, but
particular members took through the lenses of their particular academic specialization.
The Lubuski Naturalists Club define itself as a society devoted to the nature protection. The
scientific background is not especially emphasized, rather the interest in the taking care about
the nature and opposing the disturbances done by humans. Sustainable development is not
especially recalled concept – rather decreasing human influence on the natural processes.
There is no a special awareness of the tourist sector entrepreneurs as a group having defined
interest and the group borders. It is understandable since the group is heterogeneous and there
is a competition among members.
52
6.11.6. How active are social networks?
The self-governmental bodies seem to form an important network. In four cases of
interviewed persons’, activity in NGO was combined with membership in self-government.
Furthermore, one member of the park management is also a member of self-government. It
seems that self-governmental bodies are the place where an active person is typically settled.
The position of a self-governmental councilor helps in conveying interests and ideas. Also it
opens access to information. For instance, the leader of the NGO helping unemployed,
successfully carrying the information center, is a member of self-government. At the same
time, the tourist sector seems to be underrepresented, concerning influence through selfgovernment.
The Catholic Church forms an independent network, focused however on religious matters
and charity, with little involvement into secular world.
6.11.7. Are the members ready to contribute to community benefits?
A special case is the Association of Unemployed. The leader is not unemployed, she is a
councilor of a county and has managed to establish an organization helping to others. There
are also some activists undertaking charity actions, but generally there is little action focused
on the economic development.
An example of the common actions are the feasts (The Drawno Picnic). They bring cooperation. Co-operation in the communities is difficult however, according to the informants.
According to them it is possible in case of very special circumstances (disaster etc.).
6.12. Informal institutions
Considering entering Drawieński 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 certain animal habitats), 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.
Furthermore, in the Park it is prohibited to collect mushrooms, berry, nuts and antlers of
fallow deer. Although, formally, picking mushrooms and blueberries is legally not allowed.
At the same time these activities give additional income for the local inhabitants. Some of
them live in very poor conditions. There is not single opinion on dealing with illegal picking.
Some take “legal approach” insisting on fining all who violate the rules. Others however
search for certain balance, and advocate a softer approach for local, poor people. It is in fact a
kind of informal, lenient policy. A the same time, those taking the softer approach are aware
of problems to differentiate locals from tourists, and problems with the scale of picking. The
soft approach can encourage more people to take advantage of it. Even scientists are ready to
accept not fining the locals. At the same time, poaching and massive, illegal fishing should be
punished, according to the interviewees.
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.
53
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.
The rate of fines for violations against nature protection regulations is high - 2,4 fine per 1000
tourists, while average for all national Parks in Poland is 0,23. It may indicate a high quality
of guard work.
6.13.The role of market and competition
The main role of the market, as I see it, is in the development of a tourism product, based on
visiting the Park. This is a significant impetus to encourage the stakeholders to co-operate.
However, as yet, this has not been achieved. Therefore although there is a strong market
incentive, other institutions are preventing the establishment of this market. There is a good
analysis of the role of the market in the paper, but I was not sure what you meant by the
question in section 7.13.1, “is the market an environment of the groups?”.
6.13.1. Is the market an environment of the groups?
Assuming that tourism in the Drawieński National Park is the main course of development,
the level of the competition there is of crucial importance.
There is market for tourist services in Poland and in this respect the Drawieński National Park
competes with other parks. The most frequently visited parks are: Tatrzański National Park
(in the mountains – 2,5 ml visitors per year; Woliński National Park (at the seaside – 1,7 ml
visitors per year); Karkonoski National Park (in the mountains – 1,5 ml visitors). The three
parks covers 50% of the total national parks tourism in Poland.12
The competition does not seem to be severe. The services offered by parks differ. The amount
of tourists in the Park is relatively small, but close to other parks of similar type (see table ).
Tourist services in the Drawa region seem not to be developed very well. There are some
tourists’ centers but the rest is at the early state of development. Agrotourist farms offer
usually very basic standard. There are few restaurants, pubs, and cultural centers.
There is little co-ordination of tourist infrastructure building. The municipalities emphasize
lack of money as the main obstacle.
The is little competition between the Park and tourist sector, although the Park has a company
renting kayaks. Contacts between the two are weak. Since the park is concentrated on the
nature protection, there is a conflicting potential: it was for example a case of bicycle path
through the park proposed by the tourist sector and refused by the Park.
12
Report on tourism in Poland 2001-2003, Polish Tourism Organization.
54
Table 6. Visitors in Polish national parks.
Park
Babiogórski
Białowieski
Biebrzański
Bieszczadzki
Bory Tucholskie
Drawieński
Gorczański
Gór Stołowych
Kampinoski
Karkonoski
Magurski
Narwiański
Ojcowski
Pieniński
Poleski
Roztoczański
Słowiński
Świętokrzyski
Tatrzański
Ujście Warty
Wielkopolski
Wigierski
Woliński
Total
Average
Voivodship
Małopolskie
Podlaskie
Podlaskie
Podkarpackie
Pomorskie
Zachodniopomorskie,
Lubuskie, Wielkopolskie
Małopolskie
Dolnośląskie
Mazowieckie
Dolnośląskie
Podkarpackie, Małopolskie
Podlaskie
Małopolskie
Małopolskie
Lubelskie
Lubelskie
Pomorskie
Świętokrzyskie
Małopolskie
Lubuskie
Wielkopolskie
Podlaskie
Zachodniopomorskie
Poland
Poland
ha
3 392
10 502
59 223
29 202
4 798
11 342
7 030
6 339
38 544
5 575
19 439
7 350
2 146
2 346
9 762
8 483
18 618
7 626
21 164
8 038
7 584
15 085
10 937
314 527
13675,09
Visitors (in thousands)
2001
2002
2003
60
52
70
90
105
121
54
29
33
300
300
322
20
20
20
25
45
215
1 000
1 500
40
5
400
585
9
100
282
400
2 460
10
1 200
60
1 500
10 360
450,43
13
45
250
1 000
1 500
50
5
400
681
8
100
152
400
2 674
10
1 200
100
1 700
10 794
469,30
12
45
309
b.d.
1 500
55
6
400
744
13
100
170
117
2 758
18
1 200
100
1 700
9 812
426,61
2001
1,77
0,86
0,09
1,03
0,42
Visitors per 100 ha
2002
1,53
1,00
0,05
1,03
0,42
2003
2,06
1,15
0,06
1,10
0,42
0,22
0,64
3,39
2,59
26,91
0,21
0,07
18,64
24,94
0,09
1,18
1,51
5,25
11,62
0,12
15,82
0,40
13,71
3,29
3,29
0,11
0,64
3,94
2,59
26,91
0,26
0,07
18,64
29,03
0,08
1,18
0,82
5,25
12,63
0,12
15,82
0,66
15,54
3,43
3,43
0,11
0,64
4,87
0,00
26,91
0,28
0,08
18,64
31,71
0,13
1,18
0,91
1,53
13,03
0,22
15,82
0,66
15,54
3,12
3,12
Source: National Board of National Parks.
55
Figure 7. Visitors of Drawa and Biebrzański National Parks
Visitors of Drawa and Narwiański NPs (in thousands)
30
25
25
N
20
Drawieński
15
Narwiański
13
12
10
5
5
5
2001
2002
6
0
2003
Year
Source: National Board of National Parks.
Figure 8. Visitors of Drawa and Biebrzański National Parks (in thousands, per 100 hectares)
Visitors of Drawa and Narwiański NPs (in thousands)
30
25
25
N
20
Drawieński
15
13
Narwiański
12
10
5
5
5
2001
2002
6
0
2003
Year
Source: National Board of National Parks.
56
6.13.2. Are there new products in market?
The most developed tourist products in the Drawieński National Park are: kayaking (probably
the biggest attraction); fishing, and forest/lakes landscape (for walks, tours). There are also
special events organized for firms employees. Also, some of tourist places are directed
towards foreign tourists (German, Dutch). This places are of high standard there, they offer
horse riding, tennis courts etc. No niche market investments were identified in a strict sense,
since kayaking, fishing and similar landscape are possible to find in other places.
6.13.3. Is there a competition? Are the products competitive?
There is a certain competition among the agents delivering the tourist services, but the market
is not a perfect-type. The amount of firms is not very high. Customers’ access to information
is not perfect. In some respect there are attempts to establish a quasi-monopoly. There is also
certain level of co-operation among competitors, since the services they deliver are
overlapping and supplementary.
The prices level are low, but is not because of competition but of cutting the prices of
sustaining the service. For instance, reparations, and improvements are done at least partially
by the owners, with the help of the family – which is “no invoice economy”.
6.13.4. Is the advertising necessary?
Advertisement is necessary for the tourist sector in the area. A lot of advertising materials are
produced – by the tourist sector entrepreneurs, the park, and self-governments. These are
printed leaflets, brochures, web pages; ads in the newspapers. There is also a kind of public
relation actions around the feast organized in Drawno. Self-governments offer the tourist
sector possibilities for advertisement for free in the self-governmental publications. Generally
there is little coordination of the advertisement activities. It is connected with the costs (also
in non-financial sense, as in the case of not delivering information to the tourist information
point). Investing in the advertisements presupposes long term planning, while uncertain
economic situation inclines the entrepreneurs to short distance planning.13 Furthermore,
coordination of advertising activities would bring value-added benefits, coming from a
promotion of the whole area besides the promotion of particular firms and services. It is not
obviously a win – win situation however. Firstly, such promotion can be more advantageous
for some firms only. Secondly, and more importantly, the crowding effect can appear. Since
there is no institution settled to deal with the crowding effect, advertising can be dangerous.
6.13.5. What are the trends in the market?
There is increasing number of tourists from abroad (mainly from Germany). Also demand for
more sophisticated services (e.g. event organizing for companies) seems to increase.
6.13.6. Can product displacement be observed?
The market for tourist services in Poland seems to be not developed enough to observe
product replacement. Potentially, there is such a danger, especially concerning kayaking.
7. Conclusions
13
It can also be caused by the general distrust to the economic and political system and its
stability.
57
7.1. The development trap
The economic, legal, social conditions lead to the conclusion that the Park can be treated as
the main vehicle for the area development. To strengthen tourism in the area investments are
necessary, but there is no local financial capital. Moreover, to capitalize natural resources
involves not only financial capital but also co-operation (social capital) – since natural
resources are common goods. Institutions can be equivalent to social capital, but since social
capital and institutional infrastructure are weak, the momentum for the development does not
exist.
At the level of the Drawieński National Park, the main tension is the conflict between the
nature protection and economic activities. To a certain extent such a tension is typical for
many national parks worldwide. Benefits coming from the nature is not only connected with
tourism. Also the image has certain value. The very fact the there is the Park in the vicinity
raises the real estates value. However the demand in the real estates market is low which
makes the added value only potential.
Basically, there is no open conflict on the development. It means articulation and designing of
the development is on a very early stage, providing that a development plan (understood as
reallocation of scarce resources) almost necessarily provokes conflicts. The existing conflicts
are – from this point of view – of secondary importance (the conflict with the pig farm can be
treated as only exception).
Development can be simply understood as the way to improve the socioeconomic conditions
– increasing employment possibilities is of main importance. Introducing sustainability
involves development which is not in the expense of depletion of natural resources. It is
however only certain reference point. Natural resources are used this way or the another. The
question is however, of extent and style of the use. One can imagine several the development
strategies: based on intensive use of natural resources; a development based on intensive,
massive tourism; a development based on the specialized low pressure tourism; a path based
on the industrial development etc. Some of the possibilities are hardly feasible, but in any
case in order to set up a development the wide co-operation is necessary.
7.2. Chances for agrotourism
In Drawa region there is not a long tradition on which localism and local pride can be built
comparing for example with British cases (Saxena 2005). People living in the region came
after the World War II., and for a long time temporality feeling was common (it was
strengthened by the communists in 1950s), and has been coming back from time to time in
form of the discussion on how much the post-war borders shifts are legally assured.
As a result tourist sector is not based on a long, spontaneously grown tradition. There is not
past experience in conducting tourist business and a lack of possibility for modification or
strengthening certain orientation of the business because there is not too much to modify. It is
important because the tourism is a knowledge based sector. Agrotourist associations, which
could have an important role, are not very active. It seems that the expectations towards them
were too high from the farmers. They were treated as a tool to find money for investments.
Since it revealed to be difficult farmers are disappointed. Starting the agrotourist business
usually follows the training given by the extension service, but in most of the cases farmers
are not prepared for running it as a business. They treat it with the reservation, as suggested
attempt to diversify the income. The start of the agrotourist farm is not a result of
entrepreneurial deliberation.
58
7.3. Institutions
The introduction of the Nature Protection Plan can be treated as a way to overcome
institutional emptiness in the area of adjusting the expectation of various actors concerning
the scope of nature protection and economic development. Since the lack of traditions,
procedures etc., caused conflicts in the conduct of the Nature Protection Plan preparation, it
took long to reach the consensus. In the meantime the legal situation changed. It has made the
final Plan not feasible. Thus the question is whether the process can be treated as a learning.
Necessity for institutional arrangement is important especially in case of the amount of
kayaking tourists. The necessity to solve the problem of overcrowding is of crucial
importance.
7.4. The role of local inhabitants
Learned helplessness is an attitude which can be found among people formerly employed in
state-owned farms. In a sense, it is a legacy of communism. But at the same time there is
capitalist version of helplessness feeling which can be observed. The Danish company
carrying an industrial–like pig farm, is visibly harmful to environment and annoying for local
inhabitants, but despite protests the locals have no hope to stop the company.
Some local inhabitants never visited park. They are surprised by the fact that people are
searching for wilderness. It seems a little weird for them.
Poland generally and the region especially is an early stage of capital accumulation case.
There is not the Anglo-Saxon capitalism nor the public engagement continental tradition.
Also there is a wide spread loan avoiding strategy which is originated with communist legacy
and the memory of high inflation in 1989-90. It is necessary to have money and knowledge to
run tourist business – but farmers have none of these.
7.5. Possibilities of co-operation
Lack of trust and of its embeddedness in personalized relations makes the developmentoriented co-operation difficult. Despite some initiatives in the communities the prospects for
strengthening trust are vague. Tourist entrepreneurs run their businesses separately, if cooperating it is based on the personal ties. Signs of trust strengthening can hardly be found.
The actors driven by their interests and resources, in the local context are supposed to take
co-operation strategy. Situations when the conflicts have to be solved show, that a
disagreement does not bring the rise of institutional arrangement enhancing co-operation. The
Drawieński National Park has a special position in the area. It is not interested in co-operation
that would strengthen the tourist sector. The park is a crucial employer, which gives a strong
position. As a result the park does not initiate wider co-operation. At the same time,
municipalities are reluctant too. They blame the park or each other for avoiding co-operation.
The Park is not blocking initiatives however, they simply cannot flourish without its support.
The mere information on the potential benefits coming from co-operation is not changing the
behaviour of actors. The process of the change the mental models and the behaviour probably
need more time to stimulate co-operation.
The existing governance structure does not bring enough incentive for co-operation. The
change would mean either strengthening the trust network or compensate the uncertainties
connected with mutual relations. However, the former needs time the latter needs resources.
The role of external actors offering incentive (e.g. government, EU) seems to be crucial for
the development. It would offer an initial “push” which could have brought eventually trust
building and co-operation.
59
The shift or enlarging the relations into more formal and depersonalized seems unlikely to
happen spontaneously.
Market can offer strong incentives for co-operation, but in the particular circumstances, the
type of assets (the natural park); the regulations; and the mental models make it difficult to
happen.
To summarize: there seem to be two main sources of pressures enhancing co-operation for
development. The first one are external stimuli, in a form of developmental initiative, which
could offer a spin-off for trust formation and further development. The second solution are
endogenous innovations. They involve leadership.
60
Literature:
Bridger J., Luloff A., 1999. Toward an interactional approach to sustainable community development, Journal of
Rural Studies 15.
Bruns B., Bruns P.Ch. 2004, Strengthening collective action, in: R.S. Meinzen-Dick, M.Di Gregorio eds.,
Collective action and property right for sustainable development, Washington: International Food Policy
Research Institute.
Chloupkova J., Svendsen G.L.H., Svendsen G.T., 2003. Building and destroying social capital: the case of
cooperative movements in Denmark and Poland, Agriculture and Human Values 20.
Coleman J. 1990. The foundations of social theory, Harvard: Belknap.
Coleman J., 1988. Social capital in the creation of human capital, American Journal of Sociology 94
Supplement.
Drawieński Park Narodowy, 2004-11-05, official website of the Park, at: http://www.dnp.pl;
Drozdowski R., Pawłowska B.1995. Poczucie prawnego bezpieczeństwa w warunkach transformacji
systemowej, Ruch Prawniczy, Ekonomiczny i Socjologiczny 1.
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 management in Indonesia:
Bunken National Park Case Study, Jakarta: Natural Resources Management Program.
Jałowiecki B., 1991. Scena polityczna Polski lokalnej [Political scene of local Poland], w: B.Jałowiecki,
P.Swianiewicz red., Między nadzieją a rozczarowaniem: samorząd terytorialny rok po wyborach, Warszawa:
Europejski Instytut Rozwoju Regionalnego i Lokalnego.
Klub Przyrodników (Naturalist Club), 2004-11-20, official website of the Naturalist Club, at:
http://www.lkp.org.pl;
Kochut, I., 2004. (employee in the headquarter of The Drawieński Park Narodowy) Phone Interview, 10th
December 2004;
Komorowska K., 2000. Świadomość ekologiczna górali podhalańskich a ich postawy wobec Tatrzańskiego
Parku Narodowego, Studia Regionalne i Lokalne 4 (4)
Kucharski, B., Pawlaczyk, P, 1997, Drawieński Park Narodowy i okolice, Wydawnictwo PTTK „Kraj”,
Warszawa;
Lehtonen M., 2004. The environment-social interface of sustainable development: capabilities, social capital,
institutions, Ecological Economics 49
Lin J.Y., 1989. An economic theory of institutional change: induced and imposed change, Cato Journal Vol. 9,
no. 1.
Lubell M., Scholz J.T., 2001. Co-operation, reciprocity, and the collective-action heuristic, American Journal of
Political Science vol. 45, No. 1.
Ostrom E., 2000. A behavioural approach to the rational choice theory of collective action, in: M.D.Ginnis ed.,
Polycentric games and institutions. Readings from the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, Ann
Arbour: Michigan University Press.
Rose-Ackerman S., 2001. Trust and honesty in post-socialist societies, Kyklos 54 (2/3).
Saxena G., 2005. Relationships, networks and the learning regions: case eveidence from the Peak District
National Park, Tourism Management 26.
Theesfeld I., 2003. Constraints on collective action in a transitional economy: the case of Bulgaria’s irrigation
sector, World Development 32 (2).
Williamson O., 1979. Transaction cost economics: the governance of contractual relations, Journal of Law and
Economics 22.
Williamson O., 1985. The Economic institutions of capitalism, Free Press (pol. ed. 1998)
61
Appendix 1: Interview guidelines
What did the foundation of the Park change?
Opinion about existence of the Park
Was establishing of the Park a good idea?
Has establishment of the Park generated profits or losses? ( if both profits and losses – what
are profits and what are losses; what is balance between profits and losses)
Distribution of in interests concerning the Park as good (in economic sense)
Does existence of the Park generate benefits? (if yes – to whom?)
Resources own by actors
How can you influence important decisions undertaken by local government (commune,
county, voivodship) and by other people (neighbours, company building some objects)?
What would you need to have more influence?
Level of knowledge:
How much do you know about the Park?
The Conservation Plan as an institution
Do you know anything about the plan?
Have you had contact with actions taken in the conduct of the plan? (if yes – which?)
Have you taken part in actions connected with the plan in a formal way? (if yes – in which?)
Has your involvement to the plan taught you anything about others (involved in the plan)?
Has involvement to the plan changed your behaviour?
Has an involvement to the plan changed your attitude towards neighbourhood people and
commune?
What is the most important experience you gained from involvement to the plan?
In your opinion, do you better understand standpoints of other people and institutions
involved in the plan now?
Opinion about the plan:
Does something like the plan make any sense? (is it just enforced formal obligation or there
are actions taken within the plan)
Who has the biggest influence on preparing the plan, who benefits from the plan and who
loses out?
What should be changed in procedure concerning preparing the plan?
Level of institutional involvement (concerns the conservation plan)
Are you Interested in issues concerning the Park, changes of it’s working etc. ( from where
you receive information)?
Do you contact people who are engaged in issues concerning the Park?
Do you participate in institutions which take decisions, give judgment about issues of the
Park?
Do you participate in others actions concerning the Park
( in all case above: how often, what form)
Trust
Who take care about your interests ( or your institution)?
Who can you trust that takes the best action concerning issues of the Park?
62
Is there a person in commune (except administration) that is trusted by people and can help in
resolving problems?
Do you co-operate with any group of people (organisation)? What does this co-operation
consist of? ( Can you indicate examples of successful co-operation between citizens or
citizens and organisation (or administration) in commune?)
Do you (your institution) have commitments towards other people or organisations?
Have you (your institution) had positive experience in co-operation with other people? If yes,
what does it consist of?
And have you (your institution) had negative experience in co-operation with other people? If
yes, what does it consist of?
Can it be expected that citizens could do something for a common good (something that will
be good for all)? What have to happen to begin such co-operation? If it is impossible what is
the reason? Is there any area (villages?) where co-operation based on trust exists? Are there
categories of inhabitants?
Trust in formal institutions
Do the government institutions act in accordance with your (your institution) interests?
Do the government institutions help in develop of commune or they rather disturb? Your
general view. Any examples?
Can EU’s laws and institutions be trusted more than Polish laws and institutions?
What experience have you had with dealing with the government and the local government
institutions?
Formal rules
Is law connected with the Park rather beneficial ( works good) or rather unfavourable (works
bad)? Give examples of good and bad work.
Informal rules
Property law
should commune’s inhabitants have special rights concerning e.g. entering the Park, using
goods of the Park (picking mushrooms, using wood etc.)?
Local media
What roles have a local media in development of commune and region, acting of the Park,
preparing the conservation plan?
Co-operation
Have the existence and acting of the Park generated examples of co-operation between
citizens, organisations, commune etc? (which?)
What are the most important problems in commune? How does the commune deal with them?
Do citizens’ independent initiatives exist?
Which people (organisations etc.) can be indicated as the most active in working for
commune interests?
Were commune’s problems different 10-15 years ago? How had they been dealing with them?
Every group of people have to co-operate, but in every group conflict can be indicated.
Which conflicts can be indicated in commune? (discrete list of group or people in conflict
including: age, education, political party affiliations, outsiders to the community and
community themselves, men and women, beliefs etc.)
Had people easier co-operated in the community before 1990? Why?
63
Can more conflicts be observed after 1990 ?
Have a behaviour of people, their acts towards each other changed after 1990?
Resolving problems
Are issues concerning conservation in the Park concern you? If yes: How they are resolved?
If no: Do you know how they are resolved? (formal, informal)
In case when we have representative of group:
Why did you join the group?
In which moment did you join the group?
What is your role in group?
What does the following sentence mean to you: “II am a member of…”
Does your acting in group satisfy you?
Does the group bring a positive change for the local community?
If you had to start again, would you have joined the group again?
Do all the people involved in group work have same benefits and costs?
Do you have a feeling that the others members of the group take advantage of you?
Can the group deal with people that don’t give a faire input in group work?
What should be changed in functioning of the group in order to make it more profitable for all
participants?
Does contradictory opinions on how group should work appear?
Do all the members of the group have the same opinion about objectives?
If no, how are these conflicts resolved?
Is there enough chance to discuss things, share information, etc.?
Communication - In case when we have representative of group
How often do you contact with group members?
How much time do you spend on group issues? (too much, not enough, enough)
Are you able to spend more time on group issues?
Is there a good transition of opinions and information among group members?
Is there a share of the same opinion about group goals etc.?
Is there a person who keep everyone informed? (if yes – how does he do it?)
Are there meetings to discuss group issues? (formal, scheduled?)
What is the mode of communication most frequently used?
Is it effective?
Do you have difficulties with receiving information from someone?
If yes what is the advantage of those who have information?
External communication
Does the group have contact with other similar groups?
Does the group have contact with government agencies?
Where are sources of new ideas, information in the group?
Barriers of Communication
Can you identify a blockage in the sharing of information concerning you (your institution)?
Issues concerning the Park?
Are there people who withhold information? (if yes: which, why)
Sharing information
What type of information concerning the Park is communicated to you?
64
What is the most important information that should be communicated widely?
Are there people better and worse informed in the Park issues?
Collective learning
Do particular people and institutions connected with the Park know each other well?
How people in community understand operation of the Park and the Conservation Plan?
Role of government and EU
How do you judge role of laws on commune development, operation of the Park, preparing
the Conservation Plan?
Do government administration and local government have an active role on commune
development, operation of the Park, preparing the Conservation Plan?
Would actions taken in connection with commune development, operation of the Park,
preparing the Conservation Plan be possible before 1990?
What is people attitude towards each other now? How this attitude is different form that
before 1990?
Can you trust the State more now?
Have you had any bad experience with the State or local government and their organisations?
Did you vote in the last local elections?
Did you vote in the last national elections?
Has accession to the EU changed something in people behaviour?
Does people have more optimism for EU institution than national ones?
Social networks
Who are people involved in actions for development of commune and region, the Park, the
Conservation Plan?
Do these people have good contact with citizens?
Role of the market
How does the touristy market work round the Park?
Is there any specific touristy products connected with the Park?
What are risks involved with the market?
How strong is competition?
Is an active marketing needed?
Is there any new trends on touristy market?
Personal questions for interviewees:
1. Generally speaking, would you say that most people can be trusted, or you can not be
too careful in dealing with people?
2. How many different social organisation are you involved in? (including recreational
groups, religious groups, community groups, voluntary organisations, nongovernmental organisations, governmental organisations etc).
3. How much do you trust (on a scale from 1 to 5)14 the following:
Local government officials
14
1=To a very great extent 2=To a great extent 3=Neither to a great nor small extent 4=To a
small extent 5=To a very small extent
65
National government officials
The European Union (its institutions and officials)
(Any other actors within your case study, as identified within your actor
grouping – for example farmers, organisers of co-operatives, project initiators,
environmental NGOs, ethnic minorities etc)
4. If there was a problem within your community which required different people
coming together to solve it, how likely do you think they would be successful?
Very likely
Somewhat likely
Neither likely nor unlikely
Somewhat unlikely
Very unlikely
5. If a community project does not directly benefit you, but has benefits for others in the
community, would you a) be willing to contribute money (Yes or No)? b) willing to
contribute time (Yes or No)?
6. What are your main sources of information about what the government (both local and
national) and the EU is doing?
Relatives, friends and family (‘word of mouth’)
Community bulletin board
Local market/local shops
Community or local newspaper
National newspaper
Radio
Television
Internet
Community leaders
Groups or associations I am involved with
Business or work colleagues
Government agencies
Political parties I am involved with
Non-governmental organisations I am involved with
7. What are your main sources of information about what is happening within your
community?
Relatives, friends and family (‘word of mouth’)
Community bulletin board
Local market/local shops
Community or local newspaper
National newspaper
Radio
Television
Internet
Community leaders
Groups or associations I am involved with
Business or work colleagues
Government agencies
Political parties I am involved with
Non-governmental organisations I am involved with
66
8. How would you rank (on a scale from 1 to 5)15 the relative importance of the
following factors affecting [the co-operation or conflict, which is the focus of the case
study] ?
High levels of trust within the community
Past experiences of all stakeholders with working together
Having a highly motivated group of people/community who are willing to cooperate
Having good communication between all actors
Keeping well informed and having enough information to make decisions
Actors understanding each other and sharing the same objectives
Involvement of governmental agencies in the process
Active involvement of the local community
Market driven incentives for co-operation
Other
15
1=Very important 2=Somewhat important 3=Neither important nor unimportant
4=Somewhat unimportant 5=Not important at all
67
8. Appendix 2: List of interviews
interviewed
1.
Camping owner
2.
Owner of Agrotouristic Farm
3.
Director of Castle in Tuczno
4.
Veterinary surgeon-Owner of Stud Farm in Człopa
5.
Owner of Fish Ponds in Tuczno
6.
Owner of Touristic Center in Drawno
7.
Owner of Touristic Center
8.
Owner of Touristic Center and fishing ponds
9.
Owner of Touristic enterprise in Czaplinek "Mrówka"
10. Owner of hiring establishment of water equipment "Wirek"
11. Owner of hiring establishment of water equipment "Pojezierze"
12. Scientist
13. Scientist
14. Scientist
15. Tourist Information Point officer
16. Mayor of Tuczno
17. Secretary of Człopa Commune
18. Office Worker of Człopa Commune
19. Office worker of Krzyż Wlkp. Commune
20. Office worker of Człopa Commune-lack of personal questionnaire
21. Office worker in Drawa National Park
22. Commander of Guard of Drawa National Park
23. Director of Drawa National Park-lack of personal questionnaire
24. Chairman of Unemployed Association
25. Chairman of Association of Economic Initiatives in Człopa
26. Chairman of Drawa Agrotouristic Association; office worker
27. Farmer
28. Farmer
29. Chairman of Lubuski Naturalists Club
group
tourist industry
tourist industry
tourist industry
tourist industry
tourist industry
tourist industry
tourist industry
tourist industry
tourist industry
tourist industry
tourist industry
Supervisory Board
Supervisory Board
Supervisory Board
self-government
self-government
self-government
self-government
self-government
self-government
park management
park management
park management
non env. NGO
non env. NGO
non env. NGO
Farmer
farmer
Environmental NGO
68
9. Appendix 3: Statistical data
Table 1
1. Generally speaking, would you say that most people can be trusted, or you can not be
too careful in dealing with people?
Group
N
Average
(scale: 1-"not trust",2-"be careful",3-"trust")
missing data excluded
Self-government
Non-Environmental NGO
Park management
Tourist industry
Supervisory Board
Environmental NGO
Farmers
Total
5
3
2
11
3
1
2
27
2,8
2,67
2,5
2,18
2
2
2
2,31
Table 2
2. Are you a member of any social organisation?
Group
N
Percent % of
memberships
Yes
No
Supervisory Board
Environmental NGO
Non-Environmental NGO
Self-government
Park management
Tourist industry
Farmers
Total
3
1
3
5
2
11
2
27
100,00
100,00
100,00
60,00
50,00
45,45
0,00
59,26
3
1
3
3
1
6
0
17
0
0
0
2
1
5
2
10
2B. How many different social organisation are you involved in?
Six persons (out of 11) from the “tourist industry” group are the members of social
organisations: four of them are the members of 1 organisation, one is the member of 2
groups and one belongs to 3 organisations.
In the “park management’ group one person belongs to a one group and the second
does not belong. From the third group (“supervisory board”) we have all three
interlocutors belonging to social organisations: one is involved in 2 groups, one in 3
groups and the third person is the member of 10 organisations.
69
Three persons from “self-government” group are involved in some social
organizations: first of them belongs to 1 group, second belongs to 2 and the third is
involved in 3 organisations.
The sole interlocutor from “environmental NGO” group is only a member of 1
organisation and 2 farmers are not involved in any organisations. People from “nonEnvironmental NGO” are all the members of social organizations – two of them belongs
to 1 group and one to the 4 groups.
70
Table 3
How much do you trust (on a scale from 1 to 5):
1= To a very small
extent
2= To a small
extent
3=Neither to a great
nor small extent
4= To a great
extent
5= To a very great
extent
Local governments
officials
The
European
Scientists
National
Union (its
Park
Environmen
and its
government institutions
officials
and officials) management tal NGO's institutions
Owners of
agrotourist
farms
Owners and
management of
tourist centres
Group
N
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
Tourist industry
Park management
Supervisory Board
Self-government
Environmental NGO
Non-environmental
NGO
Farmers
11
2
3
5
1
2,2
4,00
2,33
4
4
1,7
2
2,33
2,2
3
3
3
2,67
3,4
4
2,88
4,50
3,67
4,33
3
3,1
2
2,67
3,75
4
4,25
4
4,33
5
5
3,73
4,50
4,00
4,20
4
4
3
3,00
4,2
4
3
2
4,33
3,5
1,67
1,5
3,00
3
4,00
2,50
4,00
2
3,67
3,5
4,33
5,00
4,50
4
Total
27
3,12
1,92
3,04
3,45
3,12
4,22
4,04
3,82
71
Table 4
3. How much do you trust? – average level of trust for a group. Groups ranking.
1= To a very small extent
2= To a small extent
3=Neither to a great nor small extent
4= To a great extent
5= To a very great extent
Average for group
Group
N
Environmental NGO
Non-environmental NGO
Park management
Supervisory Board
Tourist industry
Self-government
Farmers
1
3
2
3
11
5
2
Total
27
3,88
3,68
3,38
3,09
3,05
3,00
2,05
72
Table 5
4. If there was a problem within your community which required different people
coming together to solve it, how likely do you think they would be successful?
Average (scale: 1-very unlikely, 2-somewhat unlikely,
3-neither likely nor unlikely, 4-somewhat likely, 5-very
likely); missing data excluded
Group
N
Park management
Self-government
Non-environmental NGO
Tourist industry
Supervisory Board
Environmental NGO
Farmers
2
5
3
11
3
1
2
5
4
3,67
3,55
3,33
3
2
Total
27
3,51
Table 6
5A. If a community project does not directly benefit you, but has benefits for others in the
community, would you be willing to contribute money?
Group
N
Percent %
Yes
No
Park management
Supervisory Board
Self-government
Environmental NGO
Non-environmental NGO
Tourist industry
Farmers
2
3
5
1
3
11
2
100,0
100,0
100,0
100,0
100,0
81,8
0,0
2
3
5
1
3
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
Total
27
85,2
23
4
Table 7
5B. If a community project does not directly benefit you, but has benefits for others in the
community, would you be willing to contribute time?
Group
N
Percent %
Yes
No
Tourist industry
Park management
Supervisory Board
Self-government
Environmental NGO
Non-Environmental NGO
Farmers
11
2
3
5
1
3
2
100,0
100,0
100,0
100,0
100,0
100,0
50,0
11
2
3
5
1
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
Total
27
96,3
26
1
73
Table 8
6A. What are your main sources of information about what the government (both local
and national) and the EU is doing?
Relatives, friends and family (‘word of mouth')
Group
N
Percent %
Yes
No
Park management
Farmers
Tourist industry
Non-Environmental NGO
Self-government
Supervisory Board
Environmental NGO
2
2
11
3
5
3
1
100,0
100,0
81,8
66,7
60,0
33,3
0,0
2
2
9
2
3
1
0
0
0
2
1
2
2
1
Total
Community bulletin board
27
70,4
19
8
Group
N
Percent %
Yes
No
Environmental NGO
Non-Environmental NGO
Self-government
Park management
Tourist industry
Supervisory Board
Farmers
1
3
5
2
11
3
2
100,0
100,0
80,0
50,0
45,5
33,3
0,0
1
3
4
1
5
1
0
0
0
1
1
6
2
2
Total
Local market/local shops
27
55,6
15
12
Group
N
Percent %
Yes
No
Non-Environmental NGO
Farmers
Tourist industry
Self-government
Park management
Supervisory Board
Environmental NGO
3
2
11
5
2
3
1
100,0
100,0
81,8
80,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
3
2
9
4
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
2
3
1
Total
Community or local newspaper
27
66,7
18
9
Group
N
Percent %
Yes
No
Park management
Self-government
Environmental NGO
Non-Environmental NGO
Tourist industry
Farmers
Supervisory Board
2
5
1
3
11
2
3
100,0
100,0
100,0
66,7
54,5
50,0
33,3
2
5
1
2
6
1
1
0
0
0
1
5
1
2
Total
National newspaper
27
66,7
18
9
Group
N
Percent %
Yes
No
Park management
Environmental NGO
Supervisory Board
2
1
3
100,0
100,0
66,7
2
1
2
0
0
1
74
Self-government
Tourist industry
Non-Environmental NGO
Farmers
5
11
3
2
40,0
18,2
0,0
0,0
2
2
0
0
3
9
3
2
Total
27
33,3
9
18
Table 9
6A. What are your main sources of information about what the government (both local
and national) and the EU is doing?
Radio
Group
N
Percent %
Yes
No
Park management
Self-government
Supervisory Board
Tourist industry
Environmental NGO
Non-Environmental NGO
Farmers
2
5
3
11
1
3
2
100,0
60,0
33,3
9,1
0,0
0,0
0,0
2
3
1
1
0
0
0
0
2
2
10
1
3
2
Total
Television
27
25,9
7
20
Group
N
Percent %
Yes
No
Park management
Supervisory Board
Self-government
Tourist industry
Environmental NGO
Non-Environmental NGO
Farmers
2
3
5
11
1
3
2
100,0
66,7
60,0
9,1
0,0
0,0
0,0
2
2
3
1
0
0
0
0
1
2
10
1
3
2
Total
Internet
27
29,6
8
19
Group
N
Percent %
Yes
No
Park management
Environmental NGO
Self-government
Non-Environmental NGO
Tourist industry
Supervisory Board
Farmers
2
1
5
3
11
3
2
100,0
100,0
80,0
66,7
45,5
0,0
0,0
2
1
4
2
5
0
0
0
0
1
1
6
3
2
Total
Community leaders
27
51,9
14
13
Group
N
Percent %
Yes
No
Supervisory Board
Tourist industry
Self-government
Park management
Farmers
Environmental NGO
Non-Environmental NGO
3
11
5
2
2
1
3
66,7
63,6
60,0
50,0
50,0
0,0
0,0
2
7
3
1
1
0
0
1
4
2
1
1
1
3
Total
27
51,9
14
13
75
Groups or associations I am involved
with
Group
N
Percent %
Yes
No
Non-Environmental NGO
Park management
Supervisory Board
Self-government
Tourist industry
Environmental NGO
Farmers
3
2
3
5
11
1
2
66,7
50,0
33,3
20,0
18,2
0,0
0,0
2
1
1
1
2
0
0
1
1
2
4
9
1
2
Total
27
25,9
7
20
Table 10
6A. What are your main sources of information about what the government (both local
and national) and the EU is doing?
Business or work colleagues
Group
N
Percent %
Yes
No
Park management
Self-government
Tourist industry
Supervisory Board
Environmental NGO
Non-Environmental NGO
Farmers
2
5
11
3
1
3
2
100,0
80,0
18,2
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
2
4
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
9
3
1
3
2
Total
Government agencies
27
29,6
8
19
Group
N
Percent %
Yes
No
Self-government
Tourist industry
Park management
Supervisory Board
Environmental NGO
Farmers
Non-Environmental NGO
5
11
2
3
1
2
3
20,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
33,3
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
4
11
2
3
1
2
2
Total
Political parties I am involved with
27
7,4
2
25
Group
N
Percent %
Yes
No
Self-government
Tourist industry
Park management
Supervisory Board
Environmental NGO
Non-Environmental NGO
Farmers
5
11
2
3
1
3
2
20,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
11
2
3
1
3
2
Total
Non-governmental organisations I am
involved with
27
3,7
1
26
Group
N
Percent %
Yes
No
Park management
2
50,0
1
1
76
Non-Environmental NGO
Tourist industry
Supervisory Board
Self-government
Environmental NGO
Farmers
Total
3
11
3
5
1
2
27
33,3
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
7,4
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
11
3
5
1
2
25
77
Table 11
7A. What are your main sources of information about what is happening in your
community?
Relatives, friends and family (‘word of mouth')
Group
N
Percent %
Yes
No
Park management
Self-government
Non-Environmental NGO
Farmers
Tourist industry
Supervisory Board
Environmental NGO
2
5
3
2
11
3
0
100,0
100,0
100,0
100,0
90,9
33,3
0,0
2
5
3
2
10
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
Total
Community bulletin board
26
88,5
23
3
Group
N
Percent %
Yes
No
Park management
Self-government
Non-Environmental NGO
Tourist industry
Supervisory Board
Environmental NGO
Farmers
2
5
3
11
3
0
2
100,0
40,0
33,3
27,3
0,0
0,0
0,0
2
2
1
3
0
0
0
0
3
2
8
2
0
2
Total
Local market/local shops
26
30,8
8
17
Group
N
Percent %
Yes
No
Park management
Supervisory Board
Environmental NGO
Tourist industry
Self-government
Non-Environmental NGO
Farmers
2
3
0
11
5
3
2
0,0
0,0
0,0
81,8
100,0
100,0
100,0
0
0
0
9
5
3
2
2
2
0
2
0
0
0
Total
Community or local newspaper
26
73,1
19
6
Group
N
Percent %
Yes
No
Park management
Non-Environmental NGO
Tourist industry
Farmers
Supervisory Board
Self-government
Environmental NGO
2
3
11
2
3
5
0
100,0
66,7
54,5
50,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
2
2
6
1
0
0
0
0
1
5
1
2
5
0
Total
National newspaper
26
42,3
11
14
Group
N
Percent %
Yes
No
Park management
Tourist industry
2
11
50,0
0,0
1
0
1
11
78
Supervisory Board
Self-government
Environmental NGO
Non-Environmental NGO
Farmers
Total
3
5
0
3
2
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0
0
0
0
0
2
5
3
0
2
26
3,8
1
24
Table 12
7A. What are your main sources of information about what is happening in your
community?
Radio
Group
N
Percent %
Yes
No
Park management
Tourist industry
Supervisory Board
Self-government
Environmental NGO
Non-Environmental NGO
Farmers
2
11
3
5
0
3
2
50,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
11
2
5
3
0
2
Total
Television
26
3,8
1
24
Group
N
Percent %
Yes
No
Park management
Non-Environmental NGO
Tourist industry
Supervisory Board
Self-government
Environmental NGO
Farmers
2
3
11
3
5
0
2
100,0
33,3
9,1
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
10
2
5
0
2
Total
Internet
26
15,4
4
21
Group
N
Percent %
Yes
No
Non-Environmental NGO
Farmers
Tourist industry
Park management
Self-government
Supervisory Board
Environmental NGO
3
2
11
2
5
3
0
100,0
100,0
54,5
50,0
40,0
33,3
0,0
3
2
6
1
2
1
0
0
0
5
1
3
1
0
Total
Community leaders
26
57,7
15
10
Group
N
Percent %
Yes
No
Self-government
Tourist industry
Park management
Supervisory Board
Environmental NGO
Farmers
Non-Environmental NGO
5
11
2
3
0
2
3
20,0
18,2
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
100,0
1
2
0
0
0
0
3
4
9
2
2
0
2
0
79
Total
Groups or associations I am involved
with
26
23,1
6
18
Group
N
Percent %
Yes
No
Park management
Self-government
Supervisory Board
Non-Environmental NGO
Tourist industry
Environmental NGO
Farmers
2
5
3
3
11
0
2
100,0
40,0
33,3
33,3
18,2
0,0
0,0
2
2
1
1
2
0
0
0
3
1
2
9
0
2
Total
26
30,8
8
17
Table 13
7A. What are your main sources of information about what is happening in your
community?
Business or work colleagues
Group
N
Percent %
Yes
No
Self-government
Tourist industry
Park management
Supervisory Board
Environmental NGO
Non-Environmental NGO
Farmers
5
11
2
3
0
3
2
20,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
11
2
2
0
3
2
Total
Government agencies
26
3,8
1
24
Group
N
Percent %
Yes
No
Tourist industry
Park management
Supervisory Board
Self-government
Environmental NGO
Non-Environmental NGO
Farmers
11
2
3
5
0
3
2
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
2
2
5
0
3
2
Total
Political parties I am involved with
26
3,8
0
25
Group
N
Percent %
Yes
No
Park management
Non-Environmental NGO
Self-government
Tourist industry
Supervisory Board
Environmental NGO
Farmers
2
3
5
11
3
0
2
50,0
33,3
20,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
2
4
11
2
0
2
Total
Non-governmental organisations I am
involved with
26
11,5
3
22
80
Group
N
Percent %
Yes
No
Tourist industry
Park management
Supervisory Board
Self-government
Environmental NGO
Non-Environmental NGO
Farmers
11
2
3
5
0
3
2
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
2
2
5
0
3
2
Total
26
0,0
0
26
Table 14
8. How would you rank (on the scale from 1 to 5) the relative importance of the following
factors concerning co-operation for community development (with emphasis on role of
the Park). 1=Very important 2=Somewhat important 3=Neither important nor unimportant
4=Somewhat unimportant 5=Not important at all
High levels of trust within the
community
Group
N
Average (scale: 1 to 5); missing data excluded
Park management
Self-government
Tourist industry
Supervisory Board
Environmental NGO
Non-Environmental NGO
Farmers
2
5
11
2
1
3
2
5
4,2
3,625
3,5
3
2,67
2
Total
Past experiences of all
stakeholders with working
together
26
3,57
Group
N
Average (scale: 1 to 5); missing data excluded
Self-government
Park management
Tourist industry
Environmental NGO
Farmers
Supervisory Board
Non-Environmental NGO
5
2
11
1
2
2
3
4,2
4
3,75
3
3
2,5
2,33
Total
26
3,48
Having a highly motivated gr.
of people/community who are
willing to co-operate
81
Group
N
Average (scale: 1 to 5); missing data excluded
Tourist industry
Park management
Supervisory Board
Self-government
Environmental NGO
Farmers
Non-Environmental NGO
11
2
2
5
1
2
3
4,75
4,5
4,5
4,4
4
3,5
2,67
Total
26
4,22
Table 15
8. How would you rank (on the scale from 1 to 5) the relative importance of the following
factors concerning co-operation for community development (with emphasis on role of
the Park). 1=Very important 2=Somewhat important 3=Neither important nor unimportant
4=Somewhat unimportant 5=Not important at all
Actors understanding each other and sharing the
same objectives
Market driven incentives -for co-operation
Having good communication between all actors
Active involvement of the local community
Keeping well informed and having enough
information to make decision
Involvement of governmental agencies in the
process
Other
N
Average (scale: 1 to 5); missing data excluded
26
26
26
26
4,36
4,22
3,92
3,92
26
3,76
26
1
3,73
2,00
82
Table 16
8. How would you rank (on the scale from 1 to 5) the relative importance of the following
factors concerning co-operation for community development (with emphasis on role of
the Park). 1=Very important 2=Somewhat important 3=Neither important nor unimportant
4=Somewhat unimportant 5=Not important at all
Having good communication
between all actors
Group
N
Average (scale: 1 to 5); missing data excluded
Park management
Self-government
Supervisory Board
Environmental NGO
Tourist industry
Non-Environmental NGO
Farmers
2
5
2
1
11
3
2
5
4,6
4,5
4
3,88
2,67
2,5
Total
26
3,92
Group
N
Average (scale: 1 to 5); missing data excluded
Park management
Supervisory Board
Self-government
Environmental NGO
Tourist industry
Farmers
Non-Environmental NGO
2
2
5
1
11
2
3
5
5
4,4
4
3,5
3
2,33
Total
26
3,76
Group
N
Average (scale: 1 to 5); missing data excluded
Park management
Environmental NGO
Tourist industry
Supervisory Board
Self-government
Farmers
Non-Environmental NGO
2
1
11
2
5
2
3
5
5
4,7
4,5
4
4
2,67
Total
26
4,36
Keeping well informed and
having enough information to
make decision
Actors understanding each
other and sharing the same
objectives
83
Table 17
8. How would you rank (on the scale from 1 to 5) the relative importance of the following
factors concerning co-operation for community development (with emphasis on role of
the Park). 1=Very important 2=Somewhat important 3=Neither important nor unimportant
4=Somewhat unimportant 5=Not important at all
Involvement of governmental
agencies in the process
Group
N
Average (scale: 1 to 5); missing data excluded
Farmers
Self-government
Environmental NGO
Non-Environmental NGO
Park management
Supervisory Board
Tourist industry
2
5
1
3
2
2
11
5
4,25
4
4
3,5
3,5
3,125
Total
26
3,73
Group
N
Average (scale: 1 to 5); missing data excluded
Park management
Farmers
Self-government
Tourist industry
Supervisory Board
Environmental NGO
Non-Environmental NGO
2
2
5
11
2
1
3
5
5
4,4
4
4
4
2,67
Total
26
3,92
Group
N
Average (scale: 1 to 5); missing data excluded
Environmental NGO
Farmers
Park management
Non-Environmental NGO
Self-government
Tourist industry
Supervisory Board
1
2
2
3
5
11
2
5
5
4,5
4,33
4,25
4
3,5
Total
Other
26
4,22
Group
N
Average (scale: 1 to 5); missing data excluded
Tourist industry
Park management
Supervisory Board
Self-government
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
Active involvement of the local
community
Market driven incentives -for cooperation
84
Environmental NGO
Non-Environmental NGO
Farmers
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
1
2,00
85