Advertisement

Nomination and inscription of the “Ancient Beech Forests of Germany” as natural World Heritage: multi-level governance between science and politics

  • Janina Heim
  • Max Krott
  • Michael Böcher
Original Paper
  • 45 Downloads

Abstract

In 2011, five German beech forest areas were declared to be part of the World Heritage property “Primeval Beech Forests of the Carpathians and the Ancient Beech Forests of Germany.” Thus, they now share the same status as Australia’s Great Barrier Reef and East Africa’s Serengeti. This paper analyzes the science–policy interface behind the nomination and inscription process in the multi-level governance setting of the World Heritage Convention. Using the Research–Integration–Utilization (RIU) model of scientific knowledge transfer, we identify and analyze different actors’ roles in the spheres of Research, Integration and Utilization across different governance levels, from the German federal states to the World Heritage Committee. In addition, the RIU model serves to normatively examine the process and determine quality criteria that were useful for a successful inscription as World Heritage. The paper highlights the opportunities of using scientific knowledge in the multi-level governance of international conventions.

Keywords

World Heritage Multi-level governance RIU model Scientific knowledge transfer Policy advice 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety (BMUB) under Grant 3513810200. The authors would like to thank the BfN, BMUB and “Länder” officials who supplied relevant documents for analysis and participated in expert interviews. They would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments.

References

  1. Benz, A. (2004). Kapitel 6: Multilevel governance—Governance in Mehrebenensystemen. In A. Benz (Ed.), Governance—Regieren in komplexen Regelsystemen: Eine Einführung (pp. 125–146). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Benz, A. (2007). Multilevel governance. In A. Benz, S. Lütz, U. Schimank, & G. Simonis (Eds.), Handbuch Governance: Theoretische Grundlagen und empirische Anwendungsfelder (pp. 297–310). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. BfN (Bundesamt für Naturschutz). (Ed.) (2008). Naturerbe Buchenwälder: Situationsanalyse und Handlungserfordernisse. BfN-Skripten 240. Bonn: BfN.Google Scholar
  4. BMU (Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit). (2007). National strategy on biological diversity. Berlin: BMU.Google Scholar
  5. BMUB & BfN (Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz, Bau und Reaktorsicherheit & Bundesamt für Naturschutz). (Eds.). (2013). 2013 Nature awareness studyPopulation survey on nature and biological diversity. Bonn: BMUB und BfN.Google Scholar
  6. Böcher, M. (2012). Wissenschaftsbasierte Politikberatung auf Abruf: Zur Rolle von Ressortforschungseinrichtungen für Ministerien am Beispiel der Politikberatung des Umweltbundesamtes. dmsder moderne staatZeitschrift für Public Policy, Recht und Management, 2, 459–480. Retrieved from http://www.budrich-journals.de/index.php/dms/article/view/10454.
  7. Böcher, M. (2016). How does science-based policy advice matter in policy making? The RIU model as a framework for analyzing and explaining processes of scientific knowledge transfer. Forest Policy and Economics, 68, 65–72. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934116300466.
  8. Böcher, M., & Krott, M. (2010). Umsetzung des Konzepts einer modernen Ressortforschung im Geschäftsbereich des BMU. Dessau-Roßlau: Umweltbundesamt.Google Scholar
  9. Böcher, M., & Krott, M. (2011). Institutionalisierung multi- und transdisziplinärer Umweltwissenschaften durch Ressortforschungseinrichtungen. In K. Fischer, L. Hubert, & H. Parthey (Eds.), Jahrbuch Wissenschaftsforschung 2010 (pp. 59–80). Berlin: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag.Google Scholar
  10. Böcher, M., & Krott, M. (2012). Professionelle Integration als zentraler Baustein zur Qualitätssicherung von Politikberatung. Zeitschrift für Politikberatung, 1, 13–21. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/24235044.
  11. Böcher, M., & Krott, M. (2014a). The RIU model as an analytical framework for scientific knowledge transfer: the case of the “decision support system forest and climate change”. Biodiversity and Conservation, 23, 3641–3656.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-014-0820-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Böcher, M., & Krott, M. (2014b). Mit Wissen bewegen! Erfolgsfaktoren für Wissenstransfer in den Umweltwissenschaften. München: Oekom.Google Scholar
  13. Böcher, M., & Krott, M. (2016). Science makes the world go round: Successful scientific knowledge transfer for the environment. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Böcher, M., & Nordbeck, R. (2014). Klima-Governance: Die Integration und Koordination von Akteuren, Ebenen und Sektoren als klimapolitische Herausforderung. Einführung in den Schwerpunkt. dmsder moderne staatZeitschrift für Public Policy, Recht und Management, 2, 253–268. Retrieved from http://www.budrich-journals.de/index.php/dms/article/view/17316.
  15. Brunnengräber, A., Burchardt, H.-J., & Görg, C. (Eds.). (2008). Mit mehr Ebenen zu mehr Gestaltung? Multi-Level-Governance in der transnationalen Sozial- und Umweltpolitik. Schriften zur Governance-Forschung 14. Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  16. Buckley, R. (2004). The effects of World Heritage listing on tourism to Australian National Parks. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 12(1), 70–84. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09669580408667225.
  17. Burmester, A., Engels, B., & Scheuerbrandt, B. (Eds.). (2005). World natural heritage and cultural landscapes in Europe—The potential of Europe’s world natural heritage: Report of the workshop at the International Academy for Nature Conservation Isle of Vilm, Germany, June 18th—21st, 2005. BfN-Skripten 149. Bonn: BfN.Google Scholar
  18. Cappelmann, L., Pistorius, T., & Volz, K.-R. (2010). Buchenwälder im Spannungsfeld zwischen Forstwirtschaft und Naturschutz—Der Diskurs um die waldbezogenen Ziele der “Nationalen Strategie zur biologischen Vielfalt”. Zeitschrift für Umweltpolitik und Umweltrecht, 2, 193–216.Google Scholar
  19. Cassel, S. (2004). Politikberatung und Politikerberatung: eine institutionenökonomische Analyse der wissenschaftlichen Beratung der Wirtschaftspolitik. 2. Aufl. Bern – Stuttgart – Wien: Haupt.Google Scholar
  20. Creswell, J. W. (2005). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.Google Scholar
  21. Döhler, M. (2007). Hierarchie. In A. Benz, S. Lütz, U. Schimank, & G. Simonis (Eds.), Handbuch Governance: Theoretische Grundlagen und empirische Anwendungsfelder (pp. 46–53). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Engels, B. (Ed.). (2009). Serial natural World Heritage properties—Challenges for nomination and management. In Proceedings of a workshop organised by the German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN) in cooperation with the UNESCO World Heritage Centre and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). November 7th11th, 2009. Retrieved from https://www.bfn.de/fileadmin/MDB/documents/themen/internationalernaturschutz/SerialSites%20Summary%20Report_2009.pdf.
  23. Engels, B. (2010). Serial natural heritage sites: A model to enhance diversity of World Heritage? In World Heritage & Cultural Diversity (Eds.), German Commission for UNESCO, Brandenburg University of Technology at Cottbus and UNESCO chair in heritage studies (pp. 79–84). Berlin: German Commission for UNESCO.Google Scholar
  24. Engels, B., Ohnesorge, B., & Burmester, A. (Eds.). (2009). Nominations and management of serial natural World Heritage properties—Present situation, challenges and opportunities. In Proceedings of a workshop organised by the German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN) in cooperation with the UNESCO World Heritage Centre and IUCN. November 26th30th, 2008. BfN-Skripten 248. Bonn: BfN.Google Scholar
  25. Esping, L.-E. (1997). Potential natural World Heritage sites in Europe. Retrieved from https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/Rep-1998-075.pdf.
  26. Grundmann, R. (2009). The role of expertise in governance processes. Forest Policy and Economics, 11, 398–403. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934108000877.
  27. Hansjürgens, B. (2008). Internationale Klimapolitik nach Kyoto—Architekturen und Institutionen: UFZ-Diskussionspapiere, Department of Economics. Leipzig: UFZ.Google Scholar
  28. Heim, J., & Böcher, M. (2016). CITES and science: Using the RIU model to analyze institutionalized scientific policy advice in Germany for the case of ivory trade. Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy, 19(2), 159–175. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13880292.2016.1167475.
  29. Heim, J., Böcher, M., & Krott, M. (2016). Alles im Fluss? Bundesweiter Auenschutz in Deutschland aus der Sicht des RIU Modells wissenschaftsbasierter Politikberatung. Zeitschrift für Umweltpolitik und Umweltrecht, 4, 348–377. Retrieved from http://online.ruw.de/suche/zfu/Alles-im-Fluss-Bundesw-Auens-in-Deutsc-aus-der-Sic-a780408250925f0d9da6fcdf965c58ca.
  30. Hoffmann, A., & Panek, N. (2006). Machbarkeitsstudie für eine UNESCO-Welterbenominierung eines ausgewählten deutschen Buchenwaldclusters. Teilprojekt I: Fachwissenschaftlicher Teil. Studie im Auftrag des Bundesamtes für Naturschutz. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  31. Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2001). Multi-level governance and European integration. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  32. Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2003). Unraveling the central state, but how? Types of multi-level governance: Political science series 87. Vienna: Institute for Advanced Studies.Google Scholar
  33. IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature). (1994). Parks for life: Action plan for protected areas in Europe. Gland: IUCN.Google Scholar
  34. IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature). (2004). The World Heritage list: Future priorities for a credible and complete list of natural and mixed sites: A strategy paper prepared by IUCN, April 2004. Gland: IUCN.Google Scholar
  35. IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature). (2011a). IUCN evaluations of nominations of natural and mixed properties to the World Heritage list. Gland: IUCN.Google Scholar
  36. IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature). (2011b). Sustainable tourism and natural World Heritage. Gland: IUCN.Google Scholar
  37. Keulartz, J., & Leistra, G. (Eds.). (2008). Legitimacy in European nature conservation policy: Case studies in multilevel governance. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  38. Knapp, H. D. (Ed.). (2008). Beech forests—A German contribution to the global forest biodiversity. BfN-Skripten 233. Bonn: BfN.Google Scholar
  39. Knapp, H. D., & Esping, L.-E. (1997). Welt-Naturerbe in Deutschland? Nationalpark: Wo Mensch und Wildnis sich begegnen, 95(2), 8–14.Google Scholar
  40. Knapp, H. D., & Fichtner, A. (Eds.). (2011). Beech forests. Joint natural heritage of Europe. BfN-Skripten 297. Bonn: BfN.Google Scholar
  41. Knapp, H. D., & Fichtner, A. (Eds.). (2012). Beech forests. Joint natural heritage of Europe (2). BfN-Skripten 327. Bonn: BfN.Google Scholar
  42. Knapp, H. D., & Spangenberg, A. (Eds.). (2007). Europäische Buchenwaldinitiative: Experten-Workshop zur Zukunft der Buchenwälder in Deutschland, Internationale Naturschutzakademie Insel Vilm, 2. bis 5. Mai 2007. BfN-Skripten 222. Bonn: BfN.Google Scholar
  43. Knieling, J., & Filho, W. L. (2013). Climate change governance. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Knill, C., & Tosun, J. (2012). Public policy: A new introduction. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Luthardt, M. E. (2008). Vom Wirtschaftswald zum Weltnaturerbe? Zur Entwicklung des Grumsiner Forstes. naturmagazin, 2, 34–35.Google Scholar
  46. Nagasaka, K., Böcher, M., & Krott, M. (2016). Are forest researchers only scientists? Case studies on the roles of researchers in Japanese and Swedish forest policy processes. Forest Policy and Economics, 70, 147–154. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S138993411630123X.
  47. Nationalpark Kellerwald-Edersee. (Ed.). (2011). BuchenBlatt—Magazin des Nationalparks Kellerwald-Edersee, 3/2011.Google Scholar
  48. Nickel, E. (2008). “Einwanderungsland Deutschland”: Zur Zukunft von Artenschutz und Wildnis. In Benediktbeurer Gespräche der Allianz Umweltstiftung 2008 (pp. 47–59). Berlin: Allianz Umweltstiftung.Google Scholar
  49. Osipova, E., Shi, Y., Kormos, C., Shadie, P., Zwahlen, C., & Badman, T. (2014a). IUCN World Heritage outlook 2014: A conservation assessment of all natural World Heritage sites. Gland: IUCN.Google Scholar
  50. Osipova, E., Wilson, L., Blaney, R., Shi, Y., Fancourt, M., Strubel, M., et al. (2014b). The benefits of natural World Heritage: Identifying and assessing ecosystem services and benefits provided by the world’s most iconic natural places. Gland: IUCN.Google Scholar
  51. Ostrom, E. (2010). Polycentric systems for coping with collective action and global environmental change. Global Environmental Change, 20, 550–557. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378010000634.
  52. Panek, N. (2008). Rotbuchenwälder in Deutschland. Naturschutz und Landschaftsplanung, 40, 140–146.Google Scholar
  53. Plachter, H., Gräff, F., & Schmidt, P. A. (2006). Machbarkeitsstudie für eine UNESCO-Welterbenominierung eines ausgewählten deutschen Buchenwaldclusters. Teilprojekt II: Strategisch-logistischer Teil. Studie im Auftrag des Bundesamtes für Naturschutz. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  54. Plachter, H., Kruse, A., & Kruckenberg, H. (2006). Screening potenzieller deutscher Naturwerte für das UNESCO-Welterbeübereinkommen. BfN-Skripten 177. Bonn: BfN.Google Scholar
  55. Pregernig, M., & Böcher, M. (2012). Normative and analytical perspectives on the role of science and expertise in environmental governance. In K. Hogl, E. Kvarda, R. Nordbeck, & M. Pregernig (Eds.), Environmental governance: The challenge of legitimacy and effectiveness (pp. 199–219). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  56. Silverman, D. (2006). Interpreting qualitative data. Methods for analyzing talk, text and interaction. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  57. Steiner, L., & Frey, B. S. (2011). Imbalance of World Heritage list: Did the UNESCO strategy work? (Working Paper No. 14). Zurich: University of Zurich Department of Economics.Google Scholar
  58. Stevanov, M., Böcher, M., Krott, M., Krajter, S. V. D., & Orlovic, S. (2013). The Research, integration and utilization (RIU) model as an analytical framework for the professionalization of departmental research organizations: Case studies of publicly funded forest research institutes in Serbia and Croatia. Forest Policy and Economics, 37, 20–28. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S138993411300052X.
  59. TLUG (Thüringer Landesanstalt für Umwelt und Geologie). (2007). 10 Jahre Nationalpark Hainich. Landschaftspflege und Naturschutz in Thüringen, 44, 145–173.Google Scholar
  60. UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation). (1972). Convention concerning the protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. Adopted by the general conference at its seventeenth session, Paris, 16 November 1972. Retrieved from http://whc.unesco.org/archive/convention-en.pdf.
  61. UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation). (1994). Global strategy for a balanced, representative and credible World Heritage list. Retrieved from http://whc.unesco.org/en/globalstrategy/.
  62. UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation). (2007). Decisions adopted by the World Heritage Committee at its 31st session. Retrieved from http://whc.unesco.org/archive/2007/whc07-31com-24e.pdf.
  63. UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation). (2011). Decisions adopted by the World Heritage Committee at its 35th session. Retrieved from http://whc.unesco.org/archive/2011/whc11-35com-20e.pdf.
  64. UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation). (2015). Operational guidelines for the implementation of the World Heritage convention. WHC 15/01, 8 July 2015. Retrieved from http://whc.unesco.org/document/137843.
  65. UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation). (2017). Decisions adopted by the World Heritage Committee at its 41st session. Retrieved from http://whc.unesco.org/document/159798.
  66. Weibust, I., & Meadowcroft, J. (2014). Multilevel environmental governance: Managing water and climate change in Europe and North America. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Weingart, P. (2003). Paradox of scientific advising. In G. Bechmann & I. Hronszky (Eds.), Expertise and its interfaces: The tense relationship of science and politics (pp. 53–89). Berlin: Edition Sigma.Google Scholar
  68. WWF (World Wide Fund For Nature). (Ed.). (2016). Protecting people through nature: Natural World Heritage sites as drivers of sustainable development. Gland: IUCN.Google Scholar
  69. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). London: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Bundesamt für NaturschutzBonnGermany
  2. 2.Georg-August-Universität GöttingenGöttingenGermany
  3. 3.Otto-von-Guericke-Universität MagdeburgMagdeburgGermany

Personalised recommendations