Green Infrastructure and Citizen Participation in NW Europe : The

Ian Whitehead Green Infrastructure and Citizen Participation in NW Europe: The Process of Change in Städteregion Aachen

Green Infrastructure and Citizen Participation in NW Europe: The Process of Change in Städteregion Aachen

Thesis approved by the Faculty of Architecture of the Rheinisch-Westfälische Technische Hochschule Aachen to obtain the academic title of Doctor of Engineering Sciences Submitted by Ian Whitehead

Reviewer: Univ.-Prof. Dr.-Ing. Frank Lohrberg, Chair of Landscape Architecture at RWTH Aachen Univ.-Prof. Dr.-Sci. Cecil Konijnendijk, Professor of Urban Forestry, UBC Vancouver.

Date of the oral examination: 21.04.2021

This thesis is available online on the Central University Library website.

“When we try and pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe” – John Muir

“A leader is best when people barely know he exists, when his work is done, his aim fulfilled, they will say: we did it ourselves” – Lao Tzu

Acknowledgements:

Writing a thesis is a challenging venture and one which is not possible without significant help from a diverse range of individuals and organisations. This is particularly true when the study becomes an international endeavour with research being undertaken in the field in different countries and across diverse geographical locations. With this in mind, I would like to thank the following for their invaluable support and assistance during the period of the research and also during the run up to the start of the project:

First and foremost, I would like to thank my supervisors, Professor Frank Lohrberg of the Institute of Landscape Architecture, RWTH Aachen and Cecil Konijnendijk, Professor of Urban Forestry at the University of British Columbia Canada, who have provided significant insights and supported me during the last four years of the research. I would also like to thank the staff of the Institute of Landscape Architecture, RWTH Aachen for their practical support, particularly Dr Axel Timpe and Irmgard Junker for assistance with technical, procedural and administrative matters respectively.

Further acknowledgment in terms of networking and specialist expertise must also be made to members of COST Action FP1204 “GreeninUrbs” Project, who provided significant contextual background during the conceptual stages. Similarly members of the European Forum for Urban Forestry (EFUF) deserve credit for providing further inspiration through enthusiastic promotion of Green Infrastructure approaches within the context of European regional development.

At a more local level in Germany, a number of employees of the local administration within the Aachen area helped provide valuable support and expertise, particularly through the identification of potential case study locations and familiarity with existing citizen participation and GI related programmes on the ground. These individuals included Udo Thorwesten and Andrea Drossard from the Städteregion Aachen and Dr Chistoph Ruckert from Stadt Aachen Authority. In addition, Bettina Krebs from Aachen Biologishe Station also provided very useful insights at the start and feedback during later stages.

I am very grateful for the considerable input from stakeholder groups involved in the various local initiatives across the Städteregion Aachen. These groups provided the raw material for the thesis, through formal interviews and informal discussion, through providing direct evidence of activities on the ground and also through numerous publications. Within the Städteregion Aachen, local stakeholder groups from Eicherscheid, Rott Heimatverein, Soermondt Community Garden, AG Wurmtal and Worm-Wildnis Heimatverein all particularly provided significant and invaluable contributions to the project, for which I am very grateful.

The research on the ground in Germany was complemented significantly with input from mentoring organisations and community initiatives within Scotland, some of which I have previously enjoyed a long association with. In particular, local stakeholder group representatives from Lochend Community Woodland Group in Dunbar, Doune Community Wood Group and NW Mull Community Woodland Company Ltd provided valuable material for the research. Special thanks are also due to Ian Hepburn who provided valuable insights into the role of the mentoring organisations, Community Land Scotland and the Community Woodlands Association, in his capacity of Director and Chair of these respective bodies.

Previous professional colleagues in Scotland were also very helpful in terms of providing advice and information on the role and operation of the Third Sector in Scotland, particularly with regards to Green Infrastructure. I would especially like to thank Charlie Cumming, CEO of Edinburgh and Lothian Greenspace Trust for background information on the Voluntary Sector and also to former members of the Central Scotland Green Network Steering Group, the Lothians and Fife Green Network Partnership and Greenspace Scotland. Other organisations with which I was previously involved with, such as: Aberdeen Greenspace (Aberdeen Countryside Project Ltd), Dundee Trees and Woods in Greenspace, the South Herefordshire Countryside Action Partnership and VSO Nepal also helped to set the context through providing valuable practical lessons on the nurturing of citizen led initiatives and GI partnership approaches.

Last, but certainly not least, I would like to thank members of my family for their obvious patience and tolerance of my activities during the period of the research work and with all the associated challenges and logistical issues that writing this thesis has entailed.

Ian Whitehead,

Aachen, April 2021

Deutsche Sprache Zusammenfassung: Grüne Infrastruktur und Bürgerbeteiligung in NW-Europa - Der Prozess des Wandels in der Städteregion Aachen

Das Ziel dieser Studie ist es, das Potential von Bürgerbeteiligung als Mechanismus für das Management von Grüner Infrastruktur (GI) in Nordwesteuropa und Europa durch die Auswertung von Fallstudien vor Ort in kontrastierenden geographischen Regionen zu evaluieren, jedoch mit einem besonderen Schwerpunkt auf der Städteregion Aachen.

In den letzten Jahren ist das Bewusstsein für das Konzept der Grünen Infrastruktur (GI) gewachsen, das darauf abzielt, integrierte Umweltdienstleistungen und nachhaltige Entwicklungsvorteile in einem breiten Spektrum von ökologischen, sozialen und wirtschaftlichen Themen zu liefern. Insbesondere wird die Multifunktionalität von Landschaften als Schlüsseleigenschaft von GI betrachtet, wobei von den Gebieten erwartet wird, dass sie gleichzeitig verschiedene Funktionen wie Biodiversität, Nahrungsmittelproduktion, Bodenschutz, Wasser- und Klimaregulierung, Erholung und Tourismus, Wohlbefinden und kulturelle Dienstleistungen bieten. Dies steht in deutlichem Kontrast zu früheren sektoralen Ansätzen der Landschaftspflege, die dazu tendierten, sich auf einzelne Aspekte wie Naturschutz, Nahrungsmittelproduktion oder Erholung zu konzentrieren.

Die zunehmende Anerkennung der Notwendigkeit eines integrierten Ansatzes für GI in Europa spiegelt sich in den Gesetzgebungs- und Politikgestaltungsprozessen der EU wider. Wesentliche Treiber hierfür sind der globale Klimawandel, der Verlust der biologischen Vielfalt und die Politik der nachhaltigen Entwicklung auf nationaler, europäischer und globaler Ebene. Parallel zur EU-Priorisierung strategischer Ansätze für GIs gibt es eine wachsende Verlagerung hin zu sogenannten "Mosaik"- Formen der Governance; partizipative Ansätze, die verschiedene Interessengruppen - einschließlich lokaler Bürgergruppen, gesetzlicher Behörden und Mentoren Organisationen - einbeziehen, die partnerschaftlich zusammenarbeiten, oft auf lokaler Ebene. Bezeichnenderweise erkennt die Europäische Kommission die Vorteile solcher Prozesse an und betont die sozialen Ergebnisse, die diese liefern können, indem sie feststellt, dass "die Implementierung von GI-Merkmalen in städtischen Gebieten ein größeres Gemeinschaftsgefühl schafft, die Verbindung mit freiwilligen Aktionen der Zivilgesellschaft stärkt und hilft, soziale Ausgrenzung und Isolation zu bekämpfen. Sie kommen dem Einzelnen und der Gemeinschaft physisch, psychologisch, emotional und sozioökonomisch zugute".

Die Städteregion Aachen wurde aufgrund ihrer herausragenden Lage im "Herzen Europas", an der Grenze zu Deutschland, Belgien und den Niederlanden, ihrer unterschiedlichen geographischen Zonen und Lebensraumtypen sowie ihrer vielfältigen Bevölkerungsverteilung als geeignetes Untersuchungsgebiet ausgewählt. Zu Vergleichszwecken und um zusätzliche Erkenntnisse zu gewinnen, wurden zu einem späteren Zeitpunkt weitere Fallbeispiele aus Schottland in die Studie aufgenommen. Schottland hat eine starke Tradition des kommunalen Grünflächenmanagements, der Freiwilligenarbeit und des bürgerschaftlichen Engagements im Bereich der natürlichen Ressourcen. Im Gegensatz zu Deutschland hat Schottland aktiv eine hochrangige Gesetzgebung und ein Mainstreaming der Regierungspolitik verfolgt, die darauf abzielt, die direkte Beteiligung lokaler Bürgergruppen an GI und Landmanagement zu fördern und zu erleichtern. Dies macht es zu einem wertvollen Beispiel für die Zwecke der Gegenüberstellung und des Vergleichs.

Auf praktischer Ebene zielte die Studie darauf ab, das Ausmaß des GI-Netzes in der StädteRegion Aachen zu identifizieren und zu definieren und dann Beispiele für Bürgerbeteiligung in der Studienregion zu recherchieren und zusammenzutragen, und zwar durch Recherchen am Schreibtisch, Expertenwissen von Insidern und Belege aus der Praxis. Diese Prozesse führten zur Auswahl und Identifizierung von detaillierten Fallstudien. Diese wurden entlang eines Transekts ausgerichtet, der ländliche, peri-urbane und städtische Gebiete der Städteregion Aachen repräsentiert. In jedem der Fallstudiengebiete wurden Interviews mit Anwohnern und Interessengruppen durchgeführt. Durch die Verwendung eines Vergleichsrahmens und einer SWOT-Analyse der ausgewählten Fallstudien wurden die wichtigsten positiven und negativen Lernpunkte von jedem Standort identifiziert. In ähnlicher Weise wurde eine geringere Anzahl von Fallstudien aus Zentralschottland zu Vergleichszwecken identifiziert, wobei bestehende, offiziell dokumentierte Beispiele für Bürgerbeteiligung verwendet wurden. Ein ähnlicher Prozess der detaillierten Auswertung wurde dann auch für jedes der identifizierten schottischen Fallstudienbeispiele durchgeführt.

Durch diese Prozesse wurde eine Reihe von politischen Leitlinien formuliert und unter 14 Schlüsselüberschriften gruppiert. Diese zielten darauf ab, die Unterstützungsstrukturen zu verbessern, die lokalen Bürgergruppen von gesetzlichen Behörden und Mentoren zur Verfügung stehen, indem eine Reihe von praktischen Reformen der Politik, der Finanzierungsströme und der Umsetzungsstrukturen vorgeschlagen wurden. Diese beinhalteten auch eine Reihe von Schlüsselmaßnahmen; insbesondere die Schaffung und Entwicklung einer strategischen GI- Partnerschaftsstruktur für die Städteregion Aachen, um die Schnittstellen und thematischen Verbindungen zwischen Top-Down-Politikansätzen und Bottom-Up-Bürgeraktionen zu verbessern. Es wurden Überlegungen angestellt, wie diese Maßnahmen durch einen Stakeholder-Dialog praktisch umgesetzt werden können. Die Einholung eines solchen Stakeholder-Feedbacks wurde in den späteren Phasen der Forschung aufgrund der Auswirkungen der Corona-Pandemie schwieriger.

Die abschließenden Schlussfolgerungen befassen sich auf einer eher konzeptionellen Ebene mit den Triebkräften des Wandels, die erforderlich sind, um die Prozesse einer von unten nach oben gerichteten, von den Bürgern geführten Partizipation durch die Herbeiführung institutioneller Veränderungen innerhalb gesetzlicher Organe und betreuender Organisationen und deren damit verbundenen Interaktionen mit lokalen Bürgergruppen zu erleichtern. Das praktische Ausmaß, in dem solche Ansätze grenzüberschreitend angewandt und verbreitet werden könnten, um multifunktionale GI-Ergebnisse zu erzielen, wird angesichts des Ausmaßes lokaler kultureller, administrativer und steuerlicher Einflüsse in Betracht gezogen.

Summary: Green Infrastructure and Citizen Participation in NW Europe – The Process of Change in Städteregion Aachen

The aim of this study is to evaluate the potential for citizen participation as a mechanism for management of Green Infrastructure (GI) within NW and Europe through evaluation of case studies on the ground in contrasting geographical regions, but with a particular emphasis on the Aachen City Region, Städteregion Aachen.

In recent years there has been a growing awareness of the concept of Green Infrastructure (GI) approaches which aim to deliver integrated environmental services and sustainable development benefits across a broad range of ecological, social and economic themes. Significantly, the multifunctionality of landscapes is considered to be a key attribute of GI, with areas expected to simultaneously provide diverse functions such as biodiversity, food production, soil conservation, water & climate regulation, recreation & tourism, wellbeing and cultural services. This contrasts markedly with previous sectorial approaches to landscape management which tended to focus upon single issues such as nature protection, food production or recreation.

The growing acknowledgement of the requirement for an integrated approach to GI in Europe is reflected within the EU legislative and policymaking processes. Significant drivers for this, have included global climate change, biodiversity loss and sustainable development policies at national, European and global scale. Parallel to the EU prioritisation of strategic approaches to GI, is the growing shift towards so-called “mosaic” forms of governance; participatory approaches which involve diverse stakeholders - including local citizens groups, statutory authorities and mentoring organisations - working in partnership, often at a local level. Significantly, the European Commission recognises the benefits of such processes and stresses the social outcomes that these can deliver, noting that, “implementing GI features in urban areas creates a greater sense of community, strengthens the link with voluntary actions undertaken by civil society, and helps combat social exclusion and isolation. They benefit the individual and the community physically, psychologically, emotionally and socio- economically”.

The Aachen City Region was selected as suitable study area for this purpose given its prominent position at the “heart of Europe”, on the border of Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands, its range of geographical zones, habitat types and its diverse patterns of population distribution. For the purposes of comparison and for providing additional insights, additional case study examples from Scotland were also incorporated into the study at a later stage. Scotland has a strong tradition of community greenspace management, volunteering and citizen engagement within the natural resources sector. In contrast to Germany, Scotland has actively pursued high level legislation and mainstreaming of governmental polices which aim to promote and facilitate direct participation in GI and land management by local citizens’ groups. This makes it a valuable example for the purposes of contrasting and comparison.

At a practical level, the Study aimed to identify and define the extent of GI network in the Aachen City Region and then to research and collate examples of citizen participation within the Study Region through desk based research, insider expert knowledge and evidence from the field. These processes resulted in the selection and identification of detailed case studies. These were aligned along a transect which represented rural, peri-urban and urban areas of the Städteregion Aachen. Interviews with local residents and stakeholder groups were undertaken within each of the case study areas. Through use of a comparison Framework and SWOT analysis of the selected case studies, key positive and negative learning points were identified from each location. Similarly, a lesser number of case studies were identified from Central Scotland for comparison purposes, using existing officially documented examples of citizen participation. A similar process of detailed evaluation was then also undertaken for each of the identified Scottish case study examples.

Through these processes a series of policy guidelines were formulated and grouped under 14 key headings. These aimed at improving support structures available to local citizens groups from statutory authorities and mentoring bodies through proposing a series of practical reforms to policy, funding streams and delivery structures. These also included a number of keystone measures; in particular the creation and development of a strategic GI partnership structure for the Städteregion Aachen to enhance the interface and thematic links between top-down policy driven approaches and bottom-up citizen led actions. Consideration was made as to the practicality of implementing these measures through stakeholder dialogue. Obtaining such stakeholder feedback became more difficult in the later stages of the research due to the impacts of the Corona Pandemic.

Final conclusions consider more generally at a more conceptual level, the drivers of change needed to facilitate the processes of bottom up, citizen led participation through bringing about institutional change within statutory bodies and mentoring organisations and their associated interactions with local citizens’ groups. The practical extent to which such approaches might be applied and promulgated across borders to deliver multifunctional GI outcomes is given consideration given the extent of local cultural, administrative and fiscal influences.

Chapter Headings and Contents: Page no.

1. Introduction 1 1.1 General Introduction to the study 1 1.2 Key aims of the study 3 1.3 Primary goals and stages in the process 3 1.4 Research methods 3 1.5 Proposed outcomes and conclusions 4 2. Establishing background context 5 2.1 An overview of GI and Citizen Participation at EU and State level in Germany 6 2.2 Städteregion Aachen - An overview GI with relation to Citizen Participation 33 2.3 Regional GI overview – spatial components 39 3. Scoping, shortlisting and identification of case studies 51 3.1 Discussion and meetings with local experts from regional and local authorities to determine an 52 initial shortlist of sites with potential for further evaluation as case studies. 3.2 Mapping of these locations to provide a geographical overview of potential case study sites 52 3.3 Orientation visits to all potential sites identified through discussion for familiarisation purposes 59 3.4 The development of an assessment matrix and scoring system to evaluate all potential case 59 studies 3.5 Selection of a transect incorporating rural, urban and periurban locations 65 3.6 Short listing and section of final case studies along transect 67 4. Investigation of selected case studies 68 4.1 Detailed reconnaissance visits to selected sites 69 4.2 Production of GIS site maps and plans detailing GI features 71 4.3 Desk based research – site specific literature and web resources 79 4.4 Structured interviews with citizen’s groups for selected case study sites 79 4.5 Compilation of case study descriptions 82 5. Evaluation and analysis of case studies – Städteregion Aachen 113 5.1 Adaptation and use of Comparison framework for qualitative analysis 114 5.2 SWOT analysis based on Comparison Framework outcomes 121 5.3 Identification of key positive and negative learning points based upon SWOT analysis 127 5.4 Bar and Radar charts Illustrating outcomes against objectives 130 5.5 Stakeholder Mapping Charts illustrating group structure and stakeholders 138 5.6 Contribution to UN Sustainable Development Goals - SDGs 146 6. Comparison with additional Scottish case study examples 147 6.1 Context and justification of Scottish case study examples 148 6.2 Defining and identifying Scottish case studies for comparison 150 6.3 Scottish case study detailed descriptions 153 6.4 Use of the adapted Comparison Framework for qualitative analysis 175 6.5 SWOT analysis based upon Comparison Framework outcomes for Scottish examples 183 6.6 Identification of key positive and negative learning points for the Scottish case studies 189 6.7 Bar and Radar charts illustrating outcomes against objectives 190 6.8 Stakeholder mapping charts illustrating group structure and stakeholders 197 6.9 Delivery of UN Sustainable Development Goals – SDGs 202 7. Results arising from the evaluation, analysis and comparison process 204 7.1 Identification and listing of key topic areas 205 7.2 Allocation of key learning points to topic areas 206 7.3 Key learning points according to topics with appropriate policy responses: 211 7.4 Distilled and collated policy responses 222

8. Identification of instruments and measures for regional, local authorities and mentoring bodies 230 8.1 Policy recommendations for statutory authorities and mentoring bodies in the Städteregion 231 Aachen 8.2 Potential GI Partnership delivery structures in the Städteregion Aachen 245 8.3 Partnership structuring, hosting and resources 248 8.4 GI Partnership structures and local citizen participation initiatives 267 9. Conclusions 270 9.1 What has been achieved through the research in relation to the original main questions and 271 primary research goals 9.2 General observations and discussion on the results and outcomes of the research 275 9.3 Applicability to other regions and geographical contexts 278 9.4 Recommendations from the study with reference to the requirement for further research and for 281 the integration into best practice 10. Reference Sources 284

AP. Appendices 296 AP.1 Assessment matrices and scoring 297 AP.2 Stakeholder appraisals /questionnaires 337 AP.3 Selected statutory and mentoring body questionnaires 367 AP.4 GIS Shapefile Information 379 AP.5 List of meetings and correspondence 380

List of Figures:

Figure Figure Title Page no. no. 1. The Städteregion Aachen location and area 1 2. Components of Green Infrastructure 6 3. Masterplan Grünes Städtedreieck 9 4. Central Scotland Green Network 9 5. GI elements in urban, peri-urban and regional landscapes 10 6. Illustrative transect showing potential GI actions 10 7. GI features and multifunctionality at landscape scale 11 8. GI features on an urban neighbourhood scale, highlighting opportunities 12 9. A framework for GI and urban ecosystem service delivery 15 10. Planning multi-functional Green Infrastructure 15 11. Arnstein’s ladder of citizen participation 17 12. Urban forest stakeholders, actors and governance arrangement types 18 13. UN Sustainable Development Goals delivered by urban forestry 18 14. Mosaic governance to enhance integration of GI policy and active citizenship 22 15. Stages in the co-production in and from productive parks 25 16. Nature Parks in Germany 27 17. The “Green Crown” of Aachen Freiraumkonzept 31 18. The Stadt Aachen Freiraumkonzept – Spacial elements 32 19. The Hohes Venn-Eifel Nature Park Area 35 20. The Three Countries Park area 39 21. Strategic GI Network – Biotope Kataster, core areas and Biotopverbindung 42 22. Landscape character zones – “Landschaftsräume” 44 23. Potential case study locations across the Städteregion Aachen 54 24. Potential case study site locations overlayed with GI network features 56 25. More detailed example of mapping incorporating further GI features 58 26. Core study areas showing North and South transects with final case study locations 66 27. Eicherscheid – Transect location and GI mapping overview 71 28. Rott, Roetgen – Transect location and GI mapping overview 73 29. Soermondt Park, Aachen – Transect location and GI mapping overview 74 30. Wurmtal NSG – Transect location and GI mapping overview 76 31. Worm-Wildnis NSG – Transect location and GI mapping overview 77 32. Eicherscheid – Case study overview portrait 82 33. Eicherscheid – Cultural landscapes and GI images 86 34. Rott – Case study overview portrait 87 35. Rott – Cultural landscape and GI images 92 36. Soermondt Community Garden – Case study overview portrait 93 37. Soermondt Community Garden and the wider park concept 98 38. Soermondt Community Garden as a “stepping stone” in the GI network 99 39. Wurmtal – Case study overview portrait 100 40. The Wurmtal NSG showing Habitats Directive “Natura 2000” core areas 104 41. Worm-Wildnis – Case study overview portrait 105 42. Worm-Wildnis – Cultural landscape and GI mapping 112 43. Chart: Indicative comparison of strengths according to predefined classes 126 44. Chart: Indicative comparison of weaknesses according to predefined classes 127 45. Chart: Group Motivations 131 46. Chart: Overall existing GI assets 133 47. Chart: Social aspects 134 48. Chart: Environmental aspects 135 49. Chart: Economic aspects 136 50. Chart: Social, environmental and economic aspects overview 137 51. Eicherscheid Heckenlandschaft – Stakeholder overview 139 52. Rott – Stakeholder overview 140 53. Soermondt Community Garden – Stakeholder overview 141 54. Wurmtal NSG – Stakeholder overview 142 55. Worm-Wildnis NSG – Stakeholder overview 143 56. Key to the stakeholder charts – Figs. 51-55 144 57. Scotland - Citizen participation and mentoring examples overview portrait 150 58. Central Scotland - Transect highlighting case study locations 151 59. Selected Scottish case studies – Overview portrait 152 60. Lochend, Dunbar, Community Woodland Group – Overview portrait 153 61. Dunbar Community Woodland location details 158 62. Dunbar Community Woodland location details 158 63. Lochend Community Woodland trails map 159 64. Lochend Community Woodland Group - Site activities 160 65. Doune Ponds - Case study overview portrait 161 66. Doune Ponds - Site map illustrating GI features 166 67. Doune Ponds – Site and participation activities 167 68. NW Mull Community Woodland Company – Case study overview portrait 168 69. NW Mull - Map of the Langamull and West Ardhu forest areas 175 70. NW Mull - Map of Ulva Estate showing woodland habitats 175 71. Chart: Indicative comparison of strengths according to predefined classes - Scotland 187 72. Chart: Indicative comparison of weaknesses according to predefined classes - Scotland 188 73. Chart: Group motivations - Scotland 191 74. Chart: Overall existing GI assets - Scotland 193 75. Chart: Social Aspects - Scotland 194 76. Chart: Environmental Aspects - Scotland 195 77. Chart: Economic Aspects - Scotland 196 78. Chart: Social, environmental and economic aspects overview - Scotland 197 79. Lochend Community Woodland – Stakeholder overview 198 80. Doune Ponds – Stakeholder overview 199 81. NW Mull Community Woodlands – Stakeholder overview 200 82. Key to the stakeholder charts – Figs. 79-81 201 83. Conceptual regional GI partnership functions 246 84. Potential partnership hosting structures 249 85. Potential partnership hosting structures adapted for Städteregion Aachen 250 86. GI network partnership governance – interregional model 252 87. Consideration for an evaluative framework for the investigation of outputs, outcomes, and 253 processes 88. Summarised success factors for citizen participation 273 89. Citizen participation mechanisms – the process of change 278

List of Tables:

Table Table Title Page no. no.

1. Summary of GI elements across the rural/urban gradient - adapted from “Green Surge” 13 2. Ecosystem Services Types: Adapted from MEA, 2005 14 3. Potential GIS shapefiles highlighting features to be initially considered 40 4. Monschauer “Heckenlandschaft”- Suggested GI priorities 45 5. Hohes Venn- Suggested GI priorities 46 6. Monschau / Hohes Venn Forest Uplands - Suggested GI priorities 47 7. Kornelimünster Eifel Vorland - Suggested GI priorities 48 8. Urban Area of Aachen City - Suggested GI priorities 49 9. Aachen Old Industrial Territory - Suggested GI priorities 50 10. Initial meetings with local experts and officials as part of the scoping process 52 11. Shortlist and characteristics of potential case study locations 53 12. Case study scoping, scoring system and results 62 13. Case study areas selected 67 14. List of field visits and meetings in Städteregion Aachen 69 15. Structured interview contacts 79 16. Structured interview questions 80 17. Eicherscheid – Outputs and actions 83 18. Eicherscheid – Strategic GI elements 84 19. Rott, Roetgen – Outputs and actions 88 20. Rott, Roetgen – Strategic GI elements 89 21. Soermondt Community Garden – Outputs and actions 95 22. Soermondt Community Garden – Strategic GI elements 96 23. Wurmtal NSG – Outputs and actions 101 24. Wurmtal NSG – Strategic GI elements 102 25. Worm-Wildnis NSG – Outputs and actions 107 26. Worm-Wildnis NSG – Strategic GI elements 108 27. The Comparison Framework Process 115 28. SWOT Analysis - Eicherscheid Heckenlandschaft 121 29. SWOT Analysis – Rott, Roetgen 122 30. SWOT Analysis – Soermondt Community Garden 123 31. SWOT Analysis – Wurmtal NSG 124 32. SWOT Analysis - Worm-Wildnis NSG 125 33. Key Learning Points – Eicherscheid Heckenlandschaft 128 34. Key Learning Points – Rott, Roetgen 128 35. Key Learning Points – Soermondt Park, Aachen 129 36. Key Learning Points – Wurmtal NSG 129 37. Key Learning Points – Worm-Wildnis 130 38. Presence and absence of key stakeholders across the case study projects 145 39. Synergy between case studies and UN Sustainable development goals 146 40. Lochend Community Woodland, Dunbar - Outputs and actions 154 41. Lochend Community Woodland, Dunbar - Strategic GI elements 155 42. Doune Ponds Local Nature Reserve - Outputs and actions 162 43. Doune Ponds Local Nature Reserve – Strategtic GI elements 163 44. North West Mull - Outputs and actions 170 45. North West Mull – Strategic GI elements 172 46. Comparison Framework for the Scottish case studies 176 47. SWOT Analysis - Lochend Community Woodland, Dunbar 183 48. SWOT Analysis - Doune Ponds Local Nature Reserve 184 49. SWOT Analysis – North West Mull 185 50. Key Learning Points - Lochend Community Woodland, Dunbar 189 51. Key Learning Points - Doune Ponds Local Nature Reserve 189 52. Key Learning Points – North West Mull 190 53. Presence and absence of key stakeholders across the case study projects - Scotland 201 54. Synergy between case studies and UN Sustainable Development Goals - Scotland 203 55. Key Topic Areas identified from the key learning points 205 56. Key positive learning points allocated to different topic areas – Städteregion Aachen 207 57. Key negative learning points allocated to different topic areas - Städteregion Aachen 208 58. Key positive learning points allocated to different topic areas – Scotland 209 59. Key negative learning points allocated to different topic areas - Scotland 210 60. Key positive learning points, sorted according to topics with policy responses - Städteregion 211 Aachen 61. Key negative learning points, sorted according to topics with policy responses - 214 Städteregion Aachen 62. Key positive learning points, sorted according to topics with policy responses - Scotland 217 63. Key negative learning points, sorted according to topics with policy responses - Scotland 220 64. Distilled and collated policy responses 222 65. Policy Recommendations for statutory authorities and mentoring bodies 232 66. Favourable characteristics of hosting organisations 254 67. Unfavourable characteristics of hosting organisations 255 68. Potential GI partnership hosting bodies 256 69. Potential GI partnership hosting bodies within the Städteregion Aachen - Advantages and 257 disadvantages 70. Feedback on potential partnership structuring, hosting and resources 262 71. Points arising from the feedback 264 72. Summarised citizen participation - Success factors 274

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations occurring in the text:

Acronym Description English Language Description:

ACK Aachen-Köln Aachen- Cologne ACP Aberdeen Countryside Project Citywide GI initiative in Aberdeen funded through Landfill Tax AGM Annual General Meeting - BMELV Bundesministerium für Ernährung, Federal Ministry for Food, Agriculture and Consumer Landwirtschft und Verbraucherschutz Protection BMUB Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature /BMU Naturschutz und nukleare Sicherheit Conservation, and Nuclear Safety

BUND Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz German Federation for Environment and Nature Deutschland Protection CEMEX Cemex An international concrete and aggregates company CLS Community Land Scotland Umbrella body for local community stakeholder groups – Scotland CSGN Central Scotland Green Network Landscape scale GI programme covering 19 local authority areas of Central Scotland CWA Community Woodlands Association Umbrella body for local community stakeholder groups – Scotland DCDC Dunbar Community Development Local Community Stakeholder Group / Company Company DCWG Doune Community Woodland Group Local Community Stakeholder Group EAFRD European Agricultural Fund for Rural EU Funding Stream Development ERDF European Regional Development Fund EU Funding Stream EU European Union - e.V. Eingetragener Verein A Registered Association in Germany FAO Food and Argiculture Orgnaisation (of the - United Nations) FCS / FLS Forestry Commission Scotland (now Scottish Governmental Forestry Agency Forestry & Land Scotland) FFH Fauna Flora Habitat Richtlinie EU flora and fauna Habitats Directive FH Aachen Fachhochschule Aachen Aachen University of Applied Sciences GI Green Infrastructure - GIS Geographical Information Systems - GmbH Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung Limited Liability Company – Germany IHN Integrated Habitat Network Mapping Mapping Tool used for landuse planning in Scotland IMA - GDI Interministeriellen Ausschuss – Interministerial committee for development of geodata Geodateninfrastrukur resources in Germany Interreg - European Union Regional Development Fund LANUV Landesamt für Natur, Umwelt und State office for nature, environment and consumer Verbraucherschutz Nordrhein-Westfalen protection in Northrhine Westfalia LCWG Lochend Community Woodland Group – Local Community Stakeholder Group Dunbar LEADER Liaison entre actions de dévelopement de Linking actions for the development of the rural l’économie rurale economy – EU funded initiaive to support locally initiated rural development projects LSG Landschaftsschutzgebiete Landscape Protection Area Designation - Germany Ltd. Limited liability company UK legal comapany status LVR Landschaftsverband Rhineland Rhineland Regional Landscape Association MEA Millennium Ecosystems Assessment - NABU Naturschutzbund German Nature Protection Association NGO Non Governmental Organisation - NSA National Scenic Area Landscape protection designation (Scotland) similar in status to European Nature Park NSG Naturschutzgebiete Nature conservation designation (Germany) similar in status to SSSI (UK) NRW Nordrhein Westfalen German State of North Rhine Westfalia NUA Natur und Umweltschutz Akademie NRW Nature and Environmental Protection Accademy – NRW NWMCWC North West Mull Community Woodland Local Community Stakeholder Group Company QGIS Q - Geographical Information Systems GIS software RSPB Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. UK Nature Conservation NGO RWTH Rheinisch Westfälische Technische Rhenisch Westphalian Technical University Hochschule SDG Sustainable Development Goal UN Sustainable Development measures SIMD Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation A social measure of deprived communities SNH Scottish Natural Heritage Scottish Governmental Nature Conservation Agency SROI Social Return upon Investment A measure of social outcomes from infrastructure investments. SSSI Site of Special Scientific Interest UK nature conservation designation equivarlent to German Naturschutzgebiete SWOT Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and - Threats UGI Urban Green Infrastructure - UDHZ Unser Dorf hat Zukunft “Our Village has a Future” – village development competition - Germany UK United Kingdom ULB Untere Landschaftsbehörde – Umwelts The lower nature conservation authority for the Amt, Städteregion Aachen Städteregion Aachen UN United Nations - VS Vögelschutzgebiet Part of the Natura 2000 network of protected habitats relating to the Bird Directive WIAT Woods In and Around Towns Funding programme for urban forestry by Forestry Commission Scotland

Definition of Terminology used in the Text:

For the purpose of this research thesis, the following definitions will be used for key terms commonly occurring within the text:

Green Infrastructure (GI) Terminology:

Term: Meaning /Description

Biotope Network Ecological network consisting of core areas, connecting areas and connecting elements. At the /Biotopverbund regional level, and especially in landscapes shaped by agriculture, it consists of the linear features and habitat patches needed to link biotopes, especially hedges and field borders and "stepping-stone" biotopes. Specifically in Germany the Biotope network links the following habitats; i) natural or near-natural areas of flowing and standing inland water ii) moors, reed beds, wet meadows, pastures, meadows, dry grasslands, natural heavy metal grasslands, forests and shrubs on dry-warm sites iii) ravine, swamp and floodplain forests, ravine, managed and slope forests. The term is broadly compatible with the English language terms “ecological network” and “habitat network”.

Core Areas Largely unmodified areas of extensive natural or semi-natural habitat providing refugia for flora and fauna. These core areas will usually be designated areas: e.g. NSG, FFH, Biosphere reserves.

Connectivity Corridors which link core areas of habitat allowing the movement and dispersal of species elements through the surrounding landscape matrix.

Green infrastructure A Strategically planned network of high-quality natural, semi-natural and cultivated areas (GI) designed and managed to deliver a wide range of ecosystem services and protect biodiversity (European Commission 2013).

Green network Connected areas of green infrastructure and open space that together form an integrated and multi-functional network. This term has been used largely within the Scottish context but to all intents and purposes is interchangeable with the term Green Infrastructure.

Ecosystem services The benefits people obtain from ecosystems. These include provisioning services such as food or water; regulating services such as flood and disease control; cultural services such as spiritual, recreational and cultural benefits; and supporting services such as nutrient cycling that maintain the conditions for life on earth (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005).

Ecological network A coherent system of natural and/or semi-natural landscape elements that is configured and managed with the objective of maintaining or restoring ecological functions as a means to conserve biodiversity while also providing appropriate opportunities for the sustainable use of natural resources. Within Germany the ecological network is known as the Biotopverbund.

Habitat Network Term is used interchangeably with Ecological Network with respect to this study.

Landscape Characterises the relative potential for movement of flora and fauna between habitat patches permeability at a landscape scale.

Landscape matrix A component of the landscape, altered from its original state by human land use, which may vary in cover from human-dominated to semi-natural and in which corridors and habitat patches are embedded. Also defined as ‘non-habitat’ and/or the portion of the landscape in which habitat patches and corridors are ‘embedded’.

Stepping stones Small, isolated habitat patches which act as conduits for dispersal within larger areas of hostile matrix such as urban areas or within intensively managed agricultural zones.

Citizen Participation Terminology:

Term: Meaning /Description

Bottom up Initiatives and proposals which originate from local people at a grass-roots level rather than in approaches response to strategic policies or interventions initiated by centralised governmental bodies.

Citizen led Similar to “bottom up” approaches with an emphasis on groups of citizens actively initiating approaches and leading projects themselves.

Civil Society Groups which operate within the community, independently of government or business. Organisations Community The process of working collaboratively with and through groups of people affiliated by engagement geographic proximity, special interest or similar situations to address issues affecting the wellbeing of those people. It is a powerful vehicle for bringing about environmental and behavioural changes that will improve the health of the community and its members. It often involves partnerships and coalitions that help mobilize resources and influence systems, change relationships among partners, and serve as catalysts for changing policies, programmes and practices (CDC, 2011).

GI governance Participatory Governance of green spaces concerns the arrangements in which citizens, entrepreneurs, NGOs or other non-governmental actors make decisions about and manage and manage networks of green spaces at different levels, with or without the active involvement of government authorities and public agencies. (Ambrose-Oji B, Buijs A et al. 2017).

Self-governance A wide variety of governance arrangements where private actors take their own initiative to autonomously act and pursue public or collective objectives. In green space governance, this manifests in many bottom-up initiatives (Mattijssen T, Buijs A et al. 2017).

Participation A process of equitable and active involvement of all stakeholders in the formulation of development policies and strategies and in the analysis, planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of development activities.

Mentoring bodies Organisations which provide advice, support, training and motivation to others, in this case relating to citizen led actions.

Participatory A system of governance which largely incorporates or is based upon the principles of governance participation. i.e. a process of equitable and active involvement of stakeholders in the analysis, planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of development activities.

Social Return on A systematic way of incorporating social, environmental, economic and other values into Investment (SROI) decision-making processes. By helping reveal the economic value of social and environmental outcomes it creates a holistic perspective on whether a development project or social business or enterprise is beneficial and profitable.

Statutory agencies Official bodies or institutions undertaking legal duties on behalf of central or local government.

Third Sector The part of an economy or society comprising non-governmental and non-profit-making organizations or associations, including charities, voluntary and community groups, cooperatives etc.

Voluntary sector A broadly similar definition to the Third Sector.

Chapter 1. Introduction

1.1 General Introduction to the Study

In recent years the term Green Infrastructure (GI), has become increasingly adopted in European countries. The European Commission defines GI as “a strategically planned network of natural and semi-natural areas with other environmental features designed and managed to deliver a wide range of ecosystem services”(European Commission 2013, European Commission 2013b). Importantly GI is expected to deliver social and economic benefits as well as environmental ones.

This study presents research undertaken in the Städteregion Aachen - the Aachen City Region, in Western Germany to evaluate the extent of local citizen initiatives which contribute directly to the management or creation of GI across the Städteregion Aachen. The study aims to understand how local citizen initiatives are organised, how they are supported and by whom and to identify barriers which exist for bottom-up citizen participation initiatives which might contribute to local and regional scale GI networks. In particular, the study aims to investigate the role of statutory authorities in the process of supporting and enabling local citizen initiatives which help to deliver and manage GI resources - and in a manner which also compliments strategic regional and state planning objectives.

Fig 1. The Städteregion Aachen location and area (Städteregion Aachen 2020b)

The Städteregion Aachen has been selected as suitable location for the purposes of this study given its strategic position at the “heart of Europe” on the borders of Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands, its varied range of biogeographical zones, habitat types and its diverse pattern of population distribution.

The Städteregion covers an area of approximately 700 km2, with a population of 555,000 distributed across 10 districts, 245,000 of whom live in the City of Aachen itself. (Städteregion Aachen 2020b) – see Fig. 1. It comprises a diverse range of geographical zones and habitat types and varies in elevation from 150m above sea level in the low lying northern part of the Region, to over 600m in the Eifel uplands which are located in the Southern part of the Region. For the purposes of more effective analysis, the study area will focus upon a broad transect through the Städteregion, from the uplands of the Deutsch-Belgischer Naturpark Hohes Venn-Eifel, through to the City of Aachen and its low lying and more densely populated industrial hinterland to the North.

In Germany as a whole, the management and implementation of Green Infrastructure is generally undertaken through top down processes by municipalities and governmental bodies acting on behalf of local citizens (Whitehead I, Hansmann R et al. 2017, Biodiversity Information System for Europe 2020). In this respect, much of the GI effort within the Germany and the State of North Rhine Westphalia in particular, has focused upon the restoration and re-greening of post-industrial landscapes, notably the creation of the Emscher Park within the Ruhrgebiet Region (Regionalverband Ruhr 2016). The integration of habitat networks into regional planning policies in response to Germany’s Federal Nature Conservation Act has also been a powerful driver for the development of local GI networks and plans (Federal Ministry for the Environment 2020).

By contrast, citizen participation is often limited in scope to low key interventions such as local authority or NGO directed actions including tree planting or specific habitat management activities (Biodiversity Information System for Europe 2020). Mechanisms for involvement of citizens in wider management decision making roles relating to GI are however less developed within Germany and are at times hindered by centralist, top down approaches by State and local administrations along with rigid bureaucratic divisions between governance functions and delivery of outcomes (Hansmann R, Whitehead I et al. 2016, Whitehead I, Hansmann R et al. 2017). Despite such generalisations, examples of more active participation in the management of GI by local citizens groups, such as the Remscheid Community Forest (Waldgenossenschaft Remscheid eG. 2020), can be found within Germany. This study will also aim to investigate this further through reference to examples found within the Aachen City Region.

For the sake of effective analysis some comparisons will also be made with Scotland, another European country with which the author has a detailed professional knowledge, which has a long established tradition of environmental volunteering and community engagement (Hansmann R, Whitehead I et al. 2016, Whitehead I, Hansmann R et al. 2017). By contrast with Germany, Scotland has specifically focused upon developing legislation, policy instruments, funding mechanisms and mentoring capacity to encourage participation by local communities in GI, forestry and land management initiatives. These particularly have emphasised community land ownership, leasing models and participation of socially disadvantaged groups with the aim of delivering multifunctional sustainable development outcomes (Scottish Government 2018, Scottish Land Commission 2020b). The extensive adoption of policy instruments which favour citizen participation in Scotland partly reflect Scotland’s historic legacy of land management including modern day perceptions of social injustice, past inequalities and patterns of ecological land degradation (Scottish Government 2018).

1.2 Key Aims of the Study

The detailed purpose of the study is to evaluate the potential for citizen participation as a mechanism for the planning and management of Green Infrastructure (GI) within NW Europe using the example of a diverse City Region. It consequently aims to identify and investigate effective examples of Citizen Participation in the management of GI within the Aachen City Region, occurring in rural, peri-urban and urban areas. It intends to evaluate what such initiatives deliver, their governance systems, their key motivations and limitations, as well as barriers which they encounter. Ultimately the study aims to identify mechanisms and measures to enhance the capacity of citizen led initiatives to manage GI through developing the enabling potential of groups, statutory authorities and mentoring organisations. Specifically, the study aims to answer the following two key specific research questions: i) How can local citizens’ groups best undertake projects to manage and enhance green infrastructure within the Städteregion Aachen? ii) How can the regional and local authorities and mentoring bodies ensure that local citizen participation initiatives help to benefit the delivery of GI objectives through the adoption of appropriate policies, structures, measures, working practices and through the provision of incentives?

Through addressing these specific questions, it is hoped that the research might also provide some useful insights into the process of change towards more bottom up systems of governance and the potential for replicating such approaches in other geographical regions of NW Europe and potentially beyond.

1.3 Primary Goals and Stages in the Process

To answer these key research questions, 4 primary goals or stages within the research process have been established. These are as follows: i) To identify examples of Citizen Participation in the management of GI within the Aachen City Region, occurring in rural, peri-urban and urban areas and to select a number of case studies for further detailed evaluation. ii) To determine what these case studies deliver, what their motivations are, their limitations and what barriers they encounter. iii) To identify success factors for citizen participation, through comparison of the case studies and with reference to other examples. iv) To identify mechanisms and measures to enhance the capacity of citizen led initiatives to manage GI effectively through developing the enabling potential of statutory authorities.

1.4 Research Methods

The Research focuses upon a series of case studies which are identified, investigated and evaluated in detail from across Aachen City Region using GIS information, local expert knowledge, structured interviews, desk-based research and site assessments to consider specific aspects of project delivery,

3 governance and structure. The results are compared through use of a structured Comparison Framework, adapted from models developed by researchers for the assessment and comparison of urban and community forestry programmes (Lawrence A and Ambrose-Oji B 2013, Lawrence, De Vreese et al. 2013), SWOT analysis, Bar and Radar charts and stakeholder mapping. Key themes will be identified including positive and negative learning points arising from each case study and these then allocated to topic headings for the development of policy recommendations in the concluding chapters.

Approaches and examples of case studies from Scotland are also contrasted and analysed in a separate chapter to expand the breath and diversity of the material for comparison and to suggest alternative potential approaches and learning points which have not been tested previously within Germany. These might nonetheless, offer potential within the Städteregion Aachen. However it is necessary to apply cautionary principles as not all approaches can be successfully exchanged across different geographical, administrative and cultural contexts.

1.5 Proposed Outcomes and Conclusions

The outcomes of the study will be summarised in the concluding chapters. Discussion will be presented on the effectiveness of the selected case studies and additionally on what needs to be done to further support participative approaches, both in the Städteregion Aachen and more widely across NW Europe; this could, for example, potentially include new legislative mechanisms, financial incentives, policy instruments and through enhancing the role of Third Sector – i.e. Civil Society, or the Voluntary Sector - mentoring organisations. It is suggested how support structures might evolve to more effectively facilitate and enhance the role of bottom up community initiatives.

In addition to briefly considering the overall effectiveness of the research, specific outcomes in the concluding chapters will include: i) Production of a set of detailed policy recommendations to improve the capacity of governmental, statutory agencies and mentoring bodies to assist and facilitate the development of citizen participation within the management and creation of GI in the Aachen City Region. ii) Proposing and consideration of structures to permit these detailed policy recommendations to be successfully implemented on a City Regional and interregional scale - particularly with regard to strategic GI partnerships and how the top down approaches and policies might better integrate with the bottom-up citizen led approaches through effective co-management systems. iii) Identification of key overall success factors which might influence the potential of local citizens to contribute to the development of successful GI programmes at a local level, as well the identification of barriers to transferring such approaches across different geographical regions of NW Europe and beyond.

Chapter 2. Establishing Background Context:

The purpose of this chapter is to review current information, literature and background to Green Infrastructure (GI) and Citizen Participation occurring on a range of spatial scales from a strategic EU policy level, through to local polices, activities and interventions occurring within the Städteregion Aachen.

The Chapter includes the following components:

2.1 An overview of GI and Citizen Participation at EU and State Level in Germany

2.2 Städteregion Aachen - An overview of GI with relation to Citizen Participation

2.3 Regional GI Overview – Spatial Components

2.1 An overview of GI and Citizen Participation at EU and State and Regional Level in Germany

2.1.1 Green Infrastructure - The NW and Central Europe Context:

In recent years the term GI has become increasingly adopted in European countries. The European Commission defines GI as “a strategically planned network of natural and semi-natural areas with other environmental features designed and managed to deliver a wide range of ecosystem services” (European Commission 2013). Importantly GI is expected to deliver social and economic benefits as well as environmental ones. A simple graphic illustrating key features of GI has been produced by the EU highlighting the diverse spatial nature of GI elements; significantly it emphasises the fact that GI represents a continuum from urban environments, shown on the left, through agricultural areas to more semi natural and rural landscapes shown on the right of the graphic below – see Fig 2.

Fig 2. Components of Green Infrastructure (European Commission 2013b)

The development of GI is being further promoted through national and European policies that encourage local authorities and municipalities to think beyond their own boundaries and to develop integrated approaches to land-use planning and management in partnership with diverse stakeholder groups (Aalbers C and Pauleit S 2013). In this respect, management practices which cut across traditional ownership and administrative boundaries and which satisfy a broad range of interests including nature conservation, landscape character, ecological connectivity, active travel, health and recreation demands are becoming increasingly relevant. The cross-cutting nature of the challenges which GI planning, design, implementation and management pose, requires close co-operation between diverse professionals, scientific disciplines and stakeholder groups (Buijs, Mattijssen et al. 2016, Hansmann R, Whitehead I et al. 2016).

Significantly, the multi-functionality of landscapes is considered to be a key attribute of GI (European Commission 2013, Glasgow & Clyde Valley (GCV) Green Network Partnership 2019), with areas expected to provide diverse, although compatible, functions such as biodiversity, food production, soil conservation, water & climate regulation, recreation & tourism, wellbeing and cultural services. This contrasts markedly with previous approaches to landscape management which tended to focus upon single issues such as nature protection, food production or recreation. However, single use GI functions still tend to be the dominant trend in Germany (Biodiversity Information System for Europe 2020).

This legislative and policy context has spawned a growing number of recent initiatives, partnerships and technical cooperation projects, which have emphasised an interdisciplinary approach. The COST FP1204 Project, “Green in Urbs”, for example, specifically addressed the topic of GI in relation to urban forestry (COST 2017). This project comprised of four working groups which focused upon; environmental services & climate change, social & cultural services, forest governance and the dissemination of best practice. Working group 3, which focused upon the governance of GI and urban forestry, produced a number of outputs, particularly with regard to the role of partnerships and citizen participation in the planning, delivery and implementation of GI and urban forestry across the EU. These outputs included a paper on the broad theme of partnerships (Hansmann R, Whitehead I et al. 2016) and a book chapter entitled “The Role of Partnerships and the Third Sector in the Development and Delivery of Urban Forestry and Green Infrastructure” (Whitehead I, Hansmann R et al. 2017). This book chapter, however, primarily drew upon experience from outside Germany, notably from Scotland (UK), where there is already a well-established tradition of partnership working, citizen participation and the development of social enterprises with a focus on the planning, delivery and coordination of GI both at a strategic and a local level.

The recent “Green Surge” Project (Green Infrastructure and Urban Biodiversity for Sustainable Urban Development and the Green Economy) funded by the European Commission Seventh Framework (FP7) programme also considered and contrasted innovative best practice mechanisms for GI governance with reference to a range of European City case studies (Ambrose-Oji B, Buijs A et al. 2017). The project provided some useful outputs including a handbook for practitioners and a typology of GI.

In Continental Europe, GI planning and management has remained largely the preserve of technical experts, with only tokenistic levels of participation occurring. This has often been managed in a directive, top down manner rather than through bottom up participative initiatives. The contrast between such approaches has been well illustrated through typologies developed within the FAO Guidelines on Urban and Peri-urban Forestry (Salbitano F, Borelli S et al. 2016) and through the Green Surge Initiative (Ambrose-Oji B, Buijs A et al. 2017).

There has also been an apparent lack of research emphasis amongst academics and practitioners as to the extent or potential contribution of citizen led initiatives and partnerships (Mattijssen T, Buijs A et al. 2017). Buijs, Mattijssen et al. observe that “To maximise environmental outcomes of active citizenship, governments may adopt an enabling and stimulating governance style that harnesses the transformative potential of active citizenship.” Consequently, they argue in their paper “for mosaic governance to work with the heterogeneous array of people, institutions, and spatial practices associated with active citizenship.”(Buijs, Mattijssen et al. 2016). The concept, benefits and challenges of developing mosaic governance systems are considered in more detail later in this chapter – see 2.1.4.

By contrast, in the UK, more participative approaches to local GI management and development have evolved and become mainstreamed, particularly with regard to the development of “Third Sector” or “Civil Society” Social Enterprise models being practiced there. Whilst these are somewhat adapted to specific local economic, cultural and social conditions, there remains considerable scope for understanding, evaluating and testing the potential of participative models to contribute to the development of GI initiatives more widely within Central and NW European countries.

Examples of transnational and European projects / studies:

In terms of the planning of Green Infrastructure, Central and NW Europe is already quite far advanced with a number of ambitious initiatives already having been developed at a transnational level including, for example, the European Green Belt (Bundesamt für Naturschutz 2020b), the Alpine Ecological Network (Heinrichs A K, Kohler Y et al. 2010) and the Pan European Ecological Network (Jongman, Bouwma et al. 2011). In addition to this, there are more localised initiatives focusing on individual national, state or regional scales. Examples of these include the German National Ecological Network or Nationaler Biotopverbund which has been enshrined in German Federal Law since 2002, (Federal Ministry for the Environment 2020) the Bavarian Ecological Network, BayernNetzNatur, and projects which focus on the rehabilitation of former industrial areas such as Saarland (Biodiversity Information System for Europe 2020).

On a regional scale good examples of GI Strategic approaches can be found operating within the German state of NRW. Amongst these, the best known is perhaps the Green Infrastructure Plan for the Ruhrgebiet Region (Regionalverband Ruhr 2016) which incorporates the geographical area of the Emscher Landschaftspark at its core. The "Green Infrastructure Ruhr" represents an integrated approach to regional development where the GI resource itself acts as the focal point for joint action, thus effectively translating dialogue into tangible results on the ground. Based upon the success achieved so far, partners organisations in the region work together, define spatial priorities, agree organisational approaches and implement projects. The content is based on five themes for developing green infrastructure in the Ruhr Metropolis. These five fields of action are related to each other and must be considered to be complimentary; these themes are: i) The urban cultural landscape - with the Emscher Landscape Park as the centrepiece, ii) The blue network, with the restoration of the River Emscher catchment forming the backbone, iii) Green urban development with nature-based solutions in cities and neighbourhoods, iv) Carbon-neutral mobility with the regional cycle path system, v) Sustainable climate protection ingrained in a network with increasing energy efficiency.

In terms of adopting similar integrated planning concepts, many other Regions in NRW have now followed suit, including, for example, the recently produced Bergisches Städtedreieck Grünes Masterplan covering the cities of Wuppertal, Solingen and Remscheid (Das Bergisches Städtedreieck 2018) – see Fig 3. The Ruhr GI model based of post-industrial greening has also, arguably, helped to inform and inspire the creation of green infrastructure in other parts of NW Europe, such as the Central Scotland Green Network, CSGN, (Central Scotland Green Network 2011) which provides an integrated vision for the delivery of GI across 19 local authority areas within Central Scotland – see Fig 4. The 2 examples illustrated are also helpful as they show how strategic GI partnerships can effectively be upscaled according the regional characteristics including the number of municipalities involved, local demography and economic characteristics.

Fig 3. Masterplan Grünes Städtedreieck (Das Bergisches Städtedreieck 2018)

Fig 4. Central Scotland Green Network (Central Scotland Green Network 2011)

In general, however, these initiatives have tended to be planned and implemented on a “top down” basis with only one aspect or set of benefits generally being highlighted in policy rather than emphasising the whole set of policy benefits that GI can deliver (Biodiversity Information System for Europe 2020). However, within urban areas, more linked up policy guidance for GI is now available from the German Federal Government particularly with the publication of the handbook “Grun in der Stad für eine lebenswerte Zukunft - Grünbuch Stadtgrün” (BMUB 2015) which promotes the multifunctional benefits of GI in urban areas including climate regulation, health, biodiversity, relaxation, community cohesion and participation. At state level in NRW, a research report was also published by NRW, Ministeriums für Bauen, Wohnen, Stadtentwicklung und Verkehr on the integration of GI into urban development, which highlights case studies and approaches from the state and beyond (Bläser, Danielzyk et al. 2012)

2.1.2 Elements of GI

Green Infrastructure provides a holistic concept which stresses the connectivity between urban areas and the rural hinterland of cities (Scott 2017, Europarc Federation 2018) – see Fig 5. It must be delivered on a variety of spatial scales from the sub-regional to local neighbourhood levels and will incorporate greenspaces within local communities and more extensive areas of natural or semi- natural habitats and linear features such as river corridors (European Commission 2013). To envisage how GI functions at a landscape scale, examples of illustrative transects, showing GI with it’s various components and potential for enhancement through targeted action have been produced by Natural England (Natural England 2009 ) and the Central Scotland Green Network (Central Scotland Green Network 2015). Again these illustrative transects all share the basic common premise that GI occurs on a landscape scale and provides linkages between rural, peri-urban and urban areas. Both these models also draw attention to the multifunctionality of GI and the potential scope for undertaking interventions at different locations within the system– see Figs 6/7.

Fig 5. GI elements in urban, peri-urban and regional landscapes (Europarc Federation 2018)

Fig 6. Illustrative transect showing potential GI actions (Central Scotland Green Network 2015)

Fig 7: GI features and multifunctionality at landscape scale (Natural England 2009 ), P.26

Due to the different opportunities and constraints existing between rural and urban areas, the elements of GI will differ according to the different situations. In more rural areas GI is likely to include fields, woodlands, hedgerows, country parks, rivers and lakes whilst in urban areas structural components are more likely to include less naturalistic elements such as street trees, sports pitches, civic spaces, green roofs and walls. Various typologies of these have been developed including, for example, through the Green Surge initiative as guidance for practitioners (Cvejić R, Eler K et al. 2015) - although this does not primarily make the distinction between elements which are predominantly found in rural, peri-urban and urban areas. GI also applies to peri-urban situations at the interface between town and the countryside which are often characterised by development pressures and dynamic patterns of urbanisation. For the purposes of this thesis it is useful to consider the GI elements which might be found respectively in urban, peri-urban and rural/regional landscapes in more detail.

GI in Rural Areas and Regional Landscapes:

Within the wider countryside, nature-rich areas often function as the core hubs of Green Infrastructure. These include protected sites such as Natura 2000 areas and designated wildlife areas (European Commission 2013). Areas of high value for biodiversity and ecosystem health outside protected areas, such as floodplain areas, wetlands, coastal marshlands, extensive grasslands and forests, can also be included. In addition to core areas, ecological corridors or linear strips of vegetation used by wildlife to allow movement between two areas are considered to be of high significance for GI. These might specifically include hedgerows, woodland strips, riparian zones or “stepping stone” features, which although physically unconnected, provide functional connectivity between two or more core areas. In rural areas many of these core GI resources are likely to have a designated area status or to be included within larger, more generic areas of protected landscape such as European Nature Parks.

GI in Urban Areas:

In urban areas, GI is unlikely to comprise large core areas of natural or semi natural features but is instead likely to be composed of elements which might be associated more commonly with human settlement and the built environment. Such elements might include, for example: urban parks, formal and private gardens, cemeteries, hospital and school grounds, amenity greenspaces, recreation spaces, play areas, green roofs and green walls, civic squares and spaces, street trees, urban woodlands, city farms, community gardens and allotments (Cvejić R, Eler K et al. 2015). Linear features which form “green corridors” through the urban area such as watercourses or canals will also be of particular benefit for providing connectivity within urban areas for both wildlife and people. Some of these elements will also be identified within smaller settlements, towns and villages located within more rural locations: These might include domestic gardens, hedges, churchyards, orchards, road verges, amenity greenspaces and sports fields. These features are often afforded protection through the local land use planning system and through area specific plans and strategies including public open space strategies and individual neighbourhood plans. The use of the graphic below (Natural England 2009 ) also illustrates the benefits of focusing in upon GI features at progressively greater levels of detail thus highlighting the types of issues and potential practical interventions that might be required at various points within wider regional landscapes – see Fig 8.

Fig 8. GI features on an urban neighbourhood scale, highlighting opportunities (Natural England 2009 )

GI in Peri-urban Areas:

Peri-urban environments, located at the interface between urban and rural areas often include elements from both rural and urban GI. Peri-urban areas often encompass, for example, features such as urban fringe farmland, country parks, urban forests, transport corridors (such as roads, railways and canals) and brownfield sites on vacant and derelict land. Some of these areas may well be accorded designated status or be included as elements within local open space and development plans.

The following summary table has been adapted from the typology provided by Green Surge (Cvejić R, Eler K et al. 2015) to identify elements which might be considered to be characteristic of GI features found along the rural to urban gradient – see Table 1.

Area Type Green Infrastructure (GI) Features of Significance

Rural Areas / Core Areas e.g. Natura 2000 sites, Regional Designated Sites and Landscapes including NSGs, LSGs Landscapes Regional Designations such as Nature Parks, High value nature areas outside core habitats Smaller connecting strips and “stepping stones” linking core areas; including hedgerows, woodlands, riparian corridors, species rich meadows etc. Amenity greenspaces, orchards, verges and boundary features associated with rural dispersed settlements Urban Areas Urban parks – including neighbourhood and pocket parks, Formal and private gardens, Cemeteries, hospital and school grounds, Amenity greenspaces and recreation spaces, Play areas, Green roofs and green walls, Civic squares and spaces with formal landscaped elements, Street trees, Urban woodlands, City farms, community gardens and allotments Green corridors: watercourses, canals, SUDs schemes etc. Peri-urban Areas Mixed Elements of Rural and Urban GI (as above) Urban fringe farmland Country parks Urban forests Linear green corridors alongside transportation routes including roads, canals and railway embankments and verges Brownfield sites and vacant and derelict land Green business parks

Table 1. Summary of GI elements across the rural/urban gradient - adapted from Green Surge (Cvejić R, Eler K et al. 2015)

2.1.3 GI networks and Ecosystem Service Provision:

A key aspect of GI is the ability of the network to deliver multifunctional ecosystem service benefits. These will differ according to the character of the individual GI components concerned, their location and form. Ecosystem services describe the benefits that people obtain from the natural environment and these have been defined and categorised as a result of the 2005 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, MEA, (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005). The MEA reviewed the consequences of ecosystem change for human beings and established the accepted categorisation of ecosystem services which includes the main headings of provisioning, regulating, cultural and supporting services.

This type of categorisation enables habitats, as an integral component of a wider GI network, to be systematically assessed, either qualitatively or quantitatively, for their ability to provide a range of goods and services which are deemed to be of societal benefit. Such approaches, whereby services are defined and accorded a value, are well known from the financial world but have not historically been carried out for ecosystems, meaning that many of the benefits provided by GI have previously been unaccounted for - though they have implicitly been assumed to exist. This includes both their overall value for protecting and managing natural processes within a system and for their social and cultural contribution to human society.

With regard to GI it is therefore worth considering the four categories of ecosystem services which can be delivered through a network; regulating, provisioning, cultural and supporting and the various

13 individual aspects which might be delivered through GI assets on a local site based scale. These are shown in more detail – see Table 2.

Ecosystem Service Type Detailed Description

Regulating services C02 sequestration Absorption of atmospheric pollutants Pollination Water management and flood alleviation Noise regulation Cultural services Community cohesion Health: physical activity and wellbeing Cultural diversity and local distinctiveness Green tourism resources Environmental education Provisioning services Wild foods – nuts and berries, fungus Biomass energy from woodfuel Timber resources Drinking water supply Supporting services Soil, water and nutrient cycles Biodiversity provision

Table 2. Ecosystem Services Types: Adapted from MEA, 2005 (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005)

With regard to how GI might potentially deliver these ecosystem services within urban areas, a number of models have been proposed. Connop et al., for example, propose the City as a social ecological system whereby ecosystem services can be delivered through the variety of GI components (Connop, Vandergert et al. 2016). They suggest the integration of these delivery functions through the adoption of multifunctional nature based solutions, but also point to a number of barriers involved in this process, notably including a lack of understanding of benefits.

Some of the basic assumptions inherent within this model are presented by the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Green Network Partnership in their “Planning Multifunctional Green Infrastructure” guidelines (Glasgow & Clyde Valley (GCV) Green Network Partnership 2019). This goes beyond the conceptual stage to show how components of GI might be delivered through a joined up approach, as presented through graphic visualisations. It also shows how these outputs can be related closely to core government policy areas, albeit it within the Scottish context – Figs 9 and 10.

Fig 9. A framework for GI and urban ecosystem service delivery (Connop, Vandergert et al. 2016), p2

Fig 10. Planning multi-functional Green Infrastructure (Glasgow & Clyde Valley (GCV) Green Network Partnership 2019)

However with regard to ecosystem service delivery from GI, these conceptual approaches do not focus upon the role of stakeholders on the ground and are more appropriate to top down models of implementation. Whilst GI resources within the strategic network currently provide contributions to the provision of the above ecosystem services, no baseline evaluation of the extent of these has been undertaken with respect to the sites and GI resources considered within this study. Optimising the management of areas through targeted interventions, including through citizen participation, will certainly provide a mechanism for improving and enhancing the delivery of these ecosystem services. Analysis or quantification of ecosystem service outcomes are not however a principle aim of this study.

2.1.4 Citizen Participation Context - NW European Context.

Whilst the above landscape scale models are appropriate to developing regional scale planning polices and interventions, they do not generally help to inform bottom up, or citizen led, approaches to GI implementation or to provide insights into how top down and bottom up approaches might synergise more effectively.

Within Europe there has been a growing shift away from top down approaches to GI delivery to more participatory models which involve diverse stakeholders working together in partnership. This shift has been described as a movement from “government” to “governance” (Ambrose-Oji B, Buijs A et al. 2017). The authors conclude that “Participatory Governance of urban green spaces concerns the arrangements in which citizens, entrepreneurs, NGOs or other non-governmental actors make decisions about and manage networks of urban greenspaces at different levels, with or without the active involvement of government authorities and public agencies”.

To some extent this movement appears as somewhat at odds with the more integrated, top-down and spatially determined approaches to GI which are being driven by connectivity principles, as it places an emphasis very much upon local sustainable development principles at the grassroots level. Significantly, however, the European Commission stresses the social benefits that GI can deliver, noting that, “implementing GI features in urban areas creates a greater sense of community, strengthens the link with voluntary actions undertaken by civil society, and helps combat social exclusion and isolation. They benefit the individual and the community physically, psychologically, emotionally and socio-economically” (European Commission 2013).

Across Europe however, there is considerable variation in terms of the structures and mechanisms which are used for the governance and delivery of GI, with differing expertise and methodologies in operation in different countries and geographical regions (Whitehead I, Hansmann R et al. 2017). Scotland, for example has favoured multi-sector partnership approaches which link social and environmental objectives, whilst the approach adopted in many Central European countries such as Germany, Switzerland, Austria and France has been a more top-down one, largely driven by the public sector.

Whilst the delivery and planning of GI on the ground has received considerable attention within the literature, green infrastructure governance mechanisms and methodologies themselves have been the subject of less scrutiny. Lawrence et. al. (Lawrence, De Vreese et al. 2013), for example, point out that less consideration has been paid to “processes, interactions, organisations and decisions which lead to the establishment and maintenance of such resources, and provide the benefits”. In particular, whilst many individual case study examples exist, there is a lack of an overview of the phenomenon of green self-governance, what this effectively means and how local communities might aim to achieve their objectives through bottom-up citizen-based approaches (Mattijssen T, Buijs A et al. 2017).

This lack of material has just started to be addressed through a number of individual pieces of research and European collaborations. In particular Green Surge, the European Seventh Framework Project, has produced a Guide for Practitioners based upon the outcomes of Work Package 6 of the Project, entitled “Innovative Governance for Urban Green Infrastructure” (Ambrose-Oji B, Buijs A et al. 2017). Central to this is the development of a typology of active citizenship approaches to Urban Green Infrastructure (UGI) governance. These appear to be based loosely upon the principles of Arnstein’s ladder of participation with approaches ranked on a scale of 1 -8 ranging from fully government-led and manipulated processes through to grassroots initiatives instigated by local citizens acting relatively autonomously (Arnstein 1969) – see Fig 11.

Fig 11. Arnstein’s ladder of citizen participation (Arnstein 1969), p 217

Guidelines produced by FAO on Urban and Peri-urban Forestry (Salbitano F, Borelli S et al. 2016) make use of a broadly similar, though slightly adapted form, of the Green Surge Typology, although interestingly the two have largely incorporate the same general principles and terminology - see Fig 12. The FAO guidelines also illustrate a typology of urban forest stakeholders and actors which range from grassroots initiatives through to Municipalities mobilising social capital. The guidelines go further to consider how co-management and stakeholder participation approaches to delivery of GI and urban forestry might help to facilitate delivery of specific United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (United Nations 2020). A full list of these Sustainable Development Goals is shown in Fig 13; it is suggested that urban forests can contribute to delivering a number of these sustainable development goals (SDGs) in relation to identified key issues. The same approach could equally be applied more widely to the more complex and manifold components of GI:

Fig 12. Urban forest stakeholders, actors and governance arrangement types (Salbitano F, Borelli S et al. 2016)

Key Issues Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) Human health and wellbeing 11, 3 Climate change 11, 13 Biodiversity and landscapes 11, 15 Economic benefits and green economy 1, 2, 7, 8, 11 Risk mitigation 11 Land and soil degradation 11, 13, 15 Water and watersheds 2, 6 Food and nutrition security 2,11 Wood security 2,11 Sociocultural values 11

Fig 13. UN Sustainable Development Goals delivered by urban forestry (United Nations 2020)

However, a challenge created by the participation models and hierarchies which have been proposed, is the issue of how differing governance styles might best be synergised, both horizontally and vertically, to deliver the greatest range of potential benefits of GI, whilst at the same time, effectively promoting values of active citizenship. Essentially this involves the linking top-down strategic or planning based approaches with bottom-up citizen led methodologies.

In this respect, concepts of mosaic governance potentially provide a useful model for integration of these differing approaches. Mosaic governance aims for a context-sensitive way of green infrastructure planning, which enhances relationships between the diversity of landscapes and communities. It advocates that statutory authorities should adopt an enabling and stimulating governance style which harnesses the transformative potential of active citizenship (Buijs, Mattijssen et al. 2016). The principles for incorporating mosaic governance principles to enhance integration of policy and active citizenship, for the purposes of enhancing urban green infrastructure, are shown in Fig 14.

In their review paper, Buijs, Mattijssen et al., perceive the need “to adopt a multilevel, collaborative, and polycentric governance approach involving a diversity of actors and governance levels into decision making” as being paramount. This approach has also been advocated by a number of authors (Huitema D 2009, Ostrom E 2010). They point to a range of benefits arising from active citizenship approaches which include ecosystem service benefits, such as for biodiversity and pollination (Dennis M 2016). In addition, the active involvement of stakeholders, including local citizens, in “place- keeping” can help to build institutional resilience and ensure the long term continuity of stewardship principles which can help to preserve the social, environmental and economic values of a place (Dempsey N 2012). In this respect “place-keeping” can be regarded as being a continuous process which aims towards the sustained engagement of a diversity of stakeholders, including local citizens groups. It is important to distinguish this from the complimentary process of “placemaking” which represents a developmental process which helps communities to integrate diverse opinions into a cohesive vision, translate that vision into a plan and program of uses, and takes forward the sustainable implementation of the plan (Project for Public Spaces 2007).

To understand how these two processes interrelate, Dempsey et. al. identified different ways of conceptualising the relationship placemaking and place-keeping (Dempsey N 2012). They highlighted three potential relationships between the two elements whereby; (a) a process leads to a product, (b) a process is influenced by the type of product required and (c) a two-way relationship between process and product where place-keeping is considered at the beginning. For the purposes of this study option “c” is considered to be the most helpful description with placemaking being considered here as an integral component of placekeeping rather than as a discrete process in itself.

When considering the overall benefits of mosaic governance approaches, Buijs, Mattijssen et al., also highlight potential negative issues and inequalities which might unintentionally arise as a consequence of this approach. Mosaic Governance processes, for example, might potentially lead to the exclusion some groups - given that cultural capital is not evenly spread across all communities (Putnam RD 2000). For example, citizens’ groups in more affluent areas have a general tendency to be more articulate, confident and better connected than those from poorer areas, which are more likely characterised by inequalities and issues arising from social deprivation. As a consequence, stakeholder groups from affluent communities will therefore be more likely to have better access to resources and possess greater opportunities to command influence with policy and decision makers; thus creating unintended impacts in terms of environmental justice (Rydin Y 2000).

More generally there are also questions about the degree to which citizens need to be equipped for dealing with the many responsibilities associated with GI governance. Problems of insecure funding and governmental budget cuts can add further to such challenges. However, at the same time, these can also create new unforeseen and unexpected opportunities for piloting of new models of GI governance (Scottish Land and Estates 2020, Scottish Land Commission 2020).

The dynamic between top down and bottom up approaches requires addressing, particularly the need for a greater degree for the co-ordination of citizens’ groups given the complexity of land cover types (Franklin A 2015) and the need to retain ecological connectivity across a broader landscape scale (Andersson E 2017, Mattijssen T, Buijs A et al. 2017). There is therefore a clear role for municipalities, NGOs or multi-stakeholder partnerships to promote co-ordination and collaboration between groups through acting in the role of mentors and facilitators. In this respect there is a need to carefully balance the desire for autonomy of local citizens’ groups with the wider agendas of mentoring institutions in order to avoid conflicts occurring and to maximise the potential delivery of Sustainable Development Goals through engaging effectively with the so-called “energetic society” (Hajer M 2015).

Hajer identifies the “energetic society” as being a society of articulate citizens, with an unprecedented reaction speed, learning ability and creativity (Hajer 2011). Hajer highlights the emergence of this societal development simultaneously with the need to attune natural resource use to the earth’s carrying capacity. Hajer emphasises the requirement for linking these two significant societal developments particularly with regard to the potential for governments to do more to harness the positive creativity and learning ability of the energetic society to tackle the challenges of the earth’s ecological carrying capacity and diminishing natural resources. However, clearly this requires the emergence of appropriate governance structures to allow such transformations to occur.

Development of polycentric governance system is one potential response to this. Such systems can help to create institutional resilience, particularly through development of capacity building approaches within local communities. In this respect, it is suggested, that it is essential that such systems recognise the diversity of how citizens manage their GI resources, the structure of these communities themselves and the governance models that they employ to undertake this. Additionally, they must also respond to differences in the physical GI resource in terms of geography, climate, land cover and GI typologies. This changing emphasis will require flexible and enabling approaches form statutory authorities rather than traditional rigid planning-based approaches and templates (Mattijssen T, Buijs A et al. 2017). It is proposed that this will require a focus upon the formation of multi-stakeholder partnerships which operate across a range of spatial scales and which have the potential to incorporate the principles of mosaic governance through facilitating the horizontal and vertical integration of policy and active citizenship across diverse city regions.

A number of authors suggest that within the context of natural resources programmes, social indicators have not received adequate attention (Slee 2007, Lawrence A 2015). With reference to community woodland in the UK, Lawrence and Ambrose-Oji (Lawrence A 2015) argue that evaluation systems have tended to focus on the positive and the quantitative for the purposes of justifying effort and expenditure going into programmes. They advocate the need to consider a movement away from biophysical outputs e.g. number of trees planted, or the area of woodland managed, towards social and participation indicators and outcomes. These might include, for example, a standard set of indicators encompassing social, biophysical and economic outcomes, as advocated by Slee (Slee 2007). Furthermore, Glasmeier and Farrigan suggest the need for detailed qualitative studies, incorporating reflexivity on the part of community members, to provide a stronger understanding of casual connections, processes and changes at work (Glasmeier A 2005).

For practical purposes, Lawrence and Ambrose-Oji distinguish between outcomes, outputs and processes and advocate consideration of a range of impacts grouped separately according to biophysical, social, economic and participation impacts. Significantly they also propose development and utilisation of a typology of different community woodland types based around their common characteristics; these types are defined as: i) urban regeneration, ii) community resource, iii) economic partnership, iv) community place and v) lifestyle alternatives (Lawrence A 2015). The application of this type of typology might also be considered with respect to the wider GI context.

(a) Urban green infrastructure: urban green spaces are diverse but ecologically interdependent, often represented as a mosaic landscape. (b) Traditional municipal-led planning and management to enhance and maintain urban green infrastructure. (c) Independent contributions from active citizen groups to enhance and maintain local green spaces. (d) The challenge of developing mosaic governance to enhance horizontal and vertical integration of policy and active citizenship (in order) to enhance urban green infrastructure. The diversity in blue lines between municipal sectors and active citizens signifies the diversity in this relationship, dependent on, for example needs and demands from different types of citizen groups related to the institutional diversity of how citizens self-organise.

Fig 14. Mosaic governance to enhance integration of GI policy and active citizenship (Buijs, Mattijssen et al. 2016)

Some other useful contributions in the literature concerning governance of GI resources with an emphasis on co-production come from the field of urban agriculture. Germany, in particular, has many good examples of research initiatives focusing on these aspects particularly from post-industrial areas such as the Ruhr. One such example, the CoProGrün project is particularly relevant and considered co- produced green corridors from the context of sustainable communal infrastructure.

The CoProGrün project researched how the sustainability, long term viability and attractiveness of green corridors might be enhanced through the involvement of stakeholders from rural business and civil society in an area of the Ruhr Metropolis in Germany (CoProGrün 2017).The project area focused upon the Eastern Emscher river valley corridor linking the Ruhr cities of Dortmund, Castrop-Rauxel, Lünen and Waltrop. The project took place between 2016 and 2019 and was funded by the German Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung. It was co-ordinated through the Institute for Landscape Architecture from RWTH and involved a number of partners from the Ruhr Metropolis area including the Regionalverband Ruhr, Fachhochschule Südwestfalen and Landwirtsschaftkammer Nordrhein-Westfalen. The CoProGrün initiative embedded concepts from urban agriculture and facilitated the participation of diverse civil society stakeholder groups who contributed to the design and use of urban space for economic and social objectives. These stakeholder groups utilised the green corridors, but also helped in their co-production and development, through innovative forms of management and participation. In particular, the project aimed to answer a number of key questions such as how municipalities in the green belt might cooperate with farmers, allotment gardeners and local associations and how new civil society stakeholder groups might be identified and encouraged to participate in such initiatives ? To answer these questions, partners from municipalities, agricultural businesses and science worked cooperatively to examine the mechanisms with which stakeholders could be engaged. Additionally, the research project also integrated other metropolitan regions within Germany, so as to benefit from their wider experience through exchange and to also formulate guidelines for action which could be applied nationally. As regards outputs, CoProGrün developed model projects together with the stakeholders. These were evaluated and fine-tuned with regard to their feasibility, their added value for GI and their overall design quality. These practical co-production projects were grouped around four key themes which were: “Let Community Gardens Grow” - how urban gardens might be created through cooperation between different groups of stakeholders; “Themed Leisure Routes” – making urban agriculture accessible through recreational trails highlighting UA initiatives; “Urban Agriculture Meets Urban Gardening” - co-production by farmers and urban residents and “Event Formats From CoProGrün” - ideas, project exchanges and themed workshops (CoProGrün 2017).

An additional outcome of the projects was the identification and development of practical guidelines and toolkits to improve the management of GI through the delivery of multifunctional objectives. The CoProgrün project identified and tested a number of instruments for developing effective co- production within GI and proposed a shortlist of 13 measures, which were identified as being some of the most successful. These included tools for networking, including puzzles and activities designed to act as “ice breakers” to facilitate stakeholder dialogue. A number of diverse tools, identified as “checklist items”, were also proposed for consideration as effective mechanisms for developing stakeholder participation. These included the creation a farm shop or café, establishing edible mushroom cultivation initiatives and concepts for developing, operating and fostering engagement of citizens around community garden initiatives. Detailed prescriptive advice produced included guidelines on creating wildflower meadows for bees and other pollinators, concept garden designs and the creation of online platforms for related topics such as orchard management (CoProGrün 2017).

In terms of articulating these guidelines to a wider audience, one milestone was the production of the brochure “Gemeinschaftsgärten- wer macht mit?” (Regionalverband Ruhr 2020), “Community gardens - who does it with you ?”, which focused upon urban gardening stakeholders. This publication presented practical guidelines about how citizens can be identified, motivated and engaged in garden projects and in ways that can be transferred to other green spaces. Finally, the brochure presents essential findings and recommendations from the CoProGrün model project, which are intended to support decision-makers and gardening groups in creating the conditions and structures required.

To date, the CoProGrün initiative has not yet further developed the theoretic and conceptual aspects relating to co-production approaches for urban agriculture within GI, although it is understood that this is still and intended output. However, related work on the co-production of productive parks, has previously been documented by Axel Timpe from the Institute of Landscape Architecture at RWTH (Timpe A 2017). Timpe proposed a series of tiered steps in the co-production process, starting from productive parks and ranging through joint production, co-design and co-production, to community co-production – see Fig 15. These same principles can also be adapted from productive parks to encompass wider GI networks. Whilst the model proposed by Timpe is broadly complimentary with those developed by Green Surge and the FAO urban forestry guidelines, it additionally highlights the distinction between collective community benefits and private benefits which might accrue at each stage in the process. It is therefore a useful addition to the discussion about levels of stakeholder participation and indeed the evolution of the co-production process through the various stages within the hierarchy.

Fig 15. Stages in the co-production in and from productive parks (Timpe A 2017)

2.1.5 GI at State Level in Germany and NRW – Federal and State designations and policies:

In order to understand the present GI resource within Aachen City Region, it is first necessary to consider the various policies and designations which have resulted in the existing distribution of GI assets. A number of key Regional and Federal policies and legislation support the protection and enhancement of the GI network. These have led, for example, to the establishment of designated protected areas which form core elements within the GI resource as well as the establishment of more generic “landscape scale” systems of protection which include Nature Parks – Naturparcs - and Ecological networks – Biotopverbindung - operating at a Regional, State and European scale. Public access in the form of path networks for walkers, cyclists and horse riders which fulfil local and strategic needs, are also an important element of the GI network. These have also been established and defined in accordance with State policy and legislation. Overall, the current system of landscape and conservation designations largely stems from the 2009 German Federal Nature Conservation Act –

BNatSchG (Federal Ministry for the Environment 2020). A description of some of the key designated area types which are relevant to GI follows:

Designated protected areas:

The German Federal Nature Conservation Act ensures the protection of natural heritage through the establishment of designated areas. These areas can be classified as Nature Conservation Areas – Naturschutzgebiete -NSGs, landscape Protection Areas – Landschaftschutzgebiete - LSGs, and other categories which might include, for example, National Parks and Biosphere Reserves (Bundesamt für Naturschutz 2020a). Additional designations include 'natural monuments' under Section 28 of the Federal Nature Conservation Act and 'protected landscape features' under Section 29. Additionally Natura 2000 sites, which were developed in response to the European Habitats and Bird Directives are considered to be core areas in terms of the delivery of GI (European Commission 2013). With few exceptions, these have also been designated through incorporation of existing protected areas, particularly NSGs. It is quite normal for a number of overlapping designations to cover the same piece of land. In more detail the key forms of designated area relevant to GI are listed as follows (Bundesamt für Naturschutz 2020a). i) Naturschutzgebiete - NSGs: Nature conservation areas, or Naturschutzgebiete, are areas which have been legally designated for the protection of nature and landscape in order to conserve, develop or restore living sites, biotopes or communities of fauna and flora. They may be established for reasons of science, natural history, national heritage or because of rarity, special characteristics or outstanding beauty of natural heritage (Bundesamt für Naturschutz 2020a). Most nature conservation areas have been designated at regional government level by authorities with responsibility for nature conservation, although some have also been created by State -Länder, or local government authorities. Within such areas, regional planning must give priority to nature conservation. NSGs make up a considerable percentage of the land which is dedicated to maintaining biodiversity in Germany. ii) Landschaftschutzgebiete - LSGs: Landscape protection areas, or Landschaftschutzgebiete, are legally designated areas which afford special protection to more extensive natural heritage and landscapes in order to promote their conservation and sustainable management. They differ from NSGs in that they are generally larger and have fewer restrictions placed upon land use management activities. In practical terms they are often regarded as being buffer zones for nature conservation areas. Activities which change the overall character of the area within LSGs are prohibited. This might include forestry and farming operations which may be restricted where they change the character of the area or are deemed to be incompatible with its LSG status. Germany currently has 8,531 landscape protection areas covering a total of 10 million ha, or some 27,9 percent of the country's land surface - information as of 31 December 2014, although the percentage is greater in North Rhine-Westphalia than in other states (Bundesamt für Naturschutz 2020a). iii) Biosphere Reserves and Natural Monuments: Biosphere reserves are established to protect large- scale natural and cultural landscapes. Their main aim is to preserve, develop or restore landscapes shaped by traditional diverse uses, along with their historically evolved diversity of species and habitats. Natural Monuments are another new category of protected area. However actual examples of these types of designated area are few in numbers and consequently will not be considered further in relation to this study (Bundesamt für Naturschutz 2020a). iv) National Parks: National parks are designated by the German states, Länder, in consultation with the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety and the Federal Ministry of Transport and digital infrastructure. The concept of National Parks is considered to be a key element of Germany’s Natural Heritage and takes the form of extensive, largely

26 unfragmented areas of habitat which fulfill the requirements of nature conservation. In general the National Parks are areas which have been relatively unaffected by the impact of human intervention or which have the potential for restoring natural ecosystem dynamics and regeneration processes (Bundesamt für Naturschutz 2020a). Within the study area of the Städteregion Aachen, the Eifel National Park is of significance. v) Nature Parks: Nature parks, or Naturparks, established under Section 27 of the 2002 Act, comprise large areas of more extensive cultural landscapes. Unlike in the less extensive National Parks, the protection and maintenance of semi natural habitats and biodiversity objectives are balanced more equitably with sustainable rural land management activities, outdoor recreation and social and economic development objectives. Within Germany there are over 100 such Nature Parks which cover a total area of 9.9 million ha - see Fig 16, or 27.8 percent of the Country’s land surface (Bundesamt für Naturschutz 2020a). Within Nature Parks, designated areas such as NSGs and LSGs account for some 56 percent of the total land area meaning that there is a relatively high degree of protection. Significantly, areas of human settlement are also included with the Nature parks.

Fig 16. Nature Parks in Germany (Bundesamt für Naturschutz 2020a).

According to Germany's Federal Nature Conservation Act, Nature Parks should be large in size and should consist mainly of landscape or nature protection areas. They should also provide opportunities for the development of sustainable tourism initiatives based upon their landscape and recreational assets. In addition Nature Parks should provide opportunities for sustainable rural development, including through environmentally compatible land use policies (Bundesamt für Naturschutz 2020a). vi) Natura 2000 areas: Natura 2000 is a network of core breeding and resting sites for rare and threatened species, and some rare natural habitat types which are protected in their own right. It stretches across all 28 EU countries, both on land and at sea. The aim of the network is to ensure the long-term survival of Europe's most valuable and threatened species and habitats, listed under both the Birds Directive and the Habitats Directive. Stretching over 18 % of the EU’s land area and almost 6 % of its marine territory, it is the largest coordinated network of protected areas in the world. It offers a haven to Europe's most valuable and threatened species and habitats. Within the Federal Republic of Germany, there are 5,266 areas which have been designated as Natura 2000 sites,

27 covering 15.4 percent of the Country’s land area and 45 percent of its marine waters, as of 2009 (Bundesamt für Naturschutz 2020a).

Within its strategic guidance upon GI, the European Commission perceives Natura 2000 areas to form the core areas or nodes within the development of a wider European green infrastructure (European Commission 2013). Habitat corridors, “stepping stones” and less intensively managed areas, including woodland and pasture are additionally vital to providing additional elements of connectivity within the network. In this respect Natura 2000 Sites occurring within the study area must be considered to be high importance in developing the network. Consequently activities which result in enhanced connectivity or permeability within the surrounding landscape matrix must be accorded high significance.

Although Natura 2000 is not a strict system of nature reserves, the majority of sites within Germany and the Study Area in particular are actually designated NSGs (Landesamt für Natur Umwelt und Verbraucherschutz Nordrhein-Westfalen 2020). These include significant tracts of ancient semi- natural beech woodland in the North Eifel between Zweifall and Roetgen and riparian gorge woodlands located in the catchment of the River Rur and its tributaries, which have been designated under the EU Habitats Directive. Additionally large areas of the Belgian Hohes-Venn, immediately to the South West of the Study Area, have been designated as Natura 2000 areas both under the European Habitats and Birds Directives. To the North of Aachen the corridor of the Wurmtal valley located between Würselen and Kohlsheid is also an important Natura 2000 habitat corridor designated under the Habitats Directive. Land under the Natura 2000 designation can also be in private ownership. The approach to conservation and sustainable use of Natura 2000 areas can also integrate human activities and land management operations. It is the responsibility of individual EU Member States to ensure that the sites are managed in a sustainable manner, both ecologically and economically (European Commission 2019). vii) National Ecological Network – Biotopverbund: The 2009 Federal Nature Conservation and Landscape Management Act, under Article 21, (Federal Ministry for the Environment 2020) also created a legal requirement for individual states, or Länder, to develop networks of interlinked ecological habitats, or biotopes. The Act States that these should cover at least 10 percent of the land area within each state. This has the primary aim of protecting biodiversity and natural heritage whilst also allowing for the movement and dispersal of species through the landscape in response to climate change, natural population fluctuations and other environmental stimulae.

Designated areas which form components of the network are required to be legally safeguarded through an appropriate designation of protected area status. The National Ecological Network incorporates many protected areas which were designated under the Act including NSGs and LSGs. Some of these designated sites have also been adopted as part of the Natura 2000 Network, again as a result of the Act - Articles 31-36 of the Act. The habitat network system comprises a number of different components which function effectively together as an integrated system. The main elements are as follows (Federal Ministry for the Environment 2020):

Core areas: these provide secure, stable and long term habitat for native species. They comprise of remnants of natural or semi-natural habitats, surrounded by buffer and development areas which prevent negative impacts from intensively used landscapes upon the core areas.

Connectivity elements: these are areas which ensure or facilitate the dispersal and genetic exchange of populations of animals and plants between core areas and which allow for migration and re- colonization processes. These can take the form of 'stepping stones' or corridors.

Surrounding landscape matrix: this needs to be made less hostile to species dispersal and thus provide increased functional connectivity. This can be achieved by appropriate land management activity such as broad-scale extensification through agri-environmental schemes.

Key criteria for assessing the suitability of sites as elements of a habitat network system include their geographical location, size, representativeness and habitat composition and diversity. In addition to the development of the network at an individual state level, effective delivery on the ground also considers the requirement to develop key international corridors and connections which permit movement of species and genetic exchange of populations across international boundaries. With reference to the study area one key connection, for example, is the link between the moorland and raised bog areas of the Hohes Venn and the adjoining semi natural woodland fragments of the Eifel National Park. This large area of interconnected habitat provides an extensive cross border habitat for lynx, wildcats and red deer. Similarly, there are aspirations to link the Hohes Venn habitats in Belgium with compatible habitats in the Netherlands through the creation of new habitat corridors in response changing to land management practices (Bundesamt für Naturschutz 2020c).

2.1.6 Additional components and GI instruments at the Regional Level: i) Path Networks:

Chapter 7, Articles 59 and 60, of the 2009 Federal Nature Conservation Act provides a general right of access to open landscapes for the purposes of recreation on roads and pathways as a general principle (Federal Ministry for the Environment 2020). Access to forests is in accordance with the Federal Forest Act, the forest acts of the Länder and, otherwise, other Land laws. Access within forests can be restricted however for the purposes of land management or nature conservation or to protect specific interests. Under the Act, however, it is clear that those who access the open landscape do so at their own risk and that owners do not accept liability for the typical dangers that can arise in nature.

In addition to wider access rights promoted at State level, local authorities also designate, signpost and maintain networks of paths for walkers, cyclists and horse riders. These provide connectivity between areas of urban settlement and key GI resources including LSGs, NSGs and the wider Biotope Network. Maps of these networks of paths are made available through the NRW Geoportal (Geschäftsstelle IMA GDI Nordrhein-Westfalen 2020) under the category of “Touristik und Freizeitinformationen NRW”. These include strategic routes and paths which are maintained by the local administration. ii) Landscape Plans, GI and Open Space Strategies:

Local authorities, including regional authorities, are responsible for the development of detailed local landuse plans, which specifically designate the use and development status of individual parcels of land. In addition to this there are local greenspace strategies within specified areas.

The Environmental Office, ULB - Umweltamt, of the Städteregion Aachen is the authority responsible for nature and landscape protection across the Städteregion Aachen and it administers and implements existing landscape plans. Within the Städteregion there are seven separate landscape plans covering the following areas: i) "Herzogenrath - Würselen", ii) "Baesweiler - Alsdorf - Merkstein", iii) "Eschweiler - Stolberg", iv) "Stolberg - Roetgen", v) "Simmerath", vi) "Monschau", vii) "Eschweiler- Alsdorf" (Städteregion Aachen 2020) . The landscape plans are drawn up or adapted by the ULB or the planning offices commissioned for this purpose, and are then adopted as statutes. They cover aspects of construction law, development

29 plans - provided that they represent areas for agriculture, forestry or greenspaces – or for compensation or replacement measures. As of 2006, the final, legally binding plans have been adjusted according to the terms of the EU Habitats and Birds – FFH – Directives. These aim to secure and develop biological diversity in the European Natura 2000 network through incorporating a representative selection of all habitats of common interest. The Städteregion Aachen, have not yet produced a detailed strategy for Green Infrastructure in support of the landuse plans. However the Städteregion is a key partner for the Dreiländer Park, or Three Countries Park; a unique cross border initiative which aims to create a coordinated approach to the management of landscapes between the cities of Maastricht, Hassalt, Heerlen and Liege with the common aim being to protect, develop and manage the Park in a functional, sustainable and attractive manner (Lohrberg, Wirth et al. 2014), p86 – see Fig 19. One of the key recommendations of the Three Countries Park Landscape Policy, is the production of a Green Infrastructure Strategy, as an immediate opportunity to implement the landscape perspective within the defined Park area (Lohrberg, Wirth et al. 2014), p91. Whilst this would clearly fill a need for a more strategic approach to GI management, it would, however, only cover part of the Städteregion Aachen - in particular it would not include the Southern path of the Städteregion located within the Natur Parc Hohes Venn Nord Eifel. There is clearly therefore a need to develop a complimentary plan that would cover the whole of the Städteregion Aachen, considering both the spatial and detailed policy aspects of GI.

With the City of Aachen, the City administration is responsible for the production of its own landscape plan (Stadt Aachen 2020b) and has developed an Open Space Strategy for the City in tandem with this, based upon a hierarchy and typology of local greenspace types within the City. The typology includes specifically: open landscape areas, play areas, green walls and roofs, green and park areas, woodlands, sports pitches, green streets and squares, cemeteries, spaces around buildings and small gardens. The concept is based around the principle of a coronation crown - see Fig 17, which is symbolic for the City of Aachen and includes greenspace elements which are referred to as the “rays” - landscape wedges close to the City, the “jewels” - large City Parks, the “ribbons” - green streets and the “peals” - inner city green islands” (Stadt Aachen 2019), P35 - 42. The Strategy is designed to link with a number of existing City Strategies - Fig 17, which include the City of Aachen Landscape Plan (Stadt Aachen 2020b), the Landuse Plan (Stadt Aachen 2020a) and the overall Aachen 2030 Masterplan (Stadt Aachen 2012). A spacial, or map based, representation of the Open Space Network concept is shown in Fig 18.

Fig 17: The “Green Crown” of Aachen Freiraumkonzept (Stadt Aachen 2019)

Fig 18: The Stadt Aachen Freiraumkonzept – spatial elements (Stadt Aachen 2019), P53.

2.2 Städteregion Aachen - An overview GI with relation to Citizen Participation

The Städteregion covers an area of approximately 700km2, with a population of 555,000 distributed across 10 districts, 245,000 of whom live in the City of Aachen itself (Städteregion Aachen 2016). It comprises a diverse range of geographical zones and habitat types and varies in elevation from 150m in the low lying northern part of the Region, to over 600m in the Eifel uplands which are located in the Southern part.

Although the City Region is relatively compact in extent, it is geographically diverse. The Region encompasses varied landscapes ranging from post-industrial lowlands to the North, characterised by areas of former coal mining activity, through the more undulating and urbanised landscapes around the City of Aachen, to the more upland landscapes of the Eifel and Hohes Venn. This geographical diversity is in turn reflected in the relationship between local people and their natural environment. Generally speaking, communities in the Eifel have a more land-based economy and consequently have a closer relationship and connection with their natural resources than within the more urbanised and post-industrial areas of the City Region. However examples of participation in GI related initiatives can be found throughout the Region to varying degrees. The following summary highlights this:

Northern and Eastern Lowlands:

In the North of the Region, post-industrial settlements such as Alsdorf, Herzogenrath, Kohlscheid and Würselen have been significantly influenced by the legacy of the coal mining industry. The decline of this industry, which has been occurring since the 1950s, has resulted, not only in highly modified and degraded landscapes, but has also had significant sociological and economic impacts upon the communities within this area. Despite structural and sociological changes within these settlements, strong social bonds still remain as evidenced through the high numbers of local clubs, institutions and organisations present within the area.

There is clear evidence of an interest in the natural environment within these communities as illustrated, for example, through existing community groups with a natural heritage focus such as the Heimatfreunde Noppenburg, Naturfreunde Merkstein, the AG Wurmtal e.V. and the Worm-Wildnis Heimatverein. These organisations are generally small-scale in character and have very much a local focus. Despite an apparent broad environmental interest within these groups, the main emphasis of activities and motivations varies considerably in each case and includes diverse objectives such as the generation of social capital in the case of Merkstein and Worm-Wildnis or promoting aspects of local pride and cultural heritage, as in the case of Noppenberg. In contrast the AG Wurmtal e.V. has a focus more or less entirely upon nature conservation.

Stolberg and Eschweiler in the Eastern part of the Städteregion Aachen also have a unique character, having been traditionally industrial centres, which are now having to adjust to the decline of traditional manufacturing industries. In this respect Eschweiler has been more successful in terms of attracting new industries and investment (Eschweiler Stadtverwaltung 2020) whilst Stolberg has experienced decline in its traditional heavy industry sectors. With regard to community participation in green infrastructure, this has created both opportunities and constraints. The “Arbeitskreis Naturschutz” (Arbeitskreis Naturschutz e.V. 2020), based within Stolberg for example, has been actively involved in managing around 14 ha of land which is deemed to be locally significant for nature conservation and has particular experience with regard to the conservation of reptiles and amphibians.

City of Aachen and its Southern Fringes:

Within the City of Aachen itself, there are less documented or anecdotal incidences of communities becoming directly involved with the creation or management of projects relating to green infrastructure. This is in part, due to the high population density within the area, the relatively limited number of open spaces within the core urban area and the generally more urban outlook of the population, many of whom take the view that the management of greenspace should be the responsibility of the City administration. The urban population is also more transitory in nature and includes high numbers of students and short term workers.

This echoes the general approach of the Aachen City administration who have tended to undertake greenspace and GI related activity as a managing agent on behalf of the population through top down mechanisms. This approach, however, is starting to change with a small number of recent community led initiatives relating to the management of public open spaces within the urban area being instigated through partnerships and collaborations between residents and the local authority. The best documented and most successful of these is the Soermondt Community Garden project, or “Hirschgrün” Community Garden which is organised by the Urbane Gemeinschaftsgärten Aachen e.V. Here, a group of local residents have leased an area of land from the City administration which they have developed into a growing space (Urbane Gemeinschaftsgärten Aachen e.V. 2020).

The Community Garden also forms part of the new wider Soermondt neighbourhood park concept (Stadt Aachen 2020d). The City of Aachen also operate a partnership scheme which enables local residents and local community groups to take on responsibility for the day to day management of very small areas of amenity planting such as flower beds around street trees or upon urban street verges (Stadt Aachen 2020c).Though the actually number of these areas is increasing, their extent is limited in terms of overall area.

To the South of the City of Aachen, population density is lower with a number of satellite towns and commuter villages which include Brand, Kornelimünster, Walheim and Oberforstbach. These settlements are located within a rolling pastoral landscape of small fields and hedges, orchards, and woodlands which are incised by river valleys including the Inde and Ille (Stadt Aachen 2020e). Although more dispersed and rural in character, these settlements, arguably, illustrate peri-urban characteristics and population profiles. They often attract higher income families and working age professionals who want to live close to the town, albeit within a semi-rural environment. There is also some availability of housing for low income families in Walheim (Stadt Aachen 2020e). Many residents of these settlements have been actively engaged in developing the social capacity of their settlements volunteering and community participation, including through membership of local associations, social groups and civil society groups (Stadt Aachen 2020e). Although such activities are generally not directly focused upon managing or delivering green infrastructure provision as a primary objective.

However, there are examples where groups have been involved in the creation, improvement and management of greenspaces for primarily social purposes and as a community resource. The Walheim “Freizeitgeländ” for instance is a good example (Freizeit und Erholungsverein Walheim e.V. 2020). This site provides diverse play, recreational facilities and community space within a disused quarry site, adjoining a local nature protection site or NSG. By contrast, Gut Hebscheid organic farm initiative close to Lichtenbusch, run by the parent organisation, VIA Integration gGmbH, provides an interesting example of a social enterprise-based approach for delivering outcomes. These are to some extent compatible with GI principles in terms of the integration of low impact, sustainable agriculture with wider connectivity and landscape permeability functions (VIA Integration gGmbH 2020). However, for

34 the purposes of this study, although it does not fall into the category of a Citizen led initiative, it can still provide useful insights into social enterprise based approaches.

Nordeifel/ Hohes Venn Nature Park.

The German-Belgian Hohes Venn-Eifel Nature Park is of key significance for the Study Area and covers an extensive area of 2,700 km2 in North Rhine-Westphalia, Rhineland-Palatinate and East Belgium (Naturpark Hohes Venn-Nordeifel 2020). The Nature Park was established in 1960 and was merged in 1971 with the Belgian Hohes Venn Nature Park to form the present geographical area. Landscapes within the Naturepark are extensively varied and include the high moors in the Belgian "Hohes Venn", deep river valleys and lakes, the “Kalk-Eifel” limestone terrain, the wooded plateau of the Hocheifel and the foothills of the Vulkaneifel. As well as providing some added protection for landscape and nature, the Nature Park has a strong rural development agenda. It manages a number of projects which aim to promote sustainable tourism based around the area’s significant cultural landscapes and natural heritage. These include an Interreg project focusing upon development of a cross border nature park plan entitled “Natural Park Prospects”, specific projects focusing on cultural landscape features including boundary hedges and traditional orchards, development of habitat networks and also developing civic engagement initiatives such as the management of high hedges around settlements through co-ordinated voluntary action (Naturpark Hohes Venn-Nordeifel 2020). The Southern part of the Städteregion Aachen is located almost entirely within the Nordeifel/ Hohes Venn Nature Park area – see Fig 19.

Fig 19. The Hohes Venn-Eifel Nature Park Area (Naturpark Hohes Venn-Nordeifel 2020)

The landscape and topography and vegetation types change abruptly upon entering the Nature Park area from the North, with the landscape taking on an increasingly more upland character as the foothills of the Eifel, with their higher elevations are encountered. The elevated plateau of the Eifel provides an effective barrier to incoming Westerly weather systems, resulting in considerably higher levels of precipitation in the area compared with the Northern part of the Städteregion (Naturpark Hohes Venn-Nordeifel 2020). The greater part of the area within the Nature park is protected under core landscape and nature conservation designations which include NSG, LSG, Natura 2000 designations – a substantial part of the area is included within the Biotope network which links these designated core areas with a wider network of habitat corridors and permeable landscapes (Landesamt für Natur Umwelt und Verbraucherschutz Nordrhein-Westfalen 2020).

The area is characterised by a high percentage forest cover on slopes and along river valleys with low intensity agriculture and wet moorlands largely on the undulating upland plateau areas. The geographical transition is reflected in the nature of the communities themselves, which become more rural and dispersed in character with the exception some expanding regional centres which include Roetgen, Imgenbroich and Simmerath.

The Eifel National Park (Nationalparkeifel 2020) area is also included within the more extensive area of the Nature Park (Naturpark Hohes Venn-Nordeifel 2020). The Park is also of significance, forming a large area of continuous semi-natural habitat. It is also one of Germany’s newest national parks and it is located on the Southern Border of the Study Area, covering an area of 110 square km. The protected area is considered to be a “developing” National Park with the stated aim of optimising the development of regenerating semi natural habitats over most of the area by 2034. The park is characterised by developing climax vegetation of native beech woods on steep slopes which are bisected by deep river valleys. The Eifel National Park is also very important from a recreation perspective and incorporates a number of key recreational routes including the “Wildnis-Trail” which traverses a diverse range of the Park’s semi-natural habitats (Nationalparkeifel 2020). The “Eifel Steig” route, one of Germany’s premier long distance trails, also passes through the Park and is perceived as being economically of significance to the area (Nationalparkeifel 2020).

Within the Eifel Region, communities tend to be more close-knit with higher levels of existing social capital and cooperation than found within the more urbanised parts of the City Region. However in some more remote areas there are problems associated with declining rural populations and services (Leader Region Eifel 2016).The different geography and population composition means that the support mechanisms and structures available for citizen led initiatives tend to differ from those observed in the urbanised, peri-urban and post-industrial parts of the Städteregion (Leader Region Eifel 2016).

Along with high levels of civic pride, there is generally a closer sense of connection shown between these communities and their local landscape. This manifests itself in the form of direct participation by local citizens in a number of local environmental and sustainability initiatives. An excellent example (Eifelverein 2019) of this process in action can be observed at Rott, by Roetgen, where the local community “Heimatverein” is involved in managing the 112ha Struffelt Nature Protection area. The principle aim here is to restore the Struffelt to a wet moorland habitat following unsuccessful attempts at afforestation during the last century and unsympathetic land management practices over successive years (Hülsheger R, Theißen H et al. 2016).

The Rott Heimatverein is also a good illustration of effective partnership processes in action and the Heimatverein has actively engaged with a number of strategic partners including the Biologische Station for Aachen Städteregion, the NRW Ministry of Forestry and the Städteregion Aachen itself. It is clear that the mobilisation of local communities in the Eifel has been, in part, facilitated by the existence of the Eifelverein, an umbrella body to which the local “Heimatvereine”, or associations, are affiliated (Eifelverein 2019). The Eifelverein supports local environmental stewardship, landscape, cultural heritage and the development of sustainable communities amongst its various member groups. Local “Heimatvereine” within the Eifel have a chance to affiliate to the main “umbrella” organisation. Other initiatives which have also helped to facilitate similar activities within the Eifel Region include the regional competition “Unser Dorf hat Zukunft” which is organised by the Städteregion Aachen and the LEADER, North Eifel, programme which also provides funding opportunities to local communities which meet its criteria (Leader Region Eifel 2016).

Typically for such local groups, much of the organisation is undertaken by older, active or retired members of the community, who have the time and possess the social connections necessary to organise activities, attend events and promote awareness generally. However, it is also clear that there is a role for younger people and families to be involved in day to day events. In some situations activities are specifically organised with the aim of catering for the interests of teenagers and school age children.

Tourism and economic interests have also provided a catalyst for citizen participation in green infrastructure management, particularly within the Eifel area of the Städteregion. Local community initiatives in Höfen – Monschau and Eicherscheid - Simmerath, for example, have focused upon maintaining and preserving locally distinctive cultural landscapes which are considered to offer potential for green tourism. The Monschauer Heckenlandschaft, or hedge landscape, for example, is being specifically promoted with the aim of encouraging visitors to explore, understand and appreciate historic landscapes and to bring about inward investment as a consequence of this through increasing visitor numbers to the area (Eifel Tourismus GmbH 2020). This also applies to the characteristic moorland areas of the Eifel /Hohes Venn. In Mützenich, the Heimatverein has also worked alongside other partners to restore and interpret the local Venn (Natur Erleben NRW 2020), or moorland, landscape as part of a wider restoration and renaturing programme for the whole Hohes Venn area (Biologische Station StädteRegion Aachen e. V. 2020a).

Such initiatives have helped to draw inward investment into communities through sustainable tourism projects which include the development of “hedge walks” (NRW Stiftung, 2020) moorland walks and interpretive trails. These have, in turn, played a valuable role in supporting local key services such as shops, cafes and restaurants. The communities also recognise the broader ecosystem service benefits provided by the hedge landscape in terms of providing a renewable energy resource, biodiversity and their more traditional role of providing shelter for livestock within the area, particularly during harsh winters.

Regional Summary:

Overall the picture of community engagement in GI development, promotion and management is a diverse one across the Aachen City Region as a whole. What is immediately apparent is that participation examples are generally small scale and focused upon the immediate local surroundings, rather than considering any larger strategic picture with regards to GI. However there are some interesting examples of local partnerships where enabling bodies act as mentors, funders and facilitators of projects (Leader Region Eifel 2016, Eifelverein 2019, Städteregion Aachen 2019, Biologische Station StädteRegion Aachen e. V. 2020b) as well as one good example of an innovative

37 and credible social enterprise in operation which provides tangible environmental and social GI benefits (VIA Integration gGmbH 2020).

There is scope in future for these examples to provide insights as to how delivery structures based around partnerships might provide a more structured approach in assisting and empowering local citizen initiatives. At the same time it will also be important to ensure that strategic GI issues are addressed and the potential flow of resources is fully mobilised.

In taking forward such partnership and co-management approaches, it is particularly important to consider the role and impact of the various statutory, mentoring, enabling and delivery organisations which are involved and which vary considerably in their impact across the Städteregion. These include, for example, statutory organisations such as local authority and central government departments, Semi-autonomous organisations such as the Biologische Station Aachen (Biologische Station StädteRegion Aachen e. V. 2020b) and NGO “umbrella” organisations such as NABU (NABU Stadtverband Aachen eV 2020) and the Eifelverein (Eifelverein 2019). Some of these work directly with local citizens in a proactive way to initiate projects whilst others are more hands off.

2.3 Regional GI Overview – Spatial Components:

Aachen City Region – Strategic GI Considerations

Unlike a number of Regions in NRW such as the Bergisches Städtedreieck (Das Bergisches Städtedreieck 2018) and the Ruhrgebiet Region (Regionalverband Ruhr 2016) located to the East of Cologne, there is currently no formalised or adopted Green Infrastructure plan for the Aachen City Region as a whole. As mentioned previously, a key recommendation of the Three Countries Park initiative on Landscape Policy, discussed earlier in this chapter, is for the development of a Green Infrastructure Strategy for the whole of the Three Countries Park area (Lohrberg, Wirth et al. 2014). However, for the purposes of strategic GI planning, it would also be beneficial that and such plan developed should also include the whole of the Aachen Städteregion including the area included within the Hohes Venn-Eifel Naturpark.

Fig 20. The Three Countries Park area (Lohrberg, Wirth et al. 2014)

Therefore, as a starting point for the study, an overview of the current GI resources existing at Regional level within the Städteregion Aachen was first obtained through reference to GIS shapefiles available for the Region.

These shapefiles, which form the key building blocks of the GI network, are provided by Federal and State authorities in NRW and are made publicly available for the purposes of environmental and nature conservation planning through the Geoportal NRW (Geschäftsstelle IMA GDI Nordrhein- Westfalen 2020). The available GIS layers define key GI assets including core areas such as nature protection areas, NSGs, more extensive landscape conservation areas, LSGs, and associated connectivity elements such as biodiversity and habitat corridors. The “Biotopverbund” or habitat network which is demarcated by authorities at Federal and State level is of the highest significance in terms of defining the strategic GI Network (Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz e.V. 2018, Landesamt für Natur Umwelt und Verbraucherschutz Nordrhein-Westfalen 2020b, Bundesamt für Naturschutz 2020d). Networks for people including walking, cycling and horse riding routes are also of relevance

39 when considering the composition and functionality of GI networks, these are available through the tourist and leisure information – Tourisik und Freizeitinformationen – shapefiles for NRW, which are also available through the Geoportal (Geschäftsstelle IMA GDI Nordrhein-Westfalen 2020).

An investigation was consequently made of the current GI resource existing within Aachen City through reference to GIS Shapefile data available from Regional and State authorities . The aim of the exercise was to determine the extent of the network and its potential to link and overlap with citizen participation initiatives. For this purpose shapefiles and base maps were initially sought which matched the following categories - see Table 3:

Topic Potential GIS Shapefiles Availability and Source:

Base Map Open Street Map Contributors /Google Maps Aerial Photography Open Street Map Contributors /Google Maps Designated Areas; Umweltdaten LANUV NRW (c) IT NRW Düsseldorf 2009 - Alles LSGs – Landscape Protection Areas Umweltdaten LANUV NRW (c) IT NRW Düsseldorf 2009 - Landschaftsschutzgebiet NSGs – Nature Protection Areas Umweltdaten LANUV NRW (c) IT NRW Düsseldorf 2009 - Naturschutzgebiete Nature Parks Umweltdaten LANUV NRW (c) IT NRW Düsseldorf 2009 - Naturpark FHH - Natura 2000 Sites Umweltdaten LANUV NRW (c) IT NRW Düsseldorf 2009 - FFH-Gebiete National parks Umweltdaten LANUV NRW (c) IT NRW Düsseldorf 2009 - Nationalpark Biotope network Umweltdaten LANUV NRW (c) IT NRW Düsseldorf 2009 - Biotopkataster Connected habitats Umweltdaten LANUV NRW (c) IT NRW Düsseldorf 2009 - Verbundflächen (herausragende/besondere Bedeutung) Landscape character types Umweltdaten LANUV NRW (c) IT NRW Düsseldorf 2009- Landschaftsräume Green network/GI plans Umweltdaten LANUV NRW (c) IT NRW Düsseldorf 2009 – Biotopkataster Umweltdaten LANUV NRW (c) IT NRW Düsseldorf 2009- Verbundflächen (herausragende/besondere Bedeutung) Greenspace plans and networks Umweltdaten LANUV NRW (c) IT NRW Düsseldorf 2009 – Biotopkataster Umweltdaten LANUV NRW (c) IT NRW Düsseldorf 2009- Verbundflächen (herausragende/besondere Bedeutung) Path networks (local routes) Umweltdaten LANUV NRW (c) IT NRW Düsseldorf 2009- Verbundflächen (herausragende/besondere Bedeutung) Key recreational routes Umweltdaten LANUV NRW (c) IT NRW Düsseldorf 2009- Verbundflächen (herausragende/besondere Bedeutung) Wertvolle Kulturlandschaften Landschaftsverband Rheinland

Urban / Peri-urban/ Rural areas Ortsteile in der Städteregion Regionalplan NRW (c) IT NRW Düsseldorf 2009 Bebauungsplan – Geltungsbereich weitere Satzungen nach BauGB Landuse / development plans including core Regionalplan NRW (c) IT NRW Düsseldorf 2009 development zones Bebauungsplan – Geltungsbereich weitere Satzungen nach BauGB “Urban” fringe with buffer areas (definition Ortsteile in der Städteregion urban <3000 ? with 1km/2km buffer) Regionalplan NRW (c) IT NRW Düsseldorf 2009 Bebauungsplan – Geltungsbereich weitere Satzungen nach BauGB Physical relief and drainage Digitales Geländemodell - Schummerung (c) Geobasis NRW - DGM Schummerung Farbe Landcover: urban, forestry, open habitats, Open Street Map Contributors /Google Maps pasture Transport infrastructure Straßenübersicht der StädteRegion River corridors / riparian zones Open Street Map Contributors /Google Maps Socio-economic status (i.e. SIMD or Bodenrichtwerte - Stichtag 01.01.2016 equivalent) Agricultural land classification N/A Administrative Boundaries Verwaltungsgrenzen NRW Water protection Wasserschutzgebiete

Table 3. Potential GIS shapefiles highlighting features which were initially considered

Development of an overview map of the Städteregion Aachen highlighting the GI network and potential case study locations:

An initial requirement of the scoping process of the study was to identify key GI assets from the range of GIS shapefiles available, thus gaining a broad overview of the network, its core characteristics and connectivity elements. For this purpose, a number of shapefiles were selected from the list shown above as being particularly indicative and providing the clearest representative overview. Shapefiles selected consisted of the following: i) Core Area Shapefiles: These consisted of key Nature protection sites: Naturschutzgebiete - NSGs, Landschaftsschutzgebiet. These designated areas form the key elements of the Biotopkataster (biotope register) which has also been used for the production of GIS maps at a more detailed scale. ii) Connectivity Element Shapefiles: These primarily consisted of the Biotope network – Verbundflächen. These have been determined at Federal and state level through a detailed analysis of habitat corridors. The Biotope network must be considered to be one of the core indicators in defining GI across the Städteregion Aachen. iii) Background and Base Map Elements: In addition to the definition of the principle GI Network features, base map information was also included from Open Street Map Contributors. This included main landcover features such as forest cover, human settlement and transport infrastructure. However this was only used for location maps at higher levels of resolution and not for overview maps of the Region. iv) Incorporation of Potential Case Study Locations:

In addition, potential case study locations which provide evidence of citizen participation will then be overlaid onto the base map at later stage. The identification and evaluation of these potential locations will be discussed separately in the following chapter.

When proposing the overview map shown below - see Fig 21, it is important to consider the significance of scale. Whilst the map proposed in Fig 21 is appropriate as a strategic overview on a regional scale, it does not include all the GI elements which could be considered on an individual settlement or local, site based scale. On such a local level, in addition to the key networks and core areas shown here, consideration should also be given to small scale linear habitat features which are located outside the core network. These might include, for example, farm hedges, copses, field margins and other non-designated habitat areas. Similarly local and strategic path networks for walkers, cyclists and horse riders - Touristik und Freizeitinformationen - will also form part of the GI network on a local scale and must be considered but are not illustrated in the Regional overview.

Fig 21. Strategic GI Network – Biotope Kataster, core areas and Biotopverbindung

A Description of Key features of the GI network in the Städteregion Aachen and priorities for management according to landscape character zones – Landschaftsräume:

Although the Aachen City Region is relatively compact in extent, it is geographically diverse. The Region encompasses varied landscapes. These range from the upland landscapes of the Eifel and Hohes Venn in the South of the Region, through undulating pastoral landscapes around the Venn Vorland and the City of Aachen, to the former industrial lowlands in the North of the Städteregion Aachen, characterised by former coal mining activity, textile and glass manufacturing industries.

The Green Infrastructure resource within Städteregion similarly comprises many diverse elements; however, for the purposes of gaining an overview these can be considered within the context of the following landscape character zones and headings – see Fig 22. Whilst this provides an overview of the Region, the characteristics of every zone will not be described in detail here - a comprehensive list of characteristics can be obtained from the NRW Geoportal (Geschäftsstelle IMA GDI Nordrhein- Westfalen 2020). Some landscape character zones, for example, such as the Vaalsier Hill landscape – LR-V-001 and the Juelicher Boerde – LR-II-001, do not compose major areas of territory of the Städteregion Aachen within relation to the study. For the purposes of this study, significant areas to be considered are as follows (Geschäftsstelle IMA GDI Nordrhein-Westfalen 2020):

Fig 22. Landscape character zones – “Landschaftsräume”

Nature Park North Eifel / Hohes Venn: i) Monschauer “Heckenlandschaft”- LR-V-008, and Rur River Catchment – LR-V-004

On a Regional scale, the most extensive areas of connected habitats are found in the South of the Region within the North Eifel - Hohes Venn Nature Park area. Historic cultural landscapes on the higher plateau areas above the wooded slopes are significant from a GI perspective and are characterised by field boundary hedges or “Flurhecken” and high beech hedges “Hochhecken” which are located around dwellings (Geschäftsstelle IMA GDI Nordrhein-Westfalen 2020). In addition cultural landscape elements include species rich meadows, small broadleaved woodlands and copses, landmark trees and ancient trackways or “hollow ways” linking human settlements. To the South, the upland plateau areas of the Heckenlandschaft are deeply incised by the steep valleys of the Rur river system and its associated tributaries around Monschau, Simmerath, Einruhr and Rurberg. These deep gorges are characterised by extensive tracts of naturally regenerating semi natural beech and oak gorge woodlands, although some of these have been replaced by conifers, particularly in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries. Many areas are of high nature conservation significance and are consequently designated as Natura 2000 sites. A large percentage of the area is also protected through NSG and LSG designations. In addition a significant core area of regenerating native beech woodland is located within the Eifel National Park, just to the SE of the Städteregion boundary. Within these areas, suggested GI priorities are as follows, based upon local nature conservation priorities (Geschäftsstelle IMA GDI Nordrhein-Westfalen 2020) – see Table 4.

Proposed Suggested Key GI Priorities: Action Monschauer “Heckenlandschaft” and Rur River Catchment

1. Improving connectivity between semi natural riparian habitats and gorge woodlands and the surrounding open landscapes of the Heckenlandscaft through management of linear habitat corridors, extensive pasture management and through the creation of “stepping stone” features within the network.

2. Integration of extensive areas of protected habitat including semi natural beech woodland adjoining the Eifel National Park boundary and to enhance connectivity between core areas and the wider habitat networks.

3. Maintaining and enhancing cultural landscapes particularly the area’s unique “Heckenlandschaft” of small fields subdivided by ancient beech hedgerows and field boundary trees to provide connectivity and deliver ecosystem services benefits locally.

4. Development of interpretive walks and green tourism initiatives based around the theme of the Heckenlandschaft and adjacent cultural landscapes such as “daffodil meadows” to generate local inward investment and income generation. This would help to enhance links between local communities and their cultural landscape heritage.

5. Developing the capacity of the landscape to deliver enhanced ecosystem services e.g. through contribution to local energy supplies through the development of sustainable wood fuel harvesting initiatives.

6. Provision of recreational greenspaces and path networks around settlements to meet local recreational and play needs.

7. Maximising the economic benefits arising from long distance strategic routes to local communities.

8. To involve children and young people in sustainability initiatives relating to GI projects such as community growing, wild flower planting and orchard management.

Table 4. Monschauer “Heckenlandschaft”- Suggested GI priorities

45 ii) Hohes Venn High Moorland Areas – LR-V-006

The Hohes Venn comprises of extensive tracts of upland wet moorland habitat which form a characteristic feature associated with the high elevations and incoming Atlantic frontal systems. These internationally significant habitats host a range of moorland and bog plants including sphagnum moss, bog cottongrass, bog bean, marsh marigold, sundew, heather and rushes (Geschäftsstelle IMA GDI Nordrhein-Westfalen 2020). Over time the extent and quality of the moorland areas has declined as a result of commercial afforestation, drainage activity and the dominance of certain species, particularly Molinia, or purple moor grass.

Although the majority of the moorland habitat is within Belgium, there are also smaller areas located within the German part of the Naturpark. These include the Struffelt NSG area by Rott. Within these areas, suggested GI priorities are as follows, based upon local nature conservation priorities (Geschäftsstelle IMA GDI Nordrhein-Westfalen 2020) – see Table 5.

Proposed Suggested Key GI Priorities: Action Hohes Venn High Moorland Areas

1. Ongoing management work to help maintain and enhance existing Venn fragments through ecological restoration programmes such as through blocking drains, creation of pools and open water, removal of problem species such as purple moor grass and spruce and through sensitive grazing and management of cattle.

2. To expand the area of existing managed habitats and to increase connectivity between these areas to provide a larger core of functioning habitat network.

3. Development of cross border initiatives with Belgium to ensure that habitat restoration initiatives follow ecological zones and not merely administrative or political boundaries.

4. Restoration of outlying fragments of the Venn located outside the main areas e.g. Struffelt NSG

5. Promotion of the Venn as a cultural and educational resource for local citizens and visitors to the area through provision of visitor information and interpretation programmes in the area.

6. Consideration of how the Venn might provide further benefits in terms of ecosystem service delivery such as provision of biomass products or limited extraction of peat for local uses.

7. Improving and updating the network of paths and trails through the Venn areas.

Table 5. Hohes Venn- Suggested GI priorities

46 iii) Monschau/ Hohes Venn Forest Uplands – LR-V-006

Along the Northern Fringe of the Nature Park, extensive areas of connected woodland habitats including remnant semi natural beech and oak woods are to be found. These include the Zweiffaler and Rotterwald woodlands which are of high nature conservation and recreational value (Geschäftsstelle IMA GDI Nordrhein-Westfalen 2020). The riparian corridor of the Vichtbach and the headwaters of the Inde cut through these woodland habitats. Restoration and expansion of the semi natural woodland fragments within these locations is important to promote connectivity of habitats (ref.). Ideally this should involve the removal of non-native conifers, particularly along riparian corridors. Within these areas, suggested GI priorities are as follows, based upon local nature conservation priorities (Geschäftsstelle IMA GDI Nordrhein-Westfalen 2020) – see Table 6:

Proposed Suggested Key GI Priorities: Action Monschau / Hohes Venn Forest Uplands

1. Managing semi-native woodland fragments to maximise regeneration and removal of conifers from areas of higher ecological value, to create and expand core woodland habitats and encourage ecological connectivity.

2. Management of riparian zones to enhance connectivity of key semi natural habitats. Removal of non-native invasive species, as appropriate to enhance connectivity and to restore connectivity of watercourses through removal of manmade obstructions.

3. Maintaining, expanding and managing open habitats including woodland glades and rides to maintain landscape character and ecological diversity, particularly with regard to providing niches for pollinator species.

4. Maintaining, enhancing and promoting cultural landscapes around settlements to provide ecological connectivity and biodiversity and ecosystem service benefits. Landscape features to focus on could include hedges and field boundary trees, orchards, wetlands, ponds and cultural heritage artefacts.

5. To provide recreational greenspace to meet local social and recreational needs of local communities.

6. To maximise the economic benefits arising from long distance strategic routes to local people.

7. To involve children and young people in sustainability initiatives relating to GI projects such as community growing, wild flower planting and orchard management.

Table 6. Monschau / Hohes Venn Forest Uplands - Suggested GI priorities

The Kornelimünster Eifel Vorland – LR-V-003:

The area between Brand, Oberforstbach, Walheim and stretching NE towards Breinig, Mausbach and Langewehe is characterised by undulating pasture land which is bisected by small river valleys such as the Inde, the Ille and the Vichtbach (Geschäftsstelle IMA GDI Nordrhein-Westfalen 2020). This rich, bocage type, cultural Landscape comprises small areas of pasture divided by mixed hedges with field boundary trees, old orchards, small woodlands and river meadows. Much of the area is under LSG protected status and there are also small areas under NSG designation. The area is well populated with a number of “dormitory village” type settlements which have been expanding in recent years to address the demands of commuters to nearby Aachen and beyond (Stadt Aachen 2020e). There are also some areas of former quarrying sites which are now naturally regenerating as nature conservation areas. These include the Walheim NSG which is located on a former limestone quarry site and the Shlangenberg at Breinig (Geschäftsstelle IMA GDI Nordrhein-Westfalen 2020). This is an important Natura 2000 site which hosts a unique flora adapted to soils which have been contaminated by heavy metals. Within these areas, suggested GI priorities are as follows, based upon local nature conservation priorities (Geschäftsstelle IMA GDI Nordrhein-Westfalen 2020) – see Table 7.

Proposed Suggested Key GI Priorities: Action The Kornelimünster Eifel Vorland

1. Maintain and develop integrity of distinctive cultural landscape features including hedges, field boundary trees, wetlands and ponds.

2. To promote the restoration and planting of traditional orchards, or Streuobstwiesen, emphasising the benefits of old traditional fruit varieties, characteristic of the local area. To manage these areas sensitively through grazing.

3. Maintain and support low intensity agriculture and extensive landuse which promotes biodiversity through appropriate support mechanisms and agri-environment initiatives.

4. Optimise management of nature conservation sites within the area including NSG and Natura 2000 sites through appropriate management actions.

5. Manage riparian corridors to ensure connectivity of habitats along river corridors. In addition to enhance the potential of these to function also as part of a wider recreational network, though improved paths, signage and interpretation.

6. Develop recreational greenspaces and informal recreation networks around settlements to promote health, wellbeing and appreciation of the natural environment. This could also include developing and promoting community gardening projects on underutilised sites.

7. Ensure that developments on the periphery of settlements are properly integrated into the surrounding landscape through appropriate planting and mitigation measures.

8. Manage former industrial and quarry sites to optimise ecological potential and to increase awareness of their contribution as an educational, recreational and natural heritage resource.

9. Involve citizens, particularly young people, in the management of local greenspaces to ensure a culture of stewardship develops. Consider also as to how sites might deliver further ecosystem services to people e.g. through biomass provision.

10. Take forward local interpretation projects to increase awareness of local GI assets and to encourage more public use of these assets.

Table 7. Kornelimünster Eifel Vorland - Suggested GI priorities

Urban Area of Aachen City – LR-V-005, LR-II-015:

The City of Aachen itself is heavily urbanised with a high population density living within the urban core of the City. The City has an extensive network of greenspaces which include formalised city parks and gardens and lower key neighbourhood parks which are designed to serve the needs of local communities (Stadt Aachen 2019). An extensive area of municipal forest, known as the Aachener Wald, is also located on the Southern fringe of the City and is subject to heavy recreational use by residents. On the North side of the town, the Lousberg, a wooded hill, provides a more compact but also significant recreational resource and forms a prominent landscape feature.

Within residential neighbourhoods, particularly on the South side of the City, there are large numbers of street trees located along thoroughfares. Despite this, densification has limited the extent of accessible greenspace within the urban core and the biotope network does not penetrate the heart of the City. This is especially true within the City centre area where greenspaces are fragmented, of limited size and few in number. A challenge for GI in the City is to maximise the potential of relatively small pockets of land through diversification and urban greening projects which will deliver a greater range of ecosystem service benefits. Within these areas, suggested GI priorities are as follows, based upon local greenspace management priorities (Stadt Aachen 2019) – see Table 8.

Proposed Suggested Key GI Priorities: Action Urban Area of Aachen City

1. Manage parks and urban greenspaces to maximise multifunctional benefits for recreation, wellbeing, outdoor play and as a resource for promoting and preserving biodiversity and local landscape character.

2. Consider parks and greenspaces as part of a wider functioning network delivering connectivity benefits. Develop linkages through, for example, increased planting of street trees, creation of green roofs, green walls, green streets and other biodiversity friendly interventions.

3. Involve local residents in projects which directly enhance or develop the contribution of greenspaces as a community asset or which use greenspaces to deliver wider ecosystem service benefits.

4. Promote biodiversity within urban greenspaces such as through enhancing habitats for pollinating insects in public and private areas.

5. Encourage appropriate management of institutional grounds and private gardens to increase biodiversity and landscape benefits and for the contribution of these areas to the overall network to be maximised.

6. Consider how urban greenspaces might be better used to promote to deliver social benefits including health and wellbeing, community cohesion, integration and training and volunteering opportunities for people from diverse social backgrounds.

7. Improve connectivity of habitats and greenspaces between urban fringe woodlands such as the Aachener Wald and the Lousberg through maximising the quality and function of GI elements within the urban core on both public and private spaces.

8. Develop urban greenspaces which help to mitigate against climate change impacts such as extreme weather events and urban heat island effects.

Table 8. Urban Area of Aachen City - Suggested GI priorities

Aachen Old Industrial Territory - LR-II-015:

The area between Aachen, Herzogenrath and Stolberg is characterised by former industrial activities and expanding development of a peri-urban nature, including industrial estates, distribution warehouses, shopping malls and residential developments. This has created a complex mixture of habitat features and built infrastructure with some significant natural regeneration of degraded habitats occurring on brownfield sites, vacant land and along river corridors, particularly the Wurmtal (Geschäftsstelle IMA GDI Nordrhein-Westfalen 2020).

Remaining and regenerating natural habitats are subject to high recreational and development pressures, thus creating potential conflicts between GI functions and other landuses. Within the river corridor of the Wurmtal for instance, there are significant riparian, woodland and meadow habitats which have been designated as Natura 2000 sites. Similarly the area is popular with walkers, cyclists and horse riders and has been identified as offering a natural green link route for active travel purposes. High land values also mean that there is a constant tension with development interests and a lack of suitable land for construction. In addition, particularly in the Stolberg and Eilendorf areas, there are problems with local contamination of soils through past industrial and extractive industries (Geschäftsstelle IMA GDI Nordrhein-Westfalen 2020). Indirectly this has helped to preserve GI through delaying or limiting the scope urban development. Priorities in this area might include – see Table 9.

Proposed Suggested Key GI Priorities: Action Aachen old Industrial Territory

1. Restoration of degraded ecosystems on former industrial and quarrying sites and along key riparian corridors such as the Wurmtal. This can also include removal of aggressive non-native species such as Himalayan balsam and Japanese Knotweed along watercourses.

2. Development of opportunities for local citizen initiatives to manage areas of land close to residential communities for multifunctional outcomes including as space for community events, biodiversity, urban gardening and environmental education.

3. Provision of linear routes for cyclists, walkers and horse riders which link residential areas with key recreational and commuting destinations. This involves the sensitive balancing with other GI interests, particularly biodiversity conservation.

4. Improving interpretation of the natural and cultural heritage focusing on links between former industries and the evolution of the present day cultural landscape. Evaluate potential for developing themed routes based around industrial heritage and upgrade, synergise and update outdated interpretation materials and signage.

5. Promote educational activities around the urban fringe focusing upon natural heritage locations and features.

6. Provide pollinator friendly areas through diversification of existing amenity grassland areas and meadows. Encourage similar approaches on school grounds and on other public or institutional land through involving local people.

7. Undertake greening projects to reduce the impact of eyesores on vacant and derelict land. This can also involve temporary greening projects on vacant lots.

8. Develop projects which involve volunteering in outdoor spaces for habitat management and also for physical activity, mental health and wellbeing purposes.

Table 9. Aachen Old Industrial Territory - Suggested GI priorities

Chapter 3. Scoping, Shortlisting and Identification of Case Studies:

A principle aim of the research is to identify examples of citizen participation in the management of GI within the Aachen City Region, occurring in rural, peri-urban and urban areas and to then subsequently select a number of case studies suitable for further detailed evaluation. The scoping, identification and selection of these case study locations was consequently an initial goal of the research process. This selection process for case studies involved a number of discreet stages which form the basis of this Chapter. The content covered in the Chapter is as follows:

3.1 Discussion and meetings with local experts from regional and local authorities to determine an initial shortlist of initiatives with potential for further evaluation as case studies.

3.2 Mapping of these locations to provide a geographical overview of potential case studies.

3.3 Orientation visits to all potential initiatives identified through discussion for familiarisation purposes.

3.4 The development of an assessment matrix and scoring system to evaluate all potential case studies.

3.5 Selection of a core area comprising a geographical transect across the Aachen City Region encompassing the breadth of rural, urban and periurban locations and topographical variation of the City Region.

3.6 Short listing and selection of final case studies located within a core area of the City Region.

3.1 Discussion and Meetings with Local Experts, Regional and Local Authorities.

As a starting point for the study, a number of meetings were organised with local experts representing key regional and local authorities and mentoring bodies. The purpose of these meetings was: i) To gain an overview of key GI assets within the Städteregion Aachen and resources, including GIS Shapefiles available to map these effectively. ii) To understand approaches to the management of GI at regional, local and state level. iii) Most significantly, to gain an overview of potential case study locations where involvement of local citizens’ groups in the management of GI was known to occur, or which had occurred within the recent historical past.

The process was initiated through an introductory meeting with key officials from Städteregion Aachen, Environmental Planning Section to set the scene and to introduce the goals of the research. Following on from this the initial list of initiatives for potential evaluation was collated through discussion with local experts at the Städteregion, particularly Mr Udo Thorwesten, an ecologist and landscape specialist and Ms. Andrea Drossard who is a community development officer based there. The following meetings were held as part of this introductory scoping process - see Table 10:

Date Organisation Details of Meetings with Local Experts

16/03/16 Städteregion Aachen Discussion with Environmental Planning Section, Städteregion Aachen to determine regional GI and Citizen Participation overview. Introductory discussion with Community Development Section.

29/03/16 Städteregion Aachen Follow up meeting with Environmental Planning Section to determine regional GI and Citizen Participation overview.

06/04/16 Städteregion Aachen Orientation visit with Environmental Planning Section for familiarisation with potential case studies.

26/10/16 Biologische Station Aachen Interview with Biologische Station Aachen officials to determine regional GI and Citizen Participation overview.

07/09/16 Stadt Aachen Interview with Environmental Planning Section of the City of Aachen, to determine GI and Citizen Participation overview specifically within the Stadt Aachen area.

09/10/17 Städteregion Aachen Interview with Community Development Section, Städteregion Aachen to determine extent and scope of Citizen Participation in relation to “Unser Dorf hat Zukunft” and related community development programmes.

Table 10. Initial meetings with local experts and officials as part of the scoping process

3.2 GIS Mapping – overview of potential case study locations

As a result of the meetings with local experts, a shortlist of potential case studies for further assessment was compiled. The initiatives initially discussed were considered as being representative of locations where there was, or has historically been, an established degree of citizen participation

52 relating to the management and delivery of GI functions. The following examples from across the Aachen City Region were included – See Table 11.

Site name and location: Location Characteristics:

1. Höfen, Monschau Rural 2. Eicherscheid, Simmerath Rural 3. Rott, Roetgen Rural 4. Walheim, Aachen Peri-urban/rural 5. Gut Hebscheid Aachen Peri-urban/rural (added later for consideration as social enterprise model) 6. Vicht, Stolberg Peri-urban/rural 7. Soermondt Park, Aachen Urban 8. Stolberg, Stolberg Peri-urban 9. Wurmtal, Würselen Peri-urban 10. Busch, Alsdorf Peri-urban 11. Briochbachtal, Herzogenrath Peri-urban 12. Worm-Wildnis, Herzogenrath Peri-urban/rural 13. Merkstein, Herzogenrath Peri-urban

Table 11. Shortlist and characteristics of potential case study locations

Following on from the production of the list, an overview map was produced highlighting the locations (phase 1) of these potential case study initiatives - see Fig 23:

Fig 23. Potential case study locations across the Städteregion Aachen (Basemap ©OpenStreetMap contributors)

When overlayed with the Strategic GI network features highlighted previously, a close correlation between the location of these initiatives and the biotope network and core habitat areas previously identified was apparent. This was an additional consideration for the short listing of locations; a key consideration being that local citizen participation initiatives should be considered with reference to their impact and relationship to the wider GI network. This relationship between potential case study locations and the GI Network is shown below in Fig 24.

Fig 24. Potential case study site locations overlayed with GI network features

Although a high degree of correlation between proposed locations and the biotope network can be seen from the map, this is not always the case. For example, a site located at Soermondt Park in a residential area to the South of Aachen City Centre provides a significant exception to this is. Whilst the Biotope Network does not penetrate the urban core area of the City itself, this site must still be considered to be relevant from a GI perspective as EU Green Infrastructure guidance also promotes the benefits of incorporating biodiversity “stepping stone” features, with the aim being that these features help to enable the dispersal of species favourable to biodiversity across areas of hostile matrix (European Commission 2013). The densely built up core of the City of Aachen would be one such location where biodiversity stepping stones might deliver additional benefits for people and nature within the network. In addition the Soermondt Park area forms part of the Open Space network or “Freiraumkonzept” along with its surrounding green streets (Stadt Aachen 2019, Stadt Aachen 2020d).

Fig 25 shows a section of the Städteregion Aachen around the settlement of Kornelimünster at a more detailed resolution. At a larger scale and in a following chapter on an individual case study basis, it is possible to incorporate and show a greater range of GIS shapefile data accessed from LANUV layers available through the NRW Geoportal (Geschäftsstelle IMA GDI Nordrhein-Westfalen 2020), thus improving the functionality of the mapping through factoring in accessibility factors for human populations. This includes the existence of core path networks for walkers, cyclists and horse riders obtained from the Tourism and Leisure shapefile data. It is an aim of the research to produce more detailed maps of selected locations, on a site specific basis, in a later chapter. This should permit better understanding of the interaction of GI features with local human settlement features and public path

networks.

Fig 25. More detailed example of mapping incorporating further GI features

3.3 Orientation Visits – Scoping

In order to further assist the process for the shortlisting of case study locations, initial orientation visits were undertaken to gain an overview of the initiatives, to understand their geographical locations and also their potential suitability. Orientation visits were undertaken mainly with Udo Thorwesten of the Städteregion Aachen on the 6th of April 2016. Orientation visits to 2 further locations occurred shortly afterwards - see Table 12. From the initial tranche of 13 locations, it was intended to select a number of the case studies for more detailed analysis at the next stage of the research. The exact number and locations of the case studies to be selected for more in depth analysis were to be determined through a more detailed scoping and evaluation process.

3.4 Development of a Scoring System

In order to develop an appropriate scoring system for the final selection of initiatives, a number of possible sampling methodologies were considered initially at an early stage to determine case study locations. Potential sampling methodologies considered a broad variety of approaches (Haining R 1997), P91-108. These initially included the following: i) Random sampling: based upon points spaced at regular geographic intervals along a linear transect or using a grid superimposed over a topographic map of the Städteregion Aachen. ii) Random/Representative sampling: as above, but specifically incorporating points from 3 predefined sampling “zones” along an identified transect; representing rural, peri-urban and urban locations. These zones could be defined across the City Region either simplistically, as a series of concentric zone with the City of Aachen forming the central hub, or through a more detailed spatial analysis of settlement distribution and population density across the Städteregion Aachen. iii) The concept of focusing upon a core area through use of a defined transect or “wedge”, which incorporates the broad range of geographical and biophysical zones found across the Städteregion Aachen. iv) Documented, or anthropological approach: where strong anecdotal or documentary evidence of local initiatives exists within the Städteregion Aachen which is worthy of investigation regardless of location and irrespective of spatial mapping data.

There were a number of clear advantages and disadvantages associated with each of these approaches. Random sampling, for example can provide an accurate picture of the actual extent of citizen participation in GI initiatives; however, it is unlikely to yield significant results since actual instances of citizen participation are limited in practice to specific geographical “hotspots”. Locations of particular interest are therefore unlikely to be picked out through any system of random sampling simply due to the fact that their occurrence is too low to be identified in this manner.

By contrast, it was considered documented cases, based upon anecdotal evidence i.e. anthropological approaches, would be more likely to yield interesting results and result in more effective targeting of research efforts. In practice, however, these will not be distributed evenly across the range of rural, peri-urban and urban zones; for example in other parts of Europe such as Scotland, successful “bottom up” community participation initiatives tend to be more prevalent in rural areas than in urban ones, where a greater degree of assistance from mentoring organisations is required (Chorley J 2018). In

59 this respect, The Big Lottery reported “more limited interest in volunteering and managing projects in urban areas.” And proffers that “[…This] might be due to the stronger tradition of volunteering and of ‘doing things for themselves’ that exists [in rural areas (Chorley J 2018). It is also an anticipated outcome of this study to suggest how the lessons, or success factors, from best case examples might be applied more widely.

Through a consideration of these various approaches, it was decided that the suggested methodology for selecting case study areas should be a hybrid one involving 2 or more approaches drawn from the methodologies above; furthermore this should involve a 2 stage evaluation process involving progressively deeper levels of analysis. It was considered important that the study combines both breadth and depth; breadth being a significant consideration as individual case studies cannot be regarded as providing outcomes which are in themselves universally applicable; each case study being to some extent unique and dependent upon a whole series of local influencing factors. The case studies however can provide useful pointers in the right direction.

It was proposed that defining a core area or transect was also useful concept in helping to target work effectively and that this methodological approach should be adopted. This will be discussed further in a following section. When defining such a core area, an important consideration was to ensure that this included a gradient across the continuum from rural to urban, thus ensuring adequate representation of the different types of settlement and broad range of landscape character types occurring within the Städteregion.

In summary, the final case studies selected would therefore be chosen on the following basis, in response to scoping, strategic evaluation and practical considerations which included: i) Their particular value in terms of providing insights into GI and citizen participation as established through the scoping and scoring system. ii) Their general location within (and relative to) the defined transect/wedge i.e. representing one of the three main zones (rural/urban/peri-urban). iii) A willingness for local citizen groups to participate actively in the research process. iv) The availability of supporting/ supplementary information (e.g. web based resources and literature) likely to provide further material for investigation and assessment phases.

The Scoring System:

A scoring system was developed and was used to inform the later stages of the scoping process. This worked through the adoption of a methodology which considered: i) the GI characteristics and benefits of each site; ii) the actions undertaken by the local communities present, and; iii) the general suitability of each location as a case study example based upon factors such as accessibility, ease of access, representativeness and the willingness of local people to participate actively in the study. To facilitate the scoping assessment process through scoring of the potential case studies, a table was developed with a maximum of 500 points which were allocated within the following categories: i) Existing green infrastructure provision - Scored out of a possible 160 points ii) Evidence of existing community action occurring - Scored out of a possible 260 points iii) General suitability (e.g. access, information, responsiveness) - Scored out of a possible 80 points

The Detailed Assessment Matrices for each of the initiatives can be found in the Appendices Section – see Appendix 4. In addition to allocating scores to each location, the assessment table included general comments on each site and its overall suitability for inclusion. Importantly, the results from the assessment table were intended to be indicative; higher scores suggesting a general level of suitability rather than a definitive outcome. Additional factors which were also considered and which influenced the final outcome of the selection process, included the need to balance and include a suitable range of rural, periurban and urban case studies. It was also intended to attempt to identify, if possible, a relatively even spatial distribution of case studies occurring throughout a defined core area through use of a broad transect across the Städteregion Aachen from North to South.

The scores obtained and the results of the scoping process are shown in the table below - See Table 12:

Site name and location Type of Key GI characteristics illustrated GI Actions General Total Comments and overall suitability settlement (/160) (/260) (/80) (/500)

Höfen, Monschau Rural Maintaining landscape-scale 121 183 59 363 Professional and integrated approach. Good rural biodiversity case study. Non responsive to initial contact – Rural development and green however could make a good substitute Phase II tourism Study (South transect /rural) for Eicherscheid / Rott. Local sustainability Outcome: Not selected

Eicherscheid, Rural Maintaining landscape-scale 134 196 64 394 Competition Winner “Unser Dorf hat Zukunft”. Simmerath biodiversity Approachable, responsive and multifaceted Rural development and green sustainable development approach involving the tourism wider community. Suitable Phase II case study Local sustainability (South transect /rural). Ecosystem Service Delivery Outcome: Selected for Phase II

Rott, Roetgen Rural Wetland/ heathland habitat 112 196 64 372 Excellent example of community resource restoration management in action focusing around restoration Community Development of an NSG and wider GI network. Approachable and

62 Local path networks responsive. Suitable case study for Phase II inclusion

Effective partnership working with (South transect/ rural). mentoring agencies Outcome: Selected for Phase II

Walheim, Aachen Peri-urban/rural Community Greenspace 122 81 55 258 Focus is on play space and events. Little focus on Events area wider GI benefits – however the proximity of the Green play and physical activity adjoining NSG area makes the Site a potential Phase Community (e.V) management II substitute location (South transect /peri-urban- rural). Outcome: Not selected

Gut Hebscheid, Peri-urban/rural Social Enterprise model 122 107 50 279 Social Enterprise model. Aachen* Sustainable growing Not sufficiently community focused however *This location was Social inclusion and skills training provides a good model of a Third Sector Enterprise in assessed in addition to Circular economy action (South transect /peri-urban-rural). the original shortlisted Outcome: Not selected initiatives as it was felt it might provide valuable insights into social enterprise approaches

Site name and location Type of Key GI characteristics illustrated GI Actions General Total Comments and overall suitability settlement (/160) (/260) (/80) (/500)

Vicht, Stolberg Peri-urban/rural Local path networks 124 92 54 270 Useful illustration however does not deliver the Local pride and distinctiveness scale, ambition and multifunctionality of other comparable projects such as Rott / Eicherscheid in the South. Changes in group composition also created resourcing issues. Outwith selected Phase II transect. Outcome: Not selected Soermondt Park, Urban Urban greening 94 91 62 247 A good example of an urban citizen led project. In GI Aachen Sustainable growing network terms provides a “stepping stone” rather Multifunctional urban greenspace than a core network connectivity element. However Urban communities suitable as an urban Phase II case study on the basis of high community involvement and unique insights into governance, urban greening and rural / urban skill sharing (South transect/urban)

63 Outcome: Selected for Phase II

Stolberg, Stolberg Peri-urban Local volunteering Not - - - Interesting example of a local community e.V. who Multi-site approach assessed work in partnership with other stakeholders to Partnership working manage areas of natural heritage significance. However relationship to specific site and locality not sufficiently focused to be considered for Phase II. Outwith transect area. Outcome: Not selected Wurmtal, Würselen Peri-urban Landscape scale habitat management 134 122 55 311 High score due to management actions – Good Key locations example of where a strategic partnership approach can function, however, initially considered not specifically citizen participation orientated for inclusion in Phase II. Following further research contact with a local group has been made and so it is decided now to include this example. Outcome: Selected for Phase II Busch, Alsdorf Peri-urban Local pride and distinctiveness 96 23 19 138 No clear GI elements within immediate community. Post industrial Focus is more upon local heritage elements and deemed inappropriate. Community non responsive. Outcome: Not selected

Site name and location Type of Key GI characteristics illustrated GI Actions General Total Comments and overall suitability settlement (/160) (/260) (/80) (/500)

Briochbachtal, Peri-urban Peri-urban communities 131 60 55 246 Good example of a multifunctional green corridor Herzogenrath Riparian habitats connectivity with some community involvement. Strategic peri- Local pride and distinctiveness urban location. Suitable case study (North Transect/ Path networks and recreation peri-urban). Community initially non responsive and Post-industrial landscapes a second approach was tried. However the community group were not responsive. The local authority also declined to provide support. Outcome: Not selected

Worm-Wildnis, Peri-urban/rural Community Greenspace 118 114 52 284 Good example of an effective partnership between a Herzogenrath Events area small community and wider stakeholders focusing on Green play and physical activity delivery of multifunctional objectives. Geographical Effective partnership extent is somewhat small scale and peripheral – however could be used as a low key additional example Phase II study. Outcome: Selected for Phase II

Merkstein, Peri-urban Post-industrial landscapes 120 35 54 209 Interesting example illustrating post-industrial Herzogenrath Peri-urban communities landscape reclamation. Active local groups Education and Environmental concerned with environmental education and awareness heritage however potential remains untapped. Land reclamation Suitable location for focusing on undeveloped potential. However continued attempts have not resulted in responses. The local authority also declined to participate. Outcome: Not selected /deselected

Table 12. Case study scoping, scoring system and results

3.5 Selection of a Core Area Transect - Incorporating Rural, Urban and Periurban Locations

To facilitate a more strategic approach, a core area was identified. This took the form of a transect across the Städteregion Aachen. It was intended that this should bisect the Städteregion in a roughly SE to NW direction to capture the Region’s diverse topography from the Eifel National Park in the South, through the centre of Aachen City and including the former Industrial territories in the Northern part of the Region. The core area would thus capture the transition from rural to urban. Working at this scale would allow for the broader issues of GI connectivity to be considered; particularly linkages between areas of core habitat, located within the Eifel and the relatively urbanised areas around the City of Aachen. The aim of this was to: i) Ensure diversity and regional representativeness in the selection of case studies through incorporating the broad range of topographical variation, biogeoclimatic zones, landscape character types and human settlement patterns present across the Städteregion Aachen. ii) To identify, where possible, a relatively even distribution of locations across the Städteregion Aachen which represent a balance of urban, peri-urban and rural areas. iii) To target the research within a specific defined localities, through focusing effort within this core area.

From a practical perspective, due to the spatial distribution of the initiatives and the geography of the Städteregion Aachen itself, it was deemed appropriate to split the core area into 2 shorter transects; one to the South and one to the North of the City of Aachen, with the City Centre providing the central, pivotal hub. The Southern transect includes case studies within the Eifel and the Eifel Vorland and the Southern fringes of the City area (Geschäftsstelle IMA GDI Nordrhein-Westfalen 2020). By contrast the Northern Corridor focuses on the former industrial and mining territories of the Städteregion Aachen including the Valley of the Wurmtal (Geschäftsstelle IMA GDI Nordrhein-Westfalen 2020). Whilst the landscape character of the Southern transect is predominately rural in nature, to the North there are many settlements of a more periurban nature and regenerating areas of heavily modified habitat.

Fig 26. Core study areas showing North and South transects with final case study locations

3.6 Short Listing and Section of Final Case Studies along Transect

Using the outputs of the Assessment Matrix and supplementary information obtained from site visits, personal enquiries and desk based research, five locations were selected for incorporation as final case studies from the Städteregion Aachen area. All initiatives scoring over 30 points were selected with the exception of Höfen which was rule out for non-responsiveness. The five case studies selected were Eicherscheid, Rott, Soermondt, Wurmtal and Worm-Wildnis – see Table 13.

Site Final Justification for Selection

Eicherscheid, Competition Winner “Unserer Dorf hat Zukunft”. Approachable, responsive and multifaceted sustainable Simmerath development approach involving the wider community and reaching out to diverse stakeholder groups. Score: 394/500

Rott, Excellent example of community resource management in action focusing around restoration of an NSG and Roetgen wider GI network. Approachable and responsive to requests for information. Score: 372/500

Soermondt, A good example of an urban citizen led project. Scored lower as in GI network terms provides a “stepping Aachen stone” rather than a core network connectivity element – However, the Site forms part of the Aachen City Open Space Network of connected areas. Despite this lower score was deemed suitable as an urban Phase II case study on the basis of high community involvement and unique insights into governance, urban greening and rural / urban skill sharing. Score: 247/500

Wurmtal NSG, High score due to management actions – Good example of where a strategic partnership approach can Würselen function, however, initially considered not specifically citizen participation orientated for inclusion in Phase II. Following further research contact with a local group has been made and so it is decided now to include this example. Score: 311/500

Worm-Wildnis NSG, Good example of an effective partnership between a small community and wider stakeholders focusing on Herzogenrath delivery of multifunctional objectives. Score: 284/500

Table 13. Case study areas selected

Following selection of the 5 case studies from the Aachen City Region, the next steps include detailed description, evaluation and identification of success factors for the different case studies through drawing effective comparisons between case studies and external examples. Ultimately this intends to result in the production of policy and best practice recommendations for mentoring and enabling organisations involved in supporting and promoting citizen participation initiatives.

Chapter 4. Investigation of Selected Case Studies

Chapter Summary:

Following on from the scoping and selection process for the 5 case study sites, this chapter aims to provide a detailed investigation of the sites selected. The process of investigation was undertaken through the completion of the following steps:

4.1 Detailed reconnaissance visits to selected sites

4.2 Production of site specific GIS site maps and plans detailing the main GI features

4.3 Desk based research, referring to site specific literature and web resources

4.4 Structured interviews with citizens groups for selected interviews

4.5 Compilation of case study descriptions

Each of these stages will be examined in greater detail together with some results of this process.

4.1 Detailed Reconnaissance Visits to Selected Sites

A programme of visits to each of the 5 sites was planned and executed. These visits involved 2 key elements; meetings with key local contacts and field visits to assess the GI resource, where possible accompanied by a local contact:

i) Meetings with key local contacts:

The purpose of these visits was to meet with a local representative on site who possessed a detailed knowledge of the location and the related citizen participation action. The names and details for the potential local contacts were provided by staff from the Städteregion Aachen during the scoping stage of the research.

The initial aim of the discussion was to understand the activities which had occurred in the area, the extent and scope of the actions occurring and further insights into the barriers and challenges faced by the group.

This initial discussion was then followed up with more detailed and structured interview questions. The background to the structured interview process is covered in more detail later in this chapter. ii) Field Visits:

These involved one or more excursions on foot around each case study site to identify key GI resources, note site condition and evidence of management operations occurring (including any citizen participation activity). The aim was also to understand the background opportunities, constraints and external pressures affecting the GI resource itself and the citizen participation activity being undertaken. Where possible, the site visits occurred directly or soon after the meetings with local contacts. This helped to better inform the field visits and to provide insights into each case study location. Information gleaned from the site visits could also then help to inform the compilation of GIS maps through providing first-hand knowledge of sites, their key GI features and local spatial issues.

The programme of meetings and visits relating to each specific site was as follows – see Table 14:

Site Location Date Name Activity Description /Details

Eicherscheid 11/07/16 Citizens Group Exploratory meeting and detailed Interview

12/07/16 Citizens Group Supplementary follow up material received by email 21/06/16 N/A Field visit

23/07/17 N/A Field visit

09/10/17 Mentoring Body - Städteregion Aachen - Local Interview with project partner /mentoring authority body

16/02/20 N/A Field visit for update/revision purposes

Rott 28/06/16 Citizens Group Exploratory meeting and detailed Interview

07/07/16 Citizens Group Supplementary follow up material received by email 10/07/16 Citizens Group Supplementary follow up material received by email 26/10/16 Mentoring Body – Biologische Station Aachen Interview with project partner /mentoring body 21/06/16 N/A Field visit

31/03/17 N/A Field visit

17/09/17 Rott Citizens Group Action Day – observation of management activity 28/02/20 N/A Field visit for update/revision purposes

Soermondt 06/09/16 N/A Field visit Community Garden 07/09/16 Statutory Authority - Stadt Aachen (Umwelt) Interview with project partner / local Local authority authority representative

05/10/16 N/A Field visit

31/03/17 N/A Field visit

02/04/17 Citizens Group Exploratory meeting and detailed Interview

02/04/17 Citizens Group members Action Day – observation of management activity. 09/04/17 Citizens Group Follow up material by email

25/03/18 N/A Site Visit

04/03/18 N/A Site Visit/monitoring

22/01/20 N/A Field visit for update/revision purposes

A.G. Wurmtal 27/04/17 Citizens Group Exploratory meeting and detailed Interview e.V. 01/07/17 Citizens Group Follow up material by email

07/07/17 Citizens Group Follow up material by email

14/09/17 N/A Field visit

17/09/17 N/A Field visit

05/02/20 N/A Field visit for update/revision purposes

Worm- 24/06/16 Citizens Group Exploratory meeting and detailed Interview Wildnis 24/06/16 Citizens Group Field visit

14/09/17 N/A Field visit

09/10/17 Mentoring Body - Städteregion Aachen, Local Interview authority

19/02/20 N/A Field visit for update/revision purposes

Table 14. List of field visits and meetings in Städteregion Aachen

4.2 Production of GIS Site Maps and Plans

Following on from site meetings and field visits, GIS maps were compiled for each of the case study locations. The maps were produced using QGIS and incorporated the following shapefile data made available through LANUV (Landesamt für Natur Umwelt und Verbraucherschutz Nordrhein-Westfalen 2020) and the NRW Geoportal (Geschäftsstelle IMA GDI Nordrhein-Westfalen 2020):

 Core case study areas  Village round routes (where appropriate)  Phase II locations (centre)  Main paths  Cycle paths  Eifelsteig or other key recreational routes  Habitats /Birds Directive - FFH Sites  Biotope Network and Biotope Register  Base Mapping from Open Street Map Contributors data  An appropriate scale was selected for each case study depending on the aerial extent of each map and the features shown.

The maps produced were as follows:

4.2.1 Eicherscheid

Fig 27. Eicherscheid – Transect location and GI mapping overview

Mapping Overview:

The core area forms an LSG - Landschaftschutzgebiet - called the “Eicherscheid Heckenlandschaft”. This covers an area of 430ha and is located on the upland plateau area which completely encircles the village area. The landscape beyond this is also all under the protection of further LSGs and conservation designations. The Heckenlandschaft, provides low intensity grazing and significant structural connections -linear wildlife corridors - to connect core riparian woodlands NSGs, Naturshutzgebiete, and to key Natura 2000 sites – FFH, which provide diverse ecosystem service functions (Geschäftsstelle IMA GDI Nordrhein-Westfalen 2020, Landesamt für Natur Umwelt und Verbraucherschutz Nordrhein-Westfalen 2020c).

The hedges themselves and associated low intensity meadows and verges provide linkages and habitat corridors between riparian woodland NSG areas which are also are Natura 2000 – FFH - sites listed under the Habitats Directive. Significant habitats listed within the area include; natural and unaltered streams, riparian ash and alder woodlands, wet and damp grasslands, natural rock formations, dry meadows and pastures and ravine woodlands.The system of small fields and boundary hedges is a designated “cultural landscape area -no.218 - under the LRV Regional Plan (Landschaftsverband Rheinland (LVR) 2016). It is also accorded significant protection through the above mentioned LSG and NSG designations.

There is a good existing path network which provides connectivity for walkers, cyclists and horse riders throughout the “Heckenlandschaft” and connects it with the local pedestrian network within the village of Eicherscheid itself (Geschäftsstelle IMA GDI Nordrhein-Westfalen 2020). Additionally there are strategic links to key recreation networks including the Eifelsteig. The network has been further complemented through the development of the “Flurheckenweg” (Rursee Touristik GmbH 2015) , a village “Rundweg” and other circular trails such as the “Dreitälerweg” and the “Heckenland Route” which have been developed in partnership with the local tourism association (Rursee Touristik GmbH 2020).

4.2.2 Rott, Roetgen

Fig 28. Rott, Roetgen – Transect location and GI mapping overview Mapping Overview:

The main element of the project involves the longer term restoration and management of the “Struffelt” which is a 118ha NSG characterised by regenerating wet heathland. The plan includes the phased removal of non-native conifers and invasive plants, the rewetting of the moor through the blocking of drains and the re-establishment of a semi natural flora of moorland, bog and wet heathland species. This will ensure that the area provides important ecosystem services such as soil and water regulation, biodiversity, carbon storage and recreation (Hülsheger R, Theißen H et al. 2016, Landesamt für Natur Umwelt und Verbraucherschutz Nordrhein-Westfalen 2020c).

The settlement of Rott is encircled by nature conservation areas. These are Zweifaller und Rotterwald, Struffelt and Vichtbachtal with Grölis, Schlee und Lensbach. These areas do not form part of the Natura 2000 network although there is one adjoining area of the Hasselbachgraben beech forest further to the East of the Rotterwald. The Struffelt is significant in that it represents moor and bog habitats with dwarf shrub heath, open water, heather moor, blueberry, purple moor grass and birch scrub woodland. It contains 175 plant species and 54 bird species (Landesamt für Natur Umwelt und Verbraucherschutz Nordrhein-Westfalen 2020). The Rotterwald also includes pockets of moor vegetation with alder, ash and coniferous wet woodlands. The Vichtbachtal and tributaries include wet woodland, damp grasslands and unmodified watercourses.

The project activities aim to enhance the cultural landscapes around Rott, areas of which are included within the LRV Cultural Landscape Plan for Köln Region (Landschaftsverband Rheinland (LVR) 2016). In addition the settlement is in an area of high landscape and nature conservation value. LSGs bordering the settlement of Rott include Wiesen am Rott, Rotterwald, Mullardshütte and the Aachen LSG. The fields surrounding the village include old orchards, hawthorn hedges, wetlands and areas of unimproved pasture. The community of Rott is well connected to its Hinterland and recreational routes. A number of recreational routes are promoted through Roetgen-Touristik e.V. including the village “Rundweg” and the Stuffelt circuit (Gemeinde Roetgen 2020). There are also links to the

Eifelsteig which passes close to the village though on the periphery of the settlement itself (Eifel Tourismus GmbH 2020b).

4.2.3 Soermondt Park, Aachen

Fig 29. Soermondt Park, Aachen – Transect location and GI mapping overview

Mapping Overview:

The site provides a small - 1200sqm - but significant greenspace to the South of Aachen City Centre and forms a part of the wider Soermondt Park concept; a new neighbourhood park area. Although there is no direct physical link to the Biotope network (Landesamt für Natur Umwelt und Verbraucherschutz Nordrhein-Westfalen 2020b), the community garden provides a “stepping stone” function for the wider network within the urban core area. In so doing, it offers significant localised ecosystem service functions such as pollination, biodiversity, provisioning and cultural services including community cohesion and social wellbeing. The community garden and wider Soermondt Park provide an important green asset within an urban area with possesses a general deficiency of greenspace. Connections involving urban local scale GI elements such as street trees, amenity planting areas and private gardens are locally important and help to increase the significance of the community garden as a node within a small scale functioning urban GI network.

The Park has no official designated status as a protected area – i.e. the site is not an NSG and it is also not part of the Biotope Cadastre or the wider biotope network, which does not, in practice, extend within the core urban area. However, there are also functioning low-key urban green corridors and comprising of elements such as street trees, private urban gardens and pedestrian-friendly streets. The introduction of integrated concepts of permaculture, biodiversity and urban gardening approaches could further enhance the importance of such networks for biodiversity.

Although the site lacks an official designated status, it is part of the wider Soermondt Park concept which is a neighbourhood Park and a component of the Aachen City public open space network (Stadt Aachen 2019, Stadt Aachen 2020d). The Park also provides an important visual function through

softening the impact of surrounding high density urban development, thus providing wellbeing and health benefits to urban residents. Mature trees and structural elements within the community garden function in association with features on neighbouring land, including formal park areas, amenity greenspaces, street trees and private gardens. This helps to create value in terms of wider synergy and continuity of overall landscape elements. The area is also included within the LVR Cultural landscapes plan for Köln (Landschaftsverband Rheinland (LVR) 2016).

There is open access across the site to seating and recreation areas and a main through-route which provides a link to the more formal adjoining greenspace within Soermondt Park from adjoining residential areas. The site is surrounded by a dense network of streets, with comparatively low traffic density, which provide good accessibility for urban residents including pedestrians and cyclists. A number of strategic bike routes pass close to the location, though in reality these have little direct impact, the primary users of the site being local residents.

4.2.4 Wurmtal NSG

Fig 30. Wurmtal NSG – Transect location and GI mapping overview

Mapping Overview:

The Wurmtal forms part of a significant green corridor to the North of Aachen which is designated as an NSG but also incorporates FFH, Natura 2000, areas. The NSG is located within the wider Biotope Network and it is also a significant local recreation area offering recreational routes (Geschäftsstelle IMA GDI Nordrhein-Westfalen 2020). The NSG includes diverse riparian habitats including wet woodlands, mires and species which are protected under EU legislation. The project involves the conservation and management of key habitats within the Wurmtal NSG which is located within Würselen and Herzogenrath Districts and which covers an area of 445ha (Landesamt für Natur Umwelt und Verbraucherschutz Nordrhein-Westfalen 2020, Landesamt für Natur Umwelt und Verbraucherschutz Nordrhein-Westfalen 2020c). There is a smaller protected area to the North of Herzogenrath covering 19ha which the group is also involved in managing.

The Wurmtal corridor includes large areas of protected habitat with NSG status. The largest area being ACK -21, with the smaller area ACK-91 to the NE. Furthermore the area is protected on the basis of its status as an FHH and VS, under the European Habitats and Birds Directives which make up the Natura 2000 network of protected sites and habitats across Europe. Some peripheral areas which do not enjoy NSG status are protected under LSG. These include the Wurmtal South, the Haarenheidchen/Kaisersruh, Aachen and South Herzogenrath LSGs (Landesamt für Natur Umwelt und Verbraucherschutz Nordrhein-Westfalen 2020).

The Wurmtal forms a key recreational corridor which incorporates strategic 2 long distance routes. It is also important as a recreational resource for people from the adjoining communities of Würselen, Köhlsheid, Bardenberg and Herzogenrath. Along with the existing network of recreational paths, there are proposals to develop a “Radschellweg” (fast cycling link) to link Aachen with Herzogenrath, Kerkrade and Heerlen. This would follow the existing D8 path along the protected valley of the Wurmtal and would reportedly host 12,000 users per day (Aachener Nachrichten 2015). This is

perceived locally by some to be a top down project with potential detrimental impacts and is consequently being resisted by local environmental groups.

4.2.5 Worm-Wildnis NSG

Fig 31. Worm-Wildnis NSG – Transect location and GI mapping overview

Mapping Overview:

The initiative focuses on NSG Worm-Wildnis Nature area - ACK-97- which covers 8.5ha and is protected, in accordance with LG Paragraph 20a, (Landesamt für Natur Umwelt und Verbraucherschutz Nordrhein-Westfalen 2020, Landesamt für Natur Umwelt und Verbraucherschutz Nordrhein-Westfalen 2020c) for the preservation and optimisation of the naturally regenerating old oak and beech woods found on the site. The area is of conservation importance as a potential relic of an ancient semi-natural forest habitat. However no further habitat information or management prescriptions appear to exist, the main emphasis being upon preservation of the habitats and non- intervention upon the natural elements of the site.

The site facilitates the enhancement and management of the GI network through improving the connectivity of core habitat areas, including the Worm-Wildnis NSG and adjacent Natura 2000 designated areas located along the Wurmtal itself. In addition, it helps to enhance biodiversity and biotope connectivity in the wider landscape outside the protected areas, including on land which forms a part of the functioning habitat network. Proposed development of a community orchard site and planting of traditional fruit tree varieties will also help to facilitate this process further.

Although the main focus of the Association is upon the Worm-Wildnis NSG, the Wurmtal North of Herzogenrath NSG (ACK-94) is also of high significance as it provides an important connectivity function along the river corridor to the West and North.

The area of the Unteres Wurmtal, including the Worm-Wildnis site is included within a “cultural landscape designation within the Köln Regional Plan - no.36 - on the basis of historic villages, buildings of architectural note and archaeological interest (Landschaftsverband Rheinland (LVR) 2016). Quarrying activity within the area, for the extraction of sand for glass manufacture, has also had a significant impact in creating a distinctive post-industrial landscape, which is interspersed with small pastures and historic settlements.

There is a network of low key paths through the site that provide informal local access. There is potential to develop these further as part of a better defined local path network which provides connectivity from the settlement to the NSG area. A village circular route has also been developed which passes close by the site.

The Wurmtal itself provides am important recreational corridor and this can be accessed easily from the Worm-Wildnis site. Along the Wurmtal there is a considerable amount of interpretation for visitors – much of this is however dated and has been subject to a lack of maintenance and vandalism. More recently another circular walk called the Wasserweg Wurm has been developed in partnership with the Naturfreunde Herzenrath-Merkstein to showcase particularly the biodiversity and cultural heritage interest of the River Wurmtal corridor (Naturfreunde Herzogenrath-Merkstein 2020).

4.3 Desk based Research – Site Specific Literature and Web Resources

In order to gain further in-depth insights into the background of the case study areas, their associated GI resources and the issues and challenges confronting each area, site specific literature was sourced and incorporated into site descriptions. This helped to compliment background information gleaned from the formal and informal interview processes, field visits and from GIS mapping work.

The literature referred to included case specific technical reports, promotional materials, interpretive guides and flyers, internal reports and communications and state government databases and records. Much of this information was sourced online through open access websites. In addition, local contacts representing citizen groups provided some detailed literature and reference sources which were unavailable on the web. Information gleaned through the desk based research process was integrated into the case study descriptions which follow.

4.4 Structured Interviews with Citizen’s Groups for Selected Case Study Sites

To gain a detailed understanding of the activities, functions and working practices of the selected local citizens’ groups, structured interviews were conducted with representatives from each group. The following structured interviews were undertaken:

Site Location Date Name Activity Description /Details

Eicherscheid 11/07/16 Citizens Group Interview

Rott 28/06/16 Citizens Group Interview

Soermondt 02/04/17 Citizens Group Interview

A.G. Wurmtal e.V. 27/04/17 Citizens Group Interview

Worm-Wildnis 24/06/16 Citizens Group Interview

Table 15. Structured interview contacts

Interviewees were asked a total of around 50 questions relating to a number of key themes. The key themes discussed in the interviews were as follows: i) General Background to the citizen initiative ii) Structure and organisation of the group iii) The planning and delivery of objectives iv) The promotion of activities v) Partnership working and added value vi) Strategic context in relation to GI vii) Future activities and support structures

Each interview took roughly around 2 hours to complete depending upon the nature and extent of the dialogue. In the case of Rott, Worm-Wildnis and Soermondt Garden, a tour of the site was also

provided by the host to clarify details discussed and to point out features of interest on the ground. The questions asked during the interviews were as follows - see Table 16.

Structured Interview Questions:

1. General background:

1.1 Name of Group? 1.2 Date and reason for formation? 1.3 Geographical extent of the group? 1.4 Main aims and objectives of the group? (e. g. wildlife/landscape enhancement, green tourism, local sustainability/agenda 21, social inclusion, capacity building, education/training?) 2. Structure and organisation of Group:

2.1 How is the group structured; e.g. community association, social enterprise, informally, or as a sub group of a larger organisation? Is the group a formally constituted organisation? 2.2 How many members are there? Of these, approximately what percentage are active? 2.3 What is the rough social / age/ gender composition of the membership? (e. g. mainly retired, younger people, working families etc. ?) 2.4 How often do the group meet and what form do these meetings take? Do the group meet to undertake practical activities or only for coordination purposes? 2.5 How are decisions made by the group and who makes them? When there is a disagreement, how is this resolved? Are outside experts, advisors or those with external interests encouraged to participate in the group? 2.6 “Green Surge” Typology match (with justification): From: “Green Surge: Innovative governance of urban green spaces WP6, P5” 3. Planning and delivery of objectives:

3.1 Is there a longer term plan or vision for the activities to be undertaken? If so, how has this plan been developed and by whom? Are copies of this plan available to the wider public and other interested groups? Is the plan regularly updated and revised? 3.2 What tangible outputs are provided by the group? Are these outputs delivered indirectly (through a co-ordination role) or directly through “hands on” volunteering? 3.3 How is the work funded? Who is responsible for accessing this funding? Are local people encouraged to provide help with fundraising or to provide donations directly? 3.4 What other types of assistance are provided “in kind” to the group by local people or businesses e.g. use of machinery or professional expertise? 3.5 What does the group do most successfully? 3.6 What has the group not achieved so effectively to date? 3.7 Does the group undertake any commercial activity to assist with income generation? (e.g. training provision, sale of forest products, equipment rental etc.) 4. Promotion of activities:

4.1 Does the group carry out any educational or awareness raising activities to promote its objectives to specific audiences? If so, to which audiences? (e.g. local people, tourists, schools and kindergartens ?) What form do these take e.g. leaflets, website, workshops or events? 4.2 Does the group encourage the wider participation of the general public? If so how is this encouraged? 4.3 To what extent does the group make use of information technology and the internet to promote its activities? 5. Partnership working and added value:

5.1 To what extent does the group work in partnership with other organisations? If so, with which organisations and what is the reason for involving these stakeholders? 5.2 Does the group work across any local, regional or national administrative boundaries? If so, is this proving to be a straightforward process? 5.3 What added social return on investment SROI does the group provide? (explain the meaning of the term) Which of the following SROI benefits are included; community capacity building, training, social cohesion, young people, vulnerable adults? 5.4 Are there any areas of conflict? (e.g. between reconciling nature conservation, landscape or tourism objectives and wider sustainable development interests ?)

6. Strategic context in relation to GI

6.1 Are you aware of the concept of Green Infrastructure (GI)? (explain concept if required) What does GI mean to you? 6.2 What activities relevant to GI does the group undertake? 6.3 To the best of your knowledge, to what extent does the group deliver local/ regional / national /EU policy objectives relevant to GI e.g. Natura site management, ecological connectivity and designated landscapes? 6.4 Was delivering strategic GI outcomes a consideration in the development of the project or was it intended purely to satisfy a local need? How knowledgeable are the groups generally about wider GI concepts including European policy objectives? 7. Future Activities and Support Structures

7.1 How does the group see its role developing in the future? Will the focus remain the same or will it evolve? 7.2 What opportunities exist for the group? Are there any threats to the continuation of the group? 7.3 What types of assistance, if any, are most needed by the group? e.g. technical advice, fundraising support, administrative support, training provision? 7.4 Is such support available? If so, where can it come from? 7.5 Are current support structures / organisations adequate at present? Is there a need to develop new structures? 7.6 Are there sufficient opportunities available to network with other similar groups? 7.7 Would it be useful to have a national or regional forum to provide advice and disseminate best practice? If so, what should the role of this forum be?

Table 16. Structured interview questions

All responses received during the interview process were recorded in detail using of a proforma. This information helped in the documentation of individual case studies and also to inform the comparison framework used in the next chapter of this thesis. Copies of the proforma with the interview questions and responses from each group are attached as an appendix to this study.

4.5 Case Study Descriptions

4.5.1 Eicherscheid Heckenlandschaft, Simmerath

Fig 32. Eicherscheid – Case study overview portrait (Gemeinde Eicherscheid 2020b)

1. Overview of Location and Project:

Eicherscheid is a small rural settlement, pop. 1290, located in the district of Simmerath in the SW part of the Städteregion Aachen. The settlement is located at 550m above sea level within the Hohes Venn- Eifel Nature Park, close to the edge of the Eifel National Park. The exposed upland location of Eicherscheid and the predominantly Atlantic influenced climate result in relatively high annual precipitation rates of over 1000mm. Although close to the district centre of Simmerath, Eicherscheid is in many ways is typical of traditional rural farming settlements of the North Eifel (Arbeitskreis Heimatgeschichte Eicherscheid 2020).

The landscape of Eicherscheid includes well preserved elements of the unique “Monschauer Heckenlandschaft”, a rich cultural landscape comprising of high beech hedges located around village houses (Haushecken) and numerous small fields surrounded by boundary hedges (Flurhecken) and a high occurrence of hedgerow trees which were managed to provide shelter and protection for livestock and as a source of raw materials (Rursee Touristik GmbH 2015, Landschaftsverband Rheinland (LVR) 2016). Within the community there are over 70 high hedges around dwellings and over 100km of field boundary hedges, many of which go back hundreds of years.

Eicherscheid has an established track record of undertaking sustainable development initiatives. In 2007, the Community was awarded the "European Village Renewal Award" in the competition "Our Village has a Future"(Gemeinde Eicherscheid 2010, Gemeinde Eicherscheid 2020). Since then, the village has also been a frequent competition winner at State and National level competitions. The unique conservation status of the landscape has contributed significantly to the area with the hedges providing a valuable cultural asset and an attractive backdrop for hiking, cycling and green tourism related activities.

2. What is physically delivered:

Specific actions Details /outputs

Village Development Development of an overall concept for community renewal involving outside facilitators from RWTH and FHS Plan Aachen

Flurheckenweg Creation of an 8km interpretive trail, completed and launched in October 2015, to promote the cultural and natural heritage of the “Heckenlandschaft” to visitors.

Interpretive stations, Development of a series of interpretive “stations” with information about landscape history, land signage and management, natural heritage and human activities. infrastructure

Outdoor classroom Creation of an “outdoor classroom” area and special themed child-friendly interpretation panels, outdoor play space and attractive sitting areas.

Biomass and An evaluation of the potential for development of renewable energy resources through provision of biomass renewable energy from the management of the hedges and creation of a community power plant. provision

Village hedges and Maintaining the traditional landscape character and features of the urban area through the management of field boundaries the high “Haushecken” around dwellings and through liaising with adjacent private landowners. Promoting these routes in association with Monschau-Touristik GmbH through guides / leaflets

Wider path networks Development of 2 further trails around the village including creation of signage and restoration of cultural landscape features, including wayside crosses.

Community growing Development of small scale community gardening projects with young people to develop local sustainability.

Table 17. Eicherscheid – Outputs and actions The community recognised the unique value of the landscape as an underdeveloped resource for education, sustainable development and for the promotion of green and cultural heritage tourism. Consequently, under the leadership of local mayor and former teacher, Günter Scheidt, it was decided to develop a project with the aim of promoting and enhancing this unique resource.

In response the community developed a plan to create an 8km interpretive trail, which was completed and launched in October 2015, to promote the cultural and natural heritage of the “Heckenlandschaft” to visitors. The resultant “Flurheckenweg” provides a series of interpretive “stations” with information about landscape history, land management, natural heritage and human activities (Rursee Touristik GmbH 2015). The aim was also to create an interactive learning experience for kids and families which would encourage children to explore the landscape through creative play. For this reason the route includes an “outdoor classroom” area and special themed child-friendly interpretation panels.

The project is part of a wider initiative looking at the sustainability of the landscape, with consideration of how the Heckenlandschaft might provide, for example, renewable energy through provision of biomass and community growing space for organic production and cultivation of traditional, local fruit tree varieties. Attention has also focused on retaining the traditional landscape character and features of the urban area through the management of the high “Haushecken” around dwellings (Landschaftsverband Rheinland (LVR) 2016).

3. What is the strategic GI interest that the project helps to manage, enhance protect or promote ?

Strategic GI Theme Significant elements within the case study area

Overview: The core area forms an LSG (Landschaft Schutzgebiet) called the “Eicherscheid Heckenlandschaft”. This covers an area of 430ha and is located on the upland plateau area which completely encircles the village area. The landscape beyond this is also all under the protection of further LSGs and conservation designations. The Heckenlandschaft, provides low intensity grazing and significant structural connections - linear wildlife corridors -to connect core riparian woodlands NSGs, Naturshutzgebiete, and to key Natura 2000 sites, FFH, which provide diverse ecosystem service functions (Geschäftsstelle IMA GDI Nordrhein-Westfalen 2020, Landesamt für Natur Umwelt und Verbraucherschutz Nordrhein-Westfalen 2020c).

Nature conservation The hedges themselves and associated low intensity meadows and verges provide linkages and habitat corridors between the following riparian woodland NSG areas: ACK-078, ACK- and biodiversity value: 079, ACK-054, ACK-068, ACK-080, ACK-086. These sites are Natura 2000 sites listed under the Habitats Directive. Significant habitats listed in the area include; natural and unaltered streams, riparian ash and alder woodlands, wet and damp grasslands, natural rock formations, dry meadows and pastures and ravine woodlands. Management objectives for the NSG/FFH sites include (Geschäftsstelle IMA GDI Nordrhein-Westfalen 2020, Landesamt für Natur Umwelt und Verbraucherschutz Nordrhein-Westfalen 2020c); 1. Preservation of the habitat for endangered by the Red List in NRW plant species. 2. Maintaining and optimizing semi-natural valley sections including remnants of valuable damp/wet species rich meadows and riparian gorge woodlands. 3. Conservation of natural rock formations as geomorphological features and as ecologically special sites. 4. Providing habitat connectivity for the wider Rur valley catchment area. 5. Conservation and optimisation of the area as a habitat complex of NRW threatened habitat types: The designated areas form components of the Biotope cadastre and the Biotope network and are of high importance to the wider GI network.

Landscape: The system of small fields and boundary hedges is a designated “Cultural landscape area - no.218 - under the LRV Regional Plan (Landschaftsverband Rheinland (LVR) 2016). It is also accorded significant protection through the above mentioned LSG and NSG designations (Geschäftsstelle IMA GDI Nordrhein-Westfalen 2020) .

Paths and connectivity: There is a good existing path network which provides local connectivity for walkers, cyclists and horse riders throughout the “Heckenlandschaft” and connects it with the urban path network within the village itself. Additionally there are strategic links to key recreation networks including the Eifelsteig (Eifel Tourismus GmbH 2020b). The network has been further complemented through the development of the “Flurheckenweg”, a village “Rundweg” and other circular trails developed in partnership with the local tourism association such as the “Dreitälerweg” and the “Heckenland Route”(Rursee Touristik GmbH 2020).

Socio-economic aspects: The community are using the theme of the Heckenlandschaft to market the area for tourism and this compliments a number of cultural and natural heritage attractions which includes the farming museum, historic buildings, heritage trees and monuments. The establishment of a number of themes trails around these features aims to further encourage visitors. The aim is that these routes also benefit local businesses including shops, restaurants and cafes through increasing visitor footfall (Gemeinde Eicherscheid 2010).

Ecosystem Services The cultural landscape has traditionally provides benefits in terms of providing shelter for dwellings and livestock and as a source of woody biomass through sustainable harvesting. significance: Educational Aspects: Awareness of GI is further developed through the various educational and interpretation themes of the Flurheckenweg which include information panels, a green play area and web based materials. In addition the village area itself provides further key GI assets, particularly the “Haushecken” around private dwellings, species rich verges, greenspaces and heritage trees which include an ancient lime tree located next to the village church (Landschaftsverband Rheinland (LVR) 2016, Gemeinde Eicherscheid 2020b).

Table 18. Eicherscheid – Strategic GI elements

4. History and development including initial catalyst for action:

The key catalyst for action was the „Unser Dorf hat Zukunft“ - Our village has a Future - village development and renewal competition. The competition which was started in 1961, originally placed an emphasis on beautification, however, it changed its name in 2007 to more strongly promote themes relating to sustainable development. Assessments for the Competition are carried out at county, district and national level with awards of bronze, silver and gold medals according to a points based system according to the Federal Ministry of food, agriculture and consumer protection, BMELV. The village has been a repeated competition winner at State, Federal and European level (Gemeinde Eicherscheid 2020). The original aim of the citizens’ group was to enhance the distinctive character of the village, to promote sustainable development and to increase community pride. In this respect the competition has been a major driver for developing the citizens’ initiative. External facilitators from RWTH, Institute for Urban and Regional Planning and the FHS Aachen were engaged to develop the initial programme, create a concept and to bring the relevant partners together. The Flurheckenweg project was one of these identified aims and this was completed and launched in October 2015 (Gemeinde Eicherscheid 2020b).

5. Process of engagement and partnership working:

The project has worked effectively through the coordination of the activities of a diverse number of local organisations, groups and associations who act together through a loose affiliation. In this respect it has been successful in engaging a wide range of stakeholders and engendering a sense of local ownership. The group encourages participation from its 10 -12 member associations. Consensus was initially sought through the use of external facilitators from RWTH Institute for Urban Planning and from FHS Aachen. The facilitators acted as moderators to focus the discussion and to develop tangible outputs. The ongoing process of participation now continues through 3 group meetings per year which involve the various member associations.

6. Resources and support mechanisms:

The group involves a partnership of 10-12 local clubs and associations who work together and contribute time, voluntary labour and energy to the project. The active participation and engagement of a wide range of stakeholders has enabled a high degree of financial leverage to occur for certain projects including the Flurheckenweg. Funding for the Flurheckenweg project came from the Städteregion Aachen Tourism Development Fund - 15,000 euros, LEADER Eifel - 16,000 euros and the District of Simmerath - 3,500 euros. In convincing funders to support the project, links to the local economy were considered to be an important aspect, particularly with regard to how increased visitor numbers might help to support retailers and restaurateurs (Gemeinde Eicherscheid 2020b).

7. Typology Context:

The project is a good example of effective co-governance between statutory authorities and local citizens groups. According to the Green Surge programme definitions (Ambrose-Oji B, Buijs A et al. 2017), Eicherscheid could also appropriately be described as a small-scale example of a green hub which illustrates innovate coalitions in action. There is a close political relationship between the key stakeholders and the local District of Simmerath at both an administrative and political level.

Fig 33. Eicherscheid – Cultural landscapes and GI images (Gemeinde Eicherscheid 2020b)

4.5.2 Rott, Roetgen

Fig 34. Rott – Case study overview portrait (Heimat- und Eifelvereins Rott e.V. 2020)

Case Studies - Rott, Roetgen

1. Overview of project and location:

This is a community Initiative to restore moorland, raised bog habitats and local path networks to an optimal condition and to promote locally distinctive natural and cultural heritage and landscape features. Rott is located at the Boundary between the Hohes Venn/ Venn Vorland section of the German/ Belgian “Hohes Venn – Eifel” Nature Park (Naturpark Hohes Venn-Nordeifel 2020). The landscape of the area comprises extensive tracts of mixed broadleaf and coniferous woodlands including the Zeifaller and Rotterwald. To the South the topography is bisected by the valley of the Vichtbach with its semi natural riparian woodlands (Geschäftsstelle IMA GDI Nordrhein-Westfalen 2020).

The Struffelt forms an outlier of the Hohes Venn, a characteristic and iconic habitat comprising of open moorland containing heathland and bog vegetation, interspersed with birch, rowan and scots pine trees. Although partly forested with commercial conifers over successive years, the Struffelt has largely resisted these attempts at afforestation due to high precipitation, the high water table and poor, boggy conditions caused by the clay loam soils (Hülsheger R, Theißen H et al. 2016, Landesamt für Natur Umwelt und Verbraucherschutz Nordrhein-Westfalen 2020c).

In recent years the wet moorland area of the Struffelt has been expanded through removal of non- native conifer plantations and heathland and bog restoration programmes through practical actions such as blocking up drains and reducing the extent of invasive species such as bracken and purple moor grass. This work has received EU funding through “Life” programmes which form part of a wider programme to regenerate the fragmented Hohes Venn habitats on a functioning landscape scale. The Struffelt is also bordered by other significant nature conservation areas including semi natural native woodland areas of high nature conservation value.

2. What is physically delivered:

Specific actions Details /outputs

Wet heathland Restoration and expansion of degraded core areas and habitats within NSG, particularly rare wet restoration heathland and bog habitats - Restoration of approximately 50% of the 118ha Struffelt nature reserve with wet heathland vegetation and removal of non-native conifers (Hülsheger R, Theißen H et al. 2016, Landesamt für Natur Umwelt und Verbraucherschutz Nordrhein-Westfalen 2020c).

Improving other Improving and expanding habitats outside core areas thus providing stepping stones, linear habitat features habitat features and increasing “permeability” for movement and migration of species. Examples including pond creation, tree, hedge planting and orchard management around the immediate area of the village of Rott itself (Heimat- und Eifelvereins Rott e.V. 2006).

Development of Development of access infrastructure to improve accessibility for local people and visitors village path without adversely affecting conservation priorities. These include the creation of a village circular network route around the community of Rott. The work involved creation of extensive sections of boardwalk and footbridges.

Refuge hut and Development of a new walkers hut to the South of the village with BBQ facilities and seating for BBQ area visitors.

Creation of visitor Creation of 3 walkers’ information points with details of routes and local points of interest. Information points

Cultural heritage Restoration of traditional village cultural heritage features including a historic wells and features wayside crosses.

Fruit tree and Annual auction of tree seedlings appropriate for biodiversity and cultural landscape restoration. beech seedling The seedlings are obtained from commercial nurseries and are sold on to other interested distribution groups and individuals from throughout the City Region. Proceeds help to fund the wider work of the Association (Heimat- und Eifelvereins Rott e.V. 2020) .

Table 19. Rott, Roetgen – Outputs and actions

3. What is the strategic GI interest that the project helps to manage, enhance protect or promote ?

Strategic GI Significant elements within the case study area Theme

Overview: The main element of the project involves the long term restoration and management of the “Struffelt” which is a 118ha NSG characterised by regenerating wet heathland (Hülsheger R, Theißen H et al. 2016, Geschäftsstelle IMA GDI Nordrhein-Westfalen 2020). The plan includes the phased removal of non-native conifers and invasive plants, the rewetting of the moor through blocking of drains and the re-establishment of a semi natural flora of moorland, bog and wet heathland species. This will ensure that the area provides important ecosystem services such as soil and water regulation, biodiversity, carbon storage and recreation.

Nature The settlement of Rott is encircled by nature conservation areas (Geschäftsstelle IMA GDI Nordrhein-Westfalen 2020, Landesamt für Natur Umwelt und Verbraucherschutz conservation Nordrhein-Westfalen 2020c) . These are Zweifaller und Rotterwald (ACK-110), Struffelt (ACK-020) and Vichtbachtal with Grülis, Shlee und Lensbach (ACK-109) . These areas and do not form part of the Natura 2000 network although there is one adjoining area of the Hasselbachgraben beech forest further to the East of the Rotterwald. The Struffelt biodiversity is significant in that it represents moor and bog habitats with dwarf shrub heath, open water, heather moor, blueberry, purple moor grass and birch scrub woodland. It value: contains 175 plant species, 54 bird species. Management objectives include - moorland areas (Landesamt für Natur Umwelt und Verbraucherschutz Nordrhein-Westfalen 2020c);  Preservation of rare biotope types including moor and fen, peat bogs, dwarf shrub heathland and near-natural open water.  Conservation and optimisation of the area as a matrix of habitats endangered in NRW and for several endangered species from NRW red list.  Control of bracken, the spread of which creates a management issue. The Rotterwald also includes pockets of moor vegetation with alder, ash and coniferous wet woodlands. The Vichtbachtal and tributaries include wet woodland, damp

89 grasslands and unmodified watercourses. Management objectives for the watercourses include;

 Conservation and optimisation of moist and wet grassland.  Conservation and optimisation of nature in parts of Valley with valuable river floodplain areas and grassland areas  Preservation of natural dynamics of the watercourse in the floodplain,  Conservation and optimisation of significant, historical and archaeological structures in the landscape context including sunken lanes.

Landscape: The project activities aim to enhance the cultural landscapes around Rott, areas of which are included within the LRV Cultural Landscape Plan for Köln Region (Landschaftsverband Rheinland (LVR) 2016). In addition the settlement is in an area of high landscape and nature conservation value. LSGs bordering the settlement of Rott include Wiesen am Rott, Rotterwald, Mullardshütte and the Aachen LSG. The fields surrounding the village include old orchards, hawthorn hedges, wetlands and areas of unimproved pasture.

Paths and The community of Rott is well connected to its Hinterland and recreational routes. A number of recreational routes are promoted through “Roetgen-Touristik e.V. connectivity: (Gemeinde Roetgen 2020) including the village “Rundweg” and the Struffelt circuit. There are also links to the Eifelsteig which passes close to the village though on the periphery of the settlement itself.

Socio-economic Roetgen-Touristik promotes opportunities for walking and cycling through its webpages: (Gemeinde Roetgen 2020). There is also an information centre which highlights aspects: walking opportunities within the wider district of Roetgen, of which Rott forms a component. Within Rott however, local services appear to be in a state of shrinkage or decline despite the apparent relative wealth and mobility of its population; a number of local guest houses and restaurants have recently closed down though there is a local shop and one restaurant remaining. It seems likely that local services have suffered as a result of increasing retail development in neighbouring Roetgen and other out of town retail developments around the larger City of Aachen. In general it seems that the main emphasis of environmental enhancements in Rott is not upon green tourism. The village has increasingly become a dormitory location for neighbouring employment centres such as Aachen, Eschweiler and further afield.

Ecosystem Provision of regulating ecosystem services through restoration for the Struffelt for water retention, regulation and C02 sequestration purposes. Cultural services through Services enhancing local cultural identity and landscape features as well as providing opportunities for physical activity and experiencing nature. Provisioning services through significance: supporting biodiversity to provide local fruit varieties and pollination sources.

Educational There is a locally based nature guide who organises forest based education within the community. Local volunteering is promoted. The village is also proactive in the Aspects: organisation of fruit tree and beech seedling auctions. These are distributed widely throughout the Eifel, thus benefitting the wider aims of the project and regional biodiversity objectives. The Heimat und Eifelverein (Heimat- und Eifelvereins Rott e.V. 2020) organises many talks and events locally which publicise biodiversity, landscape and cultural heritage conservation.

Table 20. Rott, Roetgen – Strategic GI elements

4. History and development including initial catalyst for action:

Specialist interest in nature conservation and habitat management, along with wider community development interest, through the Heimat und Eifelverein (Heimat- und Eifelvereins Rott e.V. 2020) was responsible for mobilising the local community. The „Unser Dorf hat Zukunft“ competition was also a catalyst for action (Landwirtschaftskammer Nordrhein-Westfalen 2018). This has helped to stimulate local pride and gain recognition of community achievements and assets. The involvement of the Biologische Station for the Aachen Städteregion has also created an added impetus for action through access to scientific approaches and EU funding sources. Although much of the focus has been on nature conservation there is also a wider underlying interest in sustainable community development.

5. Processes of engagement and partnership working

The group is a member of the regional Eifelverein (Eifelverein 2019) and thus linked to the Landesgemeinschaft Naturschutz und Umwelt (LNU) which is one of the three officially recognized nature conservative organisations in NRW (Landesgemeinschaft Naturschutz und Umwelt (LNU) 2020).

Because of the ownership of the Struffelt NSG nature reserve, which is owned and partly managed by NRW Wald und Holz, there is a need to work closely in partnership to fulfil and balance management obligations and objectives. Other key partners include the Roetgen District Authority and the Städteregion Aachen. In addition the Biologische Station of the Städteregion Aachen has been closely involved in the coordination of management works and monitoring on the site as well as managing EU funding applications for restoration of cultural and semi-natural landscapes (Hülsheger R, Theißen H et al. 2016).

Negotiations with the NRW Forestry Department can reportedly often be slow and protracted, with conservation objectives sometimes coming into conflict with commercial forestry production. In particular the timing of specific management operations such as tree felling can be a matter for considerable discussion. Management operations such as grazing by sheep are also problematic due to constraints which include the deer management practices. The group also strives to maintain a balance between conservation and the promotion of public access. Some previous path routes have been closed and a board walk has been constructed instead to direct visitors through the reserve whilst minimising impact.

The Struffelt is also part of a drinking water catchment and this creates additional constraints. The Eifelsteig long distance recreational route also passes directly through the Struffelt (Eifel Tourismus GmbH 2020b).

6. Resources and support mechanisms:

The group raises funding directly through annual sales of beech and fruit tree seedlings to a wide number of outlets. These sales take the form of annual actions for interested communities and members of the public. They also works closely with the Biologische Station Aachen to make targeted applications for EU funding, e.g. LIFE, for habitat management such as bracken clearance, grazing management etc. NRW Wald und Holz undertake tree felling and management operations. The group organises regular fundraising social events.

7. Typology context

Using the Green Surge Typology (Ambrose-Oji B, Buijs A et al. 2017) this is an example of effective co- governance with local citizen’s group working in close partnership with statutory authorities and land managers. Responsibilities are shared between the various stakeholders, though the owner, NRW Wald und Holz, effectively possess the greatest power. The parties hold regular formal meetings attended by the partners to agree priorities.

Fig 35. Rott – Cultural landscape and GI images (Heimat- und Eifelvereins Rott e.V. 2020)

4.5.3 Soermondt Park, Aachen - "Hirschgrün" Community Garden

Fig 36. Soermondt Community Garden – Case study overview portrait

Case Study - "Hirschgrün" Community Garden, Soermondt Park, Aachen

1. Overview of project and location:

The "Hirschgrün" Community Garden is a community project to create a productive greenspace and community growing area within the socially diverse Soermondt quarter of Aachen (Ebbertz J and Häfner L 2016, Urbane Gemeinschaftsgärten Aachen e.V. 2020).

The Garden was established in April 2013 on a vacant area of approx. 1200 square meters within the Soermondt neighbourhood of Aachen. The garden aims to bring together people of diverse age groups, cultural and social backgrounds through creating a common resource for the cultivation of fruit and vegetables. Through the interactive design of the garden, participants contribute to the development of the cityscape.

The area is under the ownership of the Aachen City Council but is leased to the Urbane Gemeinschaftsgärten Aachen e.V. The adjoining area of Soermondt Park is also under Council ownership and has recently been redeveloped as a more formal neighbourhood park (Stadt Aachen 2020d). To some extent the two uses are complimentary although there are also some conflicts. The primary aim of the garden is to create an outdoor space, where people can work together on meaningful activities. It aims to (Urbane Gemeinschaftsgärten Aachen e.V. 2020):

 Reconnect the urban population with nature and their wider community regardless of cultural, social or economic background.  Foster the development of increased social contact between local residents, who would otherwise have limited possibilities for interaction.  Promote opportunities for different age groups to work together, whilst learning from each other and cooperatively shaping their urban space.

 Support urban biodiversity whilst preserving old, rare varieties and delivering cost-effective, healthy food to local people.

The garden is thus intended to contribute to sustainable urban development and, by virtue of its participatory character, to improve social cohesion and the sense of local identity within the neighborhood. The group meets all year round for practical work or for project planning activities.

The idea of creating urban community gardens in Aachen was initial proposed in 2012 through the "Suermondtviertel", "Transition Town Aachen" and "Kaiserplatzgalerie - nein danke!" initiative (Urbane Gemeinschaftsgärten Aachen e.V. 2020). Consequently a growing number of local residents came together to work on the implementation. The "Urbane Gemeinschaftsgärten Aachen e.V." association was established in May 2013. At the same time the "Vielfeld" community garden was also founded by the same group in Aachen. The level of involvement of active participants varies considerably.

2. What is physically delivered:

Actions /outputs Specific Details

Planting areas The project has involved the creation of a number of planting beds across a 1200 sqm area which have been established upon permaculture, organic growing principles and the circular economy, whereby goods are reused in different forms during each stage of their product lifestyle.

Crop production Vegetables grown include common garden plants including lettuce, carrots, cauliflower, cabbages onions, potatoes, parsnips and tomatoes.

Urban biodiversity The species selected aim additionally to provide a diversity of plant species of value for ecosystem service delivery i.e. flowing plants which are suitable for attracting pollinating insects, including bees, into the urban area as well as for providing fruit and berries for birds and improving soil structure and fauna. To enhance the pollination benefits and food production elements of the site, the group also manage a number of beehives within the community garden. Additionally structures including “insect hotels” have also been created and some areas have been left “wild” as a source of food and shelter. Significantly the project recently won a prize in the UN Decade for Biodiversity Competition in the category of community nature initiatives (Geschäftsstelle UN-Dekade Biologische Vielfalt 2020).

Education The site also provides a significant resource for environmental education, wellbeing and physical activity for local people based upon their participation in gardening activities (Ebbertz J and Häfner L 2016).

Artworks using The project has also been involved with the creation of artworks which make use of recycled recycled materials materials such as timber, old bicycle wheels and other scrap metal Art works on the site also include murals and “graffiti art” which reflects the social, environmental, diversity and sustainable development interests of the group.

Sitting areas and A number of spaces and sitting areas for interaction and relaxation have also been developed. communal spaces The benches, outdoor furniture and facilities on the site have all been created according to “circular economy” principles, whereby materials have been reused and reclaimed from other functions.

Food bank In addition, to formally developing planting beds and seating areas, other structures on the site include an information area and a “food bank” whereby local people and visitors can help themselves to free surplus produce from the garden and elsewhere. This also aims to encourage healthy eating and dietary awareness principles.

Community As well as the physical structures which have been developed on the site, the group delivers less capacity building tangible outputs including community capacity building through increasing social interaction and a programme of educational activities with 2 local primary schools.

Table 21. Soermondt Community Garden – Outputs and actions

3. What is the strategic GI interest that the project helps to manage, enhance protect or promote ?

Strategic GI Significant elements within the case study area Theme

Overview: The site provides a small (1200sqm) but significant greenspace to the South of Aachen City Centre and forms a part of the wider Soermondt Park concept; a new neighbourhood park area. Although there is no direct physical link to the Biotope network, the community garden provides a “stepping stone” function for the wider network within the urban core area through offering significant localised ecosystem service functions such as pollination, biodiversity, provisioning and cultural services including community cohesion and social wellbeing. The community garden and wider Soermondt Park provide an important green asset in an urban area with a general deficiency of greenspace. Connections involving urban local scale GI elements such as street trees, amenity planting areas and private gardens are locally important and help to increase the significance of the community garden as a node within a small scale functioning urban GI network (Ministerium für Klimaschutz Umwelt Landwirtschaft Natur und Verbraucherschutz NRW 2016, Stadt Aachen 2019).

Nature The Park has no official status as a protected area – i.e. the site is not an NSG and it is also not part of the Biotope Cadastre or the wider biotope network - which does not extend into the conservation and core urban area (Geschäftsstelle IMA GDI Nordrhein-Westfalen 2020) . However the site is arguably of local significance in that it provides a “stepping stone” location for biodiversity within biodiversity an otherwise heavily urbanised area. There are also low key local green networks in terms of street trees, urban gardens and pedestrian friendly streets (Stadt Aachen 2019). The introduction value: of permaculture and wildlife gardening approaches will further enhance the importance of the area for biodiversity. Despite being outside the formally designated Biotope network, significantly the project recently won a prize in the UN Decade for Biodiversity Competition in the category community nature initiatives (Geschäftsstelle UN-Dekade Biologische Vielfalt 2020).

Landscape: The site has no official designated status such as an LSG. However it is part of the wider Soermondt Park concept which is a neighbourhood Park and a component of the Aachen City public open space network. The Park also provides an important visual function through softening the impact of surrounding high density urban development, thus providing additional wellbeing and health benefits to urban residents. Mature trees and structural elements within the community garden also function in association with these elements on neighbouring land, including formal park areas, amenity greenspaces, street trees and private gardens. This helps to create value in terms of wider synergy and continuity of overall landscape elements. The area is also included within the LVR Cultural landscapes plan for Köln (Landschaftsverband Rheinland (LVR) 2016). 96 Paths and There is open access across the site to seating and recreation areas and a main through route which provides a link to the more formal adjoining greenspace within Soermondt Park from connectivity: adjoining residential areas. The site is surrounded by a dense network of streets (with comparatively low traffic density) which provide good accessibility for urban residents including pedestrians and cyclists. A number of strategic bike routes pass close to the location, though in reality these have little direct impact, the primary users of the site being local residents (Stadt Aachen 2019).

Socio-economic The site provides an important social and recreational function – delivering much needed greenspace within a high density urban area. The play areas and growing space perform an aspects: important function in developing community cohesion and for providing skills training in community growing and sustainability. There is little perceived economic impact, though some local businesses in the area might benefit from the increased footfall resultant from the success of the adjoining and recently redeveloped Soermondt Park (Stadt Aachen 2020d).

Ecosystem The site provides provisioning services in terms of supporting sustainable food production, regulating services including climate regulation and urban cooling and cultural services including Services health, wellbeing and local aesthetics. significance: The transformation of the area through the planting and incidental establishment of pollinator species is of significance for ecosystem services development. This includes plants which are attractive to bees, butterflies and other insects. The establishment of bee hives, “insect hotels” and other infrastructure has helped this process.

Educational The site has an important role to play as an educational resource within the urban area. The local group are working with 2 local primary schools and minority interest groups to promote Aspects: sustainable approaches. In addition, open days and events are hosted to encourage participation from marginalised groups such as refugees. Educational approaches take an integrated approach covering community growing, biodiversity, healthy eating, urban wildlife etc. (Geschäftsstelle UN-Dekade Biologische Vielfalt 2020, Urbane Gemeinschaftsgärten Aachen e.V. 2020).

Table 22. Soermondt Community Garden – Strategic GI elements

4. History and development including initial catalyst for action:

The initiative was taken by local people who persuaded the local authority not to develop the site but to instead lease the ground to them as a community growing space. There was a desire to see the land being used for community growing, sustainable food production and as a focus for social inclusion. It was inspired by the wider community gardening and Transition movement including examples from Berlin and other large conurbations. NUA: The NRW Natur und Umweltschutz Akademie has also helped to provide inspiration and training to group members.

5. Processes of engagement and partnership working:

There are between 20 and 40 members who are active on an intermittent basis. The committee comprises of 8 people. Wider participation is also encouraged through the involvement of 2 local primary schools as well as special events which are targeted at refugees and minority groups (Ebbertz J and Häfner L 2016, UrbaneOasen.de). An open street fair is held annually which helps to raise levels of awareness within the community, to promote the objectives of the project and helps with fund raising for the initiative. In addition, members of the public and users of the adjoining Soermondt Park are encouraged to get personally involved with the project. There is information and promotional material about activities on the site which aims to encourage wider and increased levels of participation. The group works closely with the City of Aachen who own the site; however the role of the authority is primarily concerned with overseeing the terms of the lease rather than in more holistic co-management of the site. Although the Council is officially receptive, there is unofficially a mixed response to the project. Planning meetings are held weekly in summer and twice monthly in winter.

6. Resources and support mechanisms:

The work is funded through donations of local people and group members, free labour is provided. Some projects have also received small amounts of funding from NUA, the Natur und Umweltschutzakadamie NRW. In terms of self-help approaches, an annual fundraising street festival is organised with food and drink being produced for sale and donated by members of the group and local residents. Fundraising is undertaken for specific projects on a case by case basis. Significantly, an aim is to reduce required expenditure through promoting the circular economy and the reuse of materials, thus keeping costs down. In reality capital and revenue costs are minimal, the main expenditure being covering the rental for the site. All work is undertaken directly by members of the group on the site. The group also do some outreach work with local primary schools and organise a number of projects with refugee families.

7. Typology context

Grassroots action:

According to the typology developed by the Green Surge Initiative (Ambrose-Oji B, Buijs A et al. 2017) ,the project is a good example of grassroots action. The initial approach came from local people who persuaded the local authority not to develop the site but to instead lease it to them as a community growing space.

However, there is still some uncertainty about the long term future of the site; the Council are able to revoke the lease if they decide this is not in the best interests of the Stadt Aachen. There is also an element of co-governance as regards synergy with the overall Soermondt Park project.

Fig 37. Soermondt Community Garden and the wider park concept

Fig 38. Soermondt Community Garden as a “stepping stone” in the GI network

4.5.4 Wurmtal

Fig 39. Wurmtal – Case study overview portrait (AG Wurmtal e.V. 2020)

Case Study - Wurmtal

1. Overview of project and location:

The AG Wurmtal e.V. is a non-profit, non-partisan and voluntary environmental group, which has existed since September 1982 (AG Wurmtal e.V. 2020). Members and interested parties in the work of the Association come from Würselen, Herzogenrath and the surrounding settlements. The Association consists of over 15 active members with a wider network of approximately 80 interested people who are located beyond the core catchment area of the group. People of all ages and from different disciplines are represented within the Association.

The Wurmtal, itself, is an important green link and takes the form of a meandering corridor between adjacent farmland and the urban areas of Kohlscheid, Würselen and Herzogenrath. It is located within a peri-urban area between Würselen - pop. 37,693 - and Kohlscheid - pop. 19,000. The valley bottom is characterised by varied habitats and landuse functions including wet meadows, riparian woodlands and low intensity agricultural landscapes. The project involves the management and enhancement of core areas of habitat for nature conservation within a green corridor, including a number of significant Natura 2000 sites. A key aim is to protect the area from perceived development threats.

100

2. What is physically delivered:

Specific actions Details /outputs

Ongoing The group is responsible for the management of 9 areas which it leases on a long term basis; management of these include wetlands, pastures, meadows, dry grasslands – these total 13.1 ha (AG Wurmtal specialist habitats e.V. 2020). In addition the group are responsible for mapping and surveys of specialist habitats including amphibians, breeding birds and tree populations. The most significant part of the work of the AG Wurmtal is biotope protection. AG Wurmtal operates biotope protection, for example, by securing areas under threat. The first wetlands in the Wurmtal were leased in 1985. The largest area, a formerly intensively cultivated area in the Wurmtalaue below Bardenberg-Pley with approx. 5.2 ha, was converted into an extensive pasture meadow and has been managed by the AG Wurmtal since 1994. During the annual inspections of the leased areas, stock fences have to be repaired, among other things, to secure the protected areas from the adjacent agricultural areas. AG Wurmtal maintains good relations with its agricultural neighbours, which are not characterized by the usual nature conservation / agricultural conflict (AG Wurmtal e.V. 2020).

Habitat restoration The largest area of 5.2 ha, in the Wurmtalaue below Bardenberg-Pley was previously intensively of specialist cultivated but since 1994 has been converted by the group into an extensively managed habitats meadow area favouring native flora and fauna. This has been undertaken through sensitive management approaches including appropriate cutting regimes, non-application of fertilisers and the removal of cuttings from the site.

Amphibian The group undertakes amphibian rescue projects and installs temporary amphibian fencing management and during migration periods to reduce mortality rates. The protection of amphibians has been a rescue focus of nature conservation work since the foundation of the AG Wurmtal in 1982. Measures cover the protection of resident amphibians, the protection of spawning waters and winter quarters, but also management of toad fences during the amphibian migration. In the toad fence actions at the Bardenberger Mühle, for example, almost 14,000 amphibians have been saved from being killed by vehicles since 2002. At the same time, the amphibian population was mapped and recorded and the occurrences reported to the environmental authorities (AG Wurmtal e.V. 2020).

Nest box Since 1982, the group has also installed 300 bird nesting boxes within the woodland areas of installation the Wurmtal NSG area. Approximately 70-80% occupancy is regularly registered in the annual controls. This work has been undertaken since 1982. Since accurate records have been made right from the start, there are decades of documentation on the breeding success of conservation measures (AG Wurmtal e.V. 2020).

Education and The group work to promote their activities through number of local schools and kindergartens. outreach This includes organising school visits and study tours, facilitated by group members who include retired teachers. The group also attend public events such as the annual orchard festival.

Table 23. Wurmtal NSG – Outputs and actions

101

3. What is the strategic GI interest that the project helps to manage, enhance protect or promote ?

Strategic GI Significant elements within the case study area Theme Overview: The Wurmtal forms part of a significant green corridor to the North of Aachen which is designated as an NSG but also incorporates FFH (Natura 2000) areas. The NSG is located within the wider Biotope Network and it is also a significant local recreation area offering recreational routes. The NSG includes diverse riparian habitats including wet woodlands, mires and species which are protected under EU legislation. The project involves the conservation and management of key habitats within the Wurmtal NSG which is located within Würselen and Herzogenrath Districts and which covers an area of 445ha (Landesamt für Natur Umwelt und Verbraucherschutz Nordrhein-Westfalen 2020c). There is a smaller protected area to the North of Herzogenrath covering 19ha which the group is also involved in managing. Nature The Wurmtal corridor includes large areas of protected habitat with NSG status. The largest area being ACK -21, with the smaller area ACK-91 to the NE. Furthermore the area is protected on the conservation basis of its status as an FHH and VS, under the European Habitats and Birds Directives which make up the Natura 2000 network of protected sites and habitats across Europe. Key objectives and include (Protected Planet 2020, Landesamt für Natur Umwelt und Verbraucherschutz Nordrhein-Westfalen 2020c): biodiversity 1) The preservation and development of the following natural habitats as defined in Annex I, FFH Directive: flowing water with preserved streambeds - 3260, sessile oak/hornbeam forest - 9160, value: alder ash and conifer woodlands - 91E0. 2) Restoration of floodplain areas - 6430, according to Annex I of the Habitats Directive, 3) Conservation and development of the following wild animal and plant species as defined in Annex II the Habitats Directive and their habitats: large mouse ear bat, mollusks, stag beetles, 4) Conservation and development of the following species of wild birds, as defined in Annex I to the Birds Directive and their habitats: kingfisher, western marsh harrier, red-backed shrike, wood lark, smew, red kite, osprey, honey buzzard, wood sandpiper, 5) Preservation and development of habitats and stable survivable populations including the following migratory birds referred to in Article 4, 2 of the Birds Directive: reed warbler, pintail, shoveller, teal, gargeney ducks, meadow pipit, little ringed plover, common snipe, nightingale, golden oriole, water rail, sand martins, whinchat, stonechat, little grebe, green sandpiper and lapwing

102 6) Preservation of natural eutrophic lakes - 3150, conservation of the habitat of many NRW red list and plant and animal species, 7) Preservation and promotion of the biotope network within the complete river catchment, cattle grazing and hedges within extensive meadows, wet meadows and meadows (paragraph 62

Biotopes), 8) Preservation and optimisation of the area as biotope complex with ponds, springs and other biotope types which are threatened or rare in NRW: Semi natural open spaces with flowing water, natural or unspoiled areas of open water, swamps and mires, reed beds, wet meadows and grassland, springs, natural rock formations, meadows and pastures, swamp forests and wet woods. Landscape: Most key areas of the valley which are significant from a landscape perspective are afforded protection under the NSG designation. However in addition to this some peripheral areas which do not have NSG status are protected under LSG. These include the LSGs: Wurmtal South, the Haarenheidchen/Kaisersruh, LSG Aachen and LSG South Herzogenrath(Landesamt für Natur Umwelt und Verbraucherschutz Nordrhein-Westfalen 2020). Paths and The Wurmtal forms a key recreational corridor which incorporates strategic long distance routes, E8 and X1. The Wurmtal is also important as a recreational resource for people from the connectivity: adjoining communities of Würselen, Köhlsheid, Barden berg and Herzogenrath. Along with the existing network of recreational paths, there are proposals to develop a “Radschellweg”, fast cycling route, to link Aachen with Herzogenrath, Kerkrade and Heerlen (Ingenieurbüro H. Berg & Partner GmbH. 2017) which would follow the route of the D8 path along the protected valley of the Wurmtal (with reportedly 12,000 users per day). This is perceived locally to be a top down project with potential detrimental impacts and is consequently being resisted by local environmental groups (Aachener Nachrichten 2015, Aachener Nachrichten 2016). Socio- The Wurmtal supports a number of small scale business enterprises which capitalise on the natural heritage. These include riding stables and livery and restaurants and pubs which benefit from economic informal recreation. aspects: Ecosystem The wet riparian woodlands help to regulate water flow rates and to reduce runoff and impact of extreme rainfall events. The connected ecosystems also provide connectivity functions. The Services Wurmtal is an important recreational corridor for the nearby communities of Köhlsheid, Herzogenrath and Würselen. significance: Educational Members of the local action group undertake educational visits to local schools and kindergartens. Tours are also organised of the nature reserve to showcase actions and to raise levels of Aspects: awareness (Protected Planet 2020).

Table 24. Wurmtal NSG – Strategic GI elements

4. History and development including initial catalyst for action:

The group was formed in September 1982 to conserve and maintain habitats within the Wurmtal through direct action, lobbying at a political level and through leasing or purchasing areas of land for ecological restoration purposes. The focus of the group has been on natural habitats and species conservation. There is consequently a strong nature conservation, habitat protection and anti- development agenda (AG Wurmtal e.V. 2020). The group themselves consider that the management of the area by local enthusiasts and experts is the best mechanism for management and that this affords best protection from competing land use activities and perceived development threats.

5. Processes of engagement and partnership working:

There are 70 members of the Association, e.V., 15 of whom are regularly active with practical and administrative tasks. The group is very mixed in terms of the social background and age representation. However the general composition has changed little since the founding of the group. In terms of involvement with the statutory authorities, the group cooperates with Städteregion Aachen, Stadt Würselen, Stadt Herzogenrath and with the NRW Umwelt Ministry. The group also liaises with BUND and NABU and attends meetings of the Maas Rhine Forum (NABU Stadtverband Aachen eV 2016). There are monthly indoor planning meetings held to discuss projects and processes and an AGM which is held each year with guest speakers and members of the public in attendance.

The group has a strong nature protection agenda and sees it role as protecting the area from undesirable development, which includes recreational and active travel networks such as the proposed cycle “autobahn” (Aachener Nachrichten 2015, Aachener Nachrichten 2016). There is concern also about encroachment on the protected area from activities of businesses, housing development and commercial activities in the area such as liveries and catering establishments. There appears to be an element of conflict with local authority partners and a concern that the motivations of officials and elected members may be directed towards supporting economic interests at the expense of nature conservation. The increasing number of recreational activities, events and informal users is also considered to be a threat to nature conservation interests. The group also involves schools and kindergartens in its work through visits and organised tours (AG Wurmtal e.V. 2020).

Much of the process of engagement is undertaken through lobbying of local government institutions, statutory bodies and politicians. Particular stated goals of this being to achieve: Consistent protection and preservation of the still existing natural areas Wurmtal, Broichbachtal and Amstelbachtal; no further use of the NSG Wurmtal - either through the expansion of leisure activities or through further development; Subordination of forestry activities to the interests of nature conservation and promotion of ecologically oriented agriculture in the NSG.

6. Resources and support mechanisms:

The group receive funding from a variety of sources including direct assistance from NRW Umwelt Ministry for site management activities in the ground which satisfy the statutory requirements (Landesamt für Natur Umwelt und Verbraucherschutz Nordrhein-Westfalen 2020d). In addition there are donations from private companies and individuals. Produce from management operations including hay cutting is also sold to help to raise revenue.

103

There are a number of retired teachers who are involved in the Association. They undertake promotional talks and visits to schools, kindergartens and other special interest groups (AG Wurmtal e.V. 2020). Members of the group manage the acquisition and spending of the funding in accordance with the stipulations of the official bodies concerned (Landesamt für Natur Umwelt und Verbraucherschutz Nordrhein-Westfalen 2020d).

8. Typology context

Grassroots action: According to the Green Surge Typology (Ambrose-Oji B, Buijs A et al. 2017), the project is an example of a grassroots initiative. The group lease a number of areas from local landowners. Although they see themselves as being largely autonomous, they must work effectively in cooperation with other partners due to the FFH/NSG status (Landesamt für Natur Umwelt und Verbraucherschutz Nordrhein-Westfalen 2020d). The group are concerned that other parties might promote inappropriate developments in the vicinity or have hidden agendas. This apparent fear of vested interests could potentially impact negatively on the outcome of discussion with partner organisations.

Fig 40. The Wurmtal NSG showing Habitats Directive “Natura 2000” core areas

104

4.5.5 Worm-Wildnis

Fig 41. Worm-Wildnis – Case study overview portrait (Heimatverein Worm-Wildnis 1971 e.V. 2020)

Case Study – Worm-Wildnis

1. Overview of project and location:

The small community of Worm-Wildnis, pop. 458, is located within the valley of the Wurmtal, a few Km to the North of the district centre of Herzogenrath. Although Worm-Wildnis forms a discreet settlement in its own right, it is part of the larger town of Merkstein, a former colliery village with an interesting industrial and cultural heritage which is located to the NE of Herzogenrath (Städteregion Aachen 2011).

The valley of the Wurmtal delivers an important range of green infrastructure functions and it provides a significant recreational area and natural habitat corridor along its meandering course between the centres of Kohlscheid, Würselen, Herzogenrath and Kerkrade. The Wurmtal also marks the international border with Holland along some of its route. The valley bottom is characterised by varied protected landscape areas including wet meadows, riparian woodlands and low intensity, extensive agricultural landscapes (Protected Planet 2020, Landesamt für Natur Umwelt und Verbraucherschutz Nordrhein-Westfalen 2020c). However, significant areas of the river corridor have also been urbanised, particularly on the Dutch side of the river where there has been a certain amount of industrial development.

The Worm-Wildnis Heimatverein e.V., an association, is a local Initiative which was established in 1971 to provide social and environmental opportunities for local people within the community of Worm- Wildnis (Städteregion Aachen 2011). The initiative focuses upon the Worm-Wildnis nature protection area - NSG-ACK-97- which is a small protected area of 8.5ha comprising of semi-natural regenerating beech and oak woodland. It is located on an old quarrying site on the Eastern slopes of the Wurmtal flood plain (Landesamt für Natur Umwelt und Verbraucherschutz Nordrhein-Westfalen 2020c).

105

The Worm-Wildnis Association have the aim of creating a social and environmental hub within the site, on what is largely a degraded peri-urban landscape and which has been heavily affected by commercial sand and gravel extraction. The facilities on the site also include the buildings formerly used by the quarry company, as well as some more recent constructions which include a grill hut, fire place and youth camping site (Heimatverein Worm-Wildnis 1971 e.V.). The area immediately to the East of the NSG site is still actively used for sand and gravel extraction and, more recently, for solar energy production (Nivelsteiner Sandwerke und Sandsteinbrüche GmbH 2020), however from within the NSG area the proximity of this adjoining landuse is not obvious.

The Association was started with the aim of creating a community resource for local people based around the old quarry site including the disused buildings, whilst at the same time protecting the woodland for its nature conservation value. The remit of the Association (e.V.) covers the wider settlement area of Worm-Wildnis with the Worm-Wildnis Naturpark itself having been established as a focal point (Heimatverein Worm-Wildnis 1971 e.V.).

Types of activities on the site include outdoor activities such as youth camping, BBQs, festivals and apple days along with indoor workshops and seminars covering diverse themes such as the use of the internet, local reminiscences, kids play and activity programmes. In addition there is also an interest in promoting the local history and cultural heritage of the area through providing outdoor exhibits, displays and signage relating to former activities and industries of the area.

Although, a lack of economic activity and local services in the village could have a negative impact upon the community, it is hoped that the creation of the Worm-Wildnis nature park acts as a positive resource which helps to reduce such negative impacts. Although, the land could still theoretically at some stage be used for quarrying activity, this appears to be unlikely in the foreseeable future, especially given the NSG status of the area.

106

2. What is physically delivered:

Specific Details actions /outputs Woodland Hands on site-based work such as tree management, path construction or elements which involve management nature conservation are undertaken mostly by professional staff from the local authority of activity Herzogenrath and through an agreement with the City of Aachen Forestry Office (Stadt Herzogenrath 2020) . This also includes maintenance of the access road and the removal of storm damaged trees. However, where there is agreement, the community can also undertake some small scale works directly, under the supervision of the authorities. It appears that the local administration of Herzogenrath are concerned about the need to retain control and also wish ensure that the statutory obligations for site management are met. In general, however, the approach to the remaining areas of semi-natural woodland appears to be one of non-intervention, allowing for the natural regeneration of the site. Woodland A number of low key paths have been created throughout the woodland which feature small scale trail networks management interventions such as the creation of steps and hand rails (Heimatverein Worm-Wildnis 1971 e.V.). There is a plan to develop a path network which provides connections between the site, the settlement of Worm-Wildnis and potential new developments with Worm-Wildnis. In addition to this a partnership project has recently been undertaken with the Naturfreunde Merkstein group to provide a circular interpretive walk focusing around the Wurmtal and also passing through the site (Naturfreunde Herzogenrath-Merkstein 2020). Activities This offers catering facilities and community events space, making use of renovated former quarry room with company buildings (Städteregion Aachen 2011, Heimatverein Worm-Wildnis 1971 e.V.). The facilities social area include one large room with a bar and some smaller meeting spaces which are used by the local community and which can also be rented out for social functions. The facilities are discreetly located within the centre of the old quarry workings, at the heart of the NSG, although technically outside the protected area. Activities A full and varied activities programme takes on the site and this is advertised on the organisation’s programme website (Heimatverein Worm-Wildnis 1971 e.V.). The co-ordination of educational or social activities is usually organised, or undertaken directly, by the local community or through the use of invited presenters. As well as covering specialist topics and themes, activities undertaken include the celebration of local seasonal festivals and events. An annual apple pressing event is held on the site with fruit obtained from local orchards. There are also proposals to plant an orchard to showcase local fruit tree varieties. The demographic in the village appears to be healthy with many young families to support future activities (Städteregion Aachen 2011, Heimatverein Worm-Wildnis 1971 e.V.). The e.V. has also been active in the Unser Dorf hat Zukunft competition and won a bronze award for its achievements in 2014, having competed successfully for the third time in the Städteregion competition (Heimatverein Worm-Wildnis 1971 e.V.). Grill/BBQ hut A grill hut has been developed on the site. This is used extensively by members of the community in and area, the summer months and can also be rented out by interested parties. There is also the possibility to make campfires by the grill hut in a specially constructed pit. There is an area of open space located around the grill hut and fire area which can be used as the focal point for community activities (Heimatverein Worm-Wildnis 1971 e.V.). Youth A dedicated area for youth camping has been created. The site is located in a woodland glade close camping area. to the other facilities which include the grill area, activities room and fire site. The area can be rented out by visiting groups and provides a discreet space which is sufficient for several tents. Play facilities A children’s play area has been developed near to the main entrance to the site. This features a range for children. of play equipment, open space areas as well as some relics from the former industrial use of the site with associated interpretation. Next to the playground there is a small parking area for visitors. Site The Worm-Wildnis e.V. have created some themed heritage interpretation near to site entrance interpretation which investigates the relationship between the sites past with the present day situation. A number of historical features on the site have been restored which reinforce the heritage significance of the site with relation to sand excavation and the Wurmtal’s glass industry (Städteregion Aachen 2011). Recently restored features include melting kilns for glass manufacture. There was however little in the way of interpretation which focused on the site’s natural heritage; this changed however in 2019 with the opening of the new circular trial “Wasserweg Wurm”(Naturfreunde Herzogenrath-Merkstein 2020).

Table 25. Worm-Wildnis NSG – Outputs and actions

107

3. What is the strategic GI interest that the project helps to manage, enhance protect or promote ?

Strategic GI Significant elements within the case study area Theme

Overview: The initiative focuses on NSG Worm-Wildnis Nature area - ACK-97- which covers 8.5ha and is protected, in accordance with LG Paragraph 20a, c, for the preservation and optimisation of the naturally regenerating old oak and beech woods found on the site (Landesamt für Natur Umwelt und Verbraucherschutz Nordrhein- Westfalen 2020c). The area is of conservation importance as a potential relic of an ancient semi-natural forest habitat. However no further habitat details or management prescriptions appear to exist; the main emphasis being upon preservation of the habitats and non-intervention upon the natural elements of the site.

Nature The project facilitates the enhancement and management of the GI network through improving the management and connectivity of core habitat areas - including conservation the Worm-Wildnis NSG and adjacent Natura 2000 and NSG areas along the Wurmtal itself. In addition it helps to enhance biodiversity and biotope connectivity in the and wider landscape outside the protected areas, including on land which forms a part of the functioning habitat network. Proposed development of a community biodiversity orchard site and planting of traditional fruit tree varieties will also help to facilitate this process further. Although the main focus of the Association is upon the value: Worm-Wildnis NSG, the Wurmtal North of Herzogenrath NSG (ACK-94) is also of high significance as it provides an important connectivity function along the river corridor to the West and North. This NSG covers 76.60 ha with the objectives, in accordance with LG Paragraph 20a, b, c of (Landesamt für Natur Umwelt und Verbraucherschutz Nordrhein-Westfalen 2020c):

108  conservation of habitat for many NRW red list plant and animal species

 biotope preservation throughout the entire river system  preservation and enhancement of small meadows and hedges within an extensively managed pasture landscape.  preservation and enhancement of wet meadows and pastures (Article 62 Biotopes) and nutrient poor grassland (Paragraph 62 Biotopes)  Conservation and optimisation of the area as a biotope complex with open water, springs and reed-beds - The following NRW protected biotopes, according to paragraph 30 BNatSchG or Paragraph 62, occur in the area: natural or near-natural open spaces with flowing waters, natural or unspoiled areas of standing inland waters, reed beds, wet meadows and grassland, natural springs, riparian woodlands. Part of the area is also listed as a Natura 2000 site under FFH Habitats and VG Bird Directives. This is for the value of the sites contribution to the protection of key species including the European beaver, nightingale, red-backed shrike, meadow pipit and kingfisher. The riparian habitats and dynamic river morphology are considered significant habitats which warrant protection (Landesamt für Natur Umwelt und Verbraucherschutz Nordrhein-Westfalen 2020c).

Landscape: The area of the Unteres Wurmtal, including the Worm-Wildnis site is included within a “cultural landscape designation within the Köln Regional Plan no.36 on the basis of historic villages, buildings of architectural note and archaeological interest (Landschaftsverband Rheinland (LVR) 2016). Quarrying activity within the area, for the extraction of sand for glass manufacture (Nivelsteiner Sandwerke und Sandsteinbrüche GmbH 2020), has also had a significant impact in creating a distinctive post-industrial landscape, which is also interspersed with small pastures and historic settlements.

Paths and There are a network of low key paths through the site that provide informal local access. There is potential to develop these further as part of a better defined local connectivity: path network which provides connectivity from the settlement to the NSG area. A village circular route has also been developed which passed close by the site. The Wurmtal itself provides am important recreational corridor and this can be accessed easily from the Worm-Wildnis site. Along the Wurmtal itself there is a considerable amount of interpretation for visitors – much of this is however dated and has been subject to a lack of maintenance and vandalism. However a new interpretive trail, “Wasserweg Wurm”, has recently been developed in partnership with the Naturfreunde Merkstein (Naturfreunde Herzogenrath-Merkstein 2020).

Socio-economic There are considerable benefits accruing from the project in terms of developing social cohesion through the role of the site in providing a base for activities, aspects: workshops and social events. This helps to develop community capacity and indeed provides opportunities for all generations. The “Unser Dorf hat Zukunft” competition has had considerable influence in this context: The e.V. has been active in the Unser Dorf hat Zukunft competition and won a bronze award for its achievements in 2014, having competed successfully for the third time in the Städteregion competition (Heimatverein Worm-Wildnis 1971 e.V.). Direct economic benefits however are more limited as there are few local businesses and services, such as tourism related businesses, which would benefit from increased visitor “footfall” as a result of the project.

Ecosystem The site provides valuable services under the following: Services Regulating – provision of haven for biodiversity and source of pollination for insects, reducing surface water run-off from adjoining quarry land and reducing noise significance: from quarry operations through screening and sound buffering. Cultural – Providing enhanced community cohesion, providing an attractive setting through screening quarry operations, providing a green oasis promoting health and well-being.

109 Educational The Worm-Wildnis site is used extensively for educational workshops, training events and informal education. Children also have the opportunity to experience a Aspects: natural woodland at first hand when making use of the youth camp site. Activities include environmental related events. Particularly apple pressing days. There are

also plans to create a new fruit orchard for demonstration and community growing purposes (Städteregion Aachen 2011, Heimatverein Worm-Wildnis 1971 e.V.). Although some of the activities have an environmental aspect, many do not.

Table 26. Worm-Wildnis NSG – Strategic GI elements

4. History and development including initial catalyst for action:

The initiative was launched in 1971 to develop a former area of sand and gravel extraction as a site for nature conservation and to also provide a community resource for local people. The objectives of the group are diverse and represent a wide range of social and environmental objectives, these include (Städteregion Aachen 2011, Heimatverein Worm-Wildnis 1971 e.V.);

 Protecting the area for nature  Providing a focal point for local activities, festivals and social events  Environmental education and sustainability  Engagement of young people  Community “drop in” centre  Developing a local path network around the community  Informal outdoor recreation

Types of activities include, for example, internet training, fathers’ days, youth camping, apple and fruit festivals. The site is also seen as providing a focus for social events and activities which develop community cohesion. Environmental enhancements and outdoor activities are also integrated, though these are not the key focus of the group.

In recent years the “Unser Dorf Hat Zukunft” village development competition, which is promoted by the Städteregion Aachen, has helped to provide a further catalyst for action within the community (Städteregion Aachen 2011). The competition is judged on the delivery of a number of social, economic and environmental indicators being achieved by the local community. Worm-Wildnis has achieved good results in the area competition with the following results being achieved: 2017 – 4th place, 2014 – 3rd place, 2011 – 7th place, 2008 – 4th place (Heimatverein Worm-Wildnis 1971 e.V.). The competition also demands participation by all sections within the community including younger people.

5. Processes of engagement and partnership working

The group is a constituted e.V. and has over a hundred members, the majority of whom are actively engaged in activities. There is a high level of involvement from both young and old alike and the activity programme is designed to interest all sections of the community. In this respect the nature area provides a significant social hub with added social return on investment benefits. Partner organisations, represented by the statutory authorities, are also actively involved but more in terms of ensuring environmental compliance and ensuring that social aspects do not undermine the conservation value of the site.

The group works with several key local authority and government representatives which include departments form the Herzogenrath local authority (Stadt Herzogenrath 2020) and the Städteregion Aachen. This is to ensure that the site is managed in accordance with statutory obligations and that any conflicts can be identified early and resolved accordingly.

There is a degree of conflict over the group’s desire to see the area used as a hub for community activities and its status as a protected nature area. The conflict is managed through effective dialogue between the various stakeholder interests, particularly between the local group and the authorities. Where necessary the local group is also engaged in political lobbying behind the scenes to ensure that its interests are voiced effectively. In addition to this most of the practical site management work is undertaken by the local authority, however there are some occasions when volunteers are also able to help.

110

The Group also work closely with the quarrying company, the Nivelsteiner Sandwerke und Sandsteinbriche Gmbh (Nivelsteiner Sandwerke und Sandsteinbrüche GmbH 2020) who own the site and much of the surrounding land. Many of the quarry company employees live locally and there is a constructive working relationship allowing for good dialogue.

6. Resources and support mechanisms:

Work is funded through membership contributions, from community sources and through rental of the facilities including events space and BBQ area and also through private donations (Heimatverein Worm-Wildnis 1971 e.V.). The organisation also seeks active support for its work, on a project specific basis, through securing sponsorship from local businesses in the area. A recent example of this is the restoration of the historic glass making kilns which was supported by a local firm.

Further income is generated through events, workshops and functions and through member contributions and subscriptions. Most of the work involves education, events and activities and these are undertaken directly by the group in a voluntary capacity, thereby reducing administration costs where possible. Work on maintaining woodland and natural features is undertaken by the Herzogenrath District in discussion with the group and as such can therefore be regarded as being “help in kind”

7. Typology context

Co-governance:

According to the Green Surge Typology (Ambrose-Oji B, Buijs A et al. 2017) the project is an example of a grassroots initiative which was established by the local community. The group however have to manage the site co-operatively with a number of other stakeholders including the land owner, the quarry company, Stadt Herzogenrath and Städteregion Aachen because of the NSG status and the associated management burdens. Herzogenrath District have a significant influence and the group have to exercise a certain amount of diplomacy to maintain effective working relationships.

111

Fig 42. Worm-Wildnis – Cultural landscape and GI mapping (Heimatverein Worm-Wildnis 1971 e.V. 2020)

112

Chapter 5. Evaluation and Analysis of the Case Studies – Städteregion Aachen

The purpose of this chapter is to present a detailed evaluation of the 5 case studies which have been investigated in chapter 4. It is intended to compare the case studies using a structured comparison framework template which has been tailored and adapted specifically from a model developed by other researchers for community and urban forestry programmes. The outcomes of this will then be used to compile a SWOT analysis and for the consequent identification of positive and negative learning points emerging from each of the 5 case studies. Bar and radar charts will help to illustrate the outcomes of the projects as set against the objectives with stakeholder mapping presenting additional data on group structure and stakeholder participation.

In summary the sections of this chapter are as follows:

5.1. Adaptation and use of Comparison Framework for Qualitative Analysis

5.2. SWOT Analysis based upon Comparison Framework Outcomes

5.3. Identification of key positive and negative learning points based upon the SWOT Analysis

5.4. Bar and Radar charts illustrating outcomes against objectives

5.5. Stakeholder mapping charts illustrating group structure and stakeholders

5.6. Contribution to UN Sustainable Development Goals - SDGs

113

5.1 Adaptation and use of Comparison Framework for Qualitative Analysis

An effective tool was sought to allow the initial comparison of the case studies based upon a range of governance issues. For the purposes of the research it was decided to adapt a model for comparison of urban forestry case studies developed and presented in a paper (Lawrence, De Vreese et al. 2013). The authors of this methodology pointed to the absence of a shared language and the requirement for a common framework for documenting and comparing models and experiences with urban forest governance. To address this need they proposed a model based upon a “a systematic approach to researching urban forest governance, based upon a case study framework providing a way to describe examples clearly, and to compare them robustly” (Lawrence, De Vreese et al. 2013). The paper briefly reviewed definitions and debates around governance, before using a descriptive definition as the basis for developing the framework. It described five examples from across Europe, to illustrate the practical application of the framework.

Although GI, is a broad definition, encompassing diverse characteristics, it is likely to encounter a largely similar set of governance issues and topics as those pertaining to the more focused discipline of urban forestry. Furthermore, given the lack of a specific comparison framework for the wider function of GI governance, it was felt that the urban forestry model could be easily adapted, through minor changes, to provide an effective tool for analysis. This would have capacity to highlight differences in the approaches adopted, the issues encountered and the various discourses occurring. In particular, it was considered that use of the Framework would help to better understand the motivations and catalysts for action of the different citizens` groups within the Städteregion Aachen.

The Framework proposed (Lawrence, De Vreese et al. 2013) comprised of 2 main components: i) a narrative component, which described the background to each project, and ii) a tabular component, allowing for more direct comparison of individual aspects of governance. A suitable narrative framework, using a similar template for each for each of the 5 selected case study locations was developed and has been included within the previous chapter through the detailed case study descriptions already provided. Consequently this component will not be repeated in this chapter.

This section will therefore focus upon the tabular component of the Comparison Framework. In their paper the authors of the original Framework encouraged fellow researchers to take the Framework and “develop it, use it document further cases, and to refine both the framework and our ability to share experiences across political, social and geographical contexts.” (Lawrence, De Vreese et al. 2013).

To make it applicable to the more general task of comparing GI case studies, a number of new fields were added. These new fields were: GI description; initial catalyst for action; GI general benefits; GI deliverables and promotion and outreach. The adapted comparison framework allowed for analysis of the key motivations and thematic coverage of groups along with the identification of stakeholder involvement in co-managed initiatives. The tabular component, of the adapted comparison framework showing the 5 GI case studies within the Städteregion Aachen is shown below – see Table 27:

114

Comparison of the 5 selected GI Case Studies from Städteregion Aachen – Tabular Component: based upon Lawrence., A et.al.(2013)

Case Study Eicherscheid Rott Heimatverein, Soermondt Garden, A.G. Wurmtal e.V. Heimatverein Heckenlandschaft, Simmerath Roetgen Aachen Worm-Wildnis e.V. Type Project Project Project Project Project Description Community initiative to Community Initiative to restore Community project to create a Project to manage core areas of Initiative to provide social and protect, enhance and promote moorland, raised bog habitats and productive greenspace and habitat for nature conservation environmental opportunities for locally distinctive cultural local path networks to an optimal community growing area within a within a green corridor and significant local people within a small landscape comprising of condition and to promote locally socially diverse urban area. Natura 2000 site. A key aim is also to protected nature area (NSG) whilst hedgerows, small fields and distinctive heritage and landscape protect the area from perceived reconciling the different interests. shelterbelts within and around features. development threats. settlement. Scale Neighbourhood Neighbourhood Neighbourhood Neighbourhood Neighbourhood Context GI Cultural Heckenlandschaft, low Significant area of wet moorland Small but significant greenspace to Part of a significant green corridor to Incorporates a small protected intensity grazing and and raised bog protected by NSG the South of Aachen City Centre the North of Aachen which woodland area which is an NSG and connections to core riparian status. Part of the wider Biotope and part of the wider Soermondt incorporates surrounding landscape features. woodlands (NSG/ FFH) which Network with extensive path Park concept; a new NSG and FFH areas. Within the wider The site is part of the wider biotope providing diverse ecosystem networks including Eifelsteig neighbourhood park area. No direct Biotope Network and a significant network and incorporates path services. Part of the Biotope passing through the site – these link to Biotope network but local recreation area offering linear links to the neighbouring Network with well-developed provide connections between the provides a “stepping stone” within recreational routes. Provides diverse community. The habitat area also

115 recreational routes. Linear settlement and the core areas of the urban area offering significant riparian habitats including wet links directly to the adjoining habitat features provide key restored habitat. ecosystem services such as woodlands, mires and species Wurmtal and the group are connectivity elements between pollination, biodiversity and protected under EU legislation. involved in wider landscape the protected areas. cultural services including enhancements. community wellbeing. Catchment Rural settlement: Rural settlement: Urban neighbourhood: Within Peri-urban area: Small settlement/ peri-urban area: population Pop. 1,290 Pop. 1,680 Aachen City (total pop. 250,000) Located between settlements of Pop. 460 (within Merkstein area of (inhabitants) Würselen - pop. 37,693 and Herzogenrath) Kohlscheid – pop. 19,000 Institutional framework Policies Städteregion Aachen Städteregion Aachen Landscape City of Aachen Landscape Plan, Städteregion Aachen Landscape Plan Städteregion Aachen Landscape Landscape Plan V, Plan IV, Aachen Public Open Space Strategy I, Plan II. Rural Development and village Rural Development and village and Hierarchy, Aachen Green finger Natura 2000 Network, Rural Development and village renewal (Unser Dorf Hat renewal (Unser Dorf Hat Zukunft), Plan NRW Biotope Verbindung renewal (Unser Dorf Hat Zukunft), Zukunft), NRW Biotope Verbindung, NRW Biotope Verbindung NRW Biotope Verbindung, Naturpark Hohes Venn – Eifel Naturpark Hohes Venn – Eifel

Planning and German Federal Nature German Federal Nature Aachen City Development Plan. German Federal Nature Conservation German Federal Nature Conservation regulations Conservation Act 2002: S21 Conservation Act 2002: S21 Formal leasing agreement with Act 2002: S21 (biotope network) Act 2002: S21 (biotope network) (biotope network) (biotope network) Aachen City. S23(NSGs), S26 (LSG), S23(NSGs), S26 (LSG), S23(NSGs), S26 (LSG), S27 S23(NSGs), S26 (LSG), S27 (Nature (Nature Parks) Parks) Ownership Multiple private owners and NRW Forestry Service City of Aachen (leased to The group lease several areas of high The site is leased from an aggregates the local community community group) nature conservation interest from company. local landowners. Access and Open access on paths Open access on paths Open Access Open access on paths Open access on paths use rights Actors and coalitions Primary ortstiel Eicherscheid Rott Heimat und Eifelverein e.V., Urbane Gemeinschaftsgärten AG Wurmtal e.V. Heimatverein Wormwildnis e.V. stakeholders Städteregion Aachen, Biologische Station Aachen, NRW Aachen e. V, City of Aachen Städteregion Aachen, Stadt Herzogenrath, Gemeinde Simmerath Wald und Holz, Städteregion Stadt Würselen, Städteregion Aachen Aachen Stadt Herzogenrath, Other (ARGE) European Association Eifelverein 2 local primary schools, NRW Umwelt Ministry Unser Dorf Hat Zukunft stakeholders for rural development and Landesgemeinschaft Naturschutz One World Centre, Aachen, NUA - Local Primary schools Naturfreunde Merkstein e.V. village renewal, Eifelverein, und Umwelt (LNU – NRW) NRW BUND/NABU Nivelsteine Sand and Gravel LEADER, RWTH/FHS Aachen Company. Partnerships

116 Power Co-governance/green hub: Co-governance: Grassroots action: Grassroots action: Co-governance: analysis The project is a good example An example of effective co- The project is a good example of The project is an example of a The project is an example of a

of effective co-governance governance with local citizen’s grassroots action. The initiative was grassroots initiative. The group lease grassroots initiative which was between statutory authorities group working in close partnership taken by local people who a number of areas from local established by the local community. and local citizens groups. with statutory authorities and land persuaded the local authority not landowners. Although they see The group however have to manage Eichersheid could additionally managers. Responsibilities are to develop the site but instead to themselves as being largely the site co-operatively with a number be described as a small-scale shared between the various lease it to them as a community autonomous, they must work of other stakeholders including the example of a green hub which stakeholders, though the owner growing space. effectively in cooperation with other land owner (quarry company), Stadt illustrates innovate coalitions (NRW Wald und Hölz) effectively There is some uncertainty about partners due to the FFH/NSG status. Herzogenrath and Städteregion in action. There is a close possesses greatest power. The the long term future of the site; the The group are concerned that other Aachen because of the NSG status political relationship between parties hold regular formal Council are able to revoke the lease parties might promote inappropriate and associated management burdens. the key stakeholders and the meetings attended by the partners if they decide this is not in their developments in the vicinity or have Herzogenrath District have a local District of Simmerath at to agree priorities. best interests. There is also an hidden agendas. significant influence. both an administrative and element of co-governance as political level. regards synergy with the overall Soermondt Park project.

Initial catalyst „Unser Dorf hat Zukunft“ – Specialist interest in nature Desire to see an area of land used Habitat and species conservation. Provision of a focus for events and for Action village development conservation and habitat for community growing, Strong nature conservation, habitat social activities to develop competition. The group management (along with wider sustainable food production and as protection and anti- development community cohesion. Environmental wanted to enhance the community development interest) a focus for social inclusion. Inspired agenda. Consider management by enhancements and outdoor activities distinctive character of the through Heimat und Eifelverein. by wider community gardening and local enthusiasts and experts to be are also integrated though are not village, promote sustainable Also „Unser Dorf Hat Zukunft“ Transition movement including best mechanism for management and the key focus of the group. Also development and increase competition entrant. examples from Berlin and other to afford protection from perceived „Unser Dorf Hat Zukunft“ competition community pride. The Although much of the focus has large conurbations. NUA: The NRW development threats. entrant and award winner - highest competition was a major driver been on nature conservation there Natur und Umweltschutz Akademie category 3rd place in regional for the initiative. External is also a wider underlying interest has also helped to provide competition. facilitators from RWTH/FHS in sustainable community inspiration. were engaged to develop the development. initial programme, create a concept and bring partners together. The village has been a repeated competition winner at State, Federal and European level. Resources Funding The group involves a The group raises funding directly The work is funded through The group get funding from a variety Work is funded through membership partnership of 10-12 local clubs through annual sales of beech and donations of local people and of sources including: Direct assistance contributions, from community and associations who work fruit tree seedlings to a wide group members, free labour is from NRW Umwelt Ministry for site sources and through rental of the

117 together and who contribute number of outlets. They also works provided. Some projects have also management activities, facilities including events space and

time, voluntary labour and closely with the Biologische Station received small amounts of funding Donations from private companies, BBQ area and also through private energy to the project. Some Aachen to make targeted from NUA. An annual fund raising Selling of produce from management donations. seedcorn funding came from applications for EU funding (e.g. street festival is organised with operations including hay production, the Städteregion Aachen. LIFE) for habitat management such food and drink being produced for Undertaking promotional talks and Contributions have also come as bracken clearance, grazing sale. Fundraising is undertaken for visits for schools, kindergartens and from member groups, from management etc. NRW Wald und specific projects on a case by case special interest groups. Members of LEADER (Eifel) and from the Hölz undertake tree felling and basis. Significantly, an aim is to the group manage the acquisition and District of Simmerath. management operations. The reduce required expenditure spending of the funding. group organises regular fundraising through promoting a circular social events. economy and the reuse of materials, thus keeping costs down. Knowledge The group have expert The group have expert technical The group have good knowledge of The association have acquired a The group have good knowledge on knowledge in rural knowledge of nature conservation, organic food production, detailed knowledge of nature using a green area for recreational development, sustainability ecology and natural resources sustainability issues, urban conservation and habitat events, community activities and and green tourism. They have management. Production of biodiversity and urban greening. management issues in relation to the social programmes. They have an extensive local networks and technical papers, site monitoring They have also developed good FFH areas and protected areas. They understanding of how to integrate connections at a political level. and biological recording all take knowledge of education, outreach are frequently consulted by external these uses with nature conservation Within Europe they are place in partnership with the and integration projects which groups on the basis of detailed requirements. considered to be within the top Biologische Station Aachen and the involve the wider community. knowledge. league for European rural Städteregion Aachen. community development initiatives.

Delivery Coordination role. The group is Work on the site is undertaken All work is undertaken directly by Work days are organised directly by Most of the work involves education, mechanisms a loose umbrella affiliation and directly by volunteers from the members of the group on the site. the group to optimise the events and activities and these are relies upon individual member Heimat und Eifelverein working in The group also do some outreach management of sites for nature. undertaken directly by the group or associations to carry out partnership with the Biologische with local primary schools and Some of the work such as meadow through freelance trainers. Work on aspects of the work such as Station. NRW Wald und Hölz organise some projects with management is outsourced when maintaining woodland and natural information gathering, project directly manages tree felling works refugee families. machinery is required. A role of the features is undertaken by the implementation and planning. and the maintenance of group is also to lobby the authorities Herzogenrath District in discussion Help is also available from the boardwalks and other land to pursue its anti-development with the group District of Simmerath and management operations. agenda. Städteregion Aachen. GI General The work undertaken is of high Long term management of The site is not a part of the larger The project involves the conservation The project promotes the Benefits significance for GI, through the “Struffelt” which is a 118ha NSG habitat /biotope network and so its and management of key habitats management of an NSG area for management of linear habitat characterised by regenerating wet ecological connectivity function is within the Wurmtal NSG, a linear nature conservation whilst features, low intensity heathland. The plan includes the somewhat limited. However it does nature corridor along the valley of the integrating wider social and meadows and traditional removal of non-native conifers and form an import green asset in an Wurm. The NSG is located within community benefits – In this respect orchards which provide invasive plants, the rewetting of area where it is recognised that Würselen and Herzogenrath Districts the focus of the initiative is more linkages and stepping stones the moor through blocking of there is a deficiency of greenspace. covering an area of 445ha. There is a upon the social benefits than between significant areas of drains and the re-establishment of Additionally it provides a “stepping smaller protected area to the North delivering GI, however the two riparian woodland which are a semi natural flora of moorland, stone” function within the wider of Herzogenrath covering 19ha which functions are considered to be designated as Natura 2000 bog and wet heathland species. habitat network and connections the group is also involved in compatible. The group is also habitats. This helps the This will ensure that the area along some localised “green managing. Parts of the Wurmtal NSG concerned with development of path movement and dispersal of provides important ecosystem streets”. The greatest GI benefits have FFH status under Natura 2000. networks within the surrounding

118 species. In addition to this the services such as soil and water are in terms of cultural ecosystem community and projects which

development of path networks regulation, biodiversity, carbon services. develop local landscape character. helps to encourage local storage and recreation. people and visitors to access the area on foot. GI Creation of the Flurheckenweg Restoration and expansion of Creation of a number of planting The group is responsible for the Management of the nature area in Deliverables and the Village Circular to degraded core areas and habitats areas based upon permaculture management of 9 areas which it partnership with the local authority. promote the historical and (NSG), particularly rare wet and organic growing principles. leases on a long term basis; these Development of a proposed path cultural landscape to visitors. heathland and bog habitats - These provide a diversity of plant include wetlands, pastures, network to connect the community Promotion of green projects Restoration of approximately 50% species suitable for attracting meadows, dry grasslands – these and new housing areas with the NSG for children including fruit tree of the 118ha Struffelt nature pollinating insects into the urban total 13.1 ha. The largest area of 5.2 site. planting and a “green reserve with wet heathland area as well as providing fruit and ha, in the Wurmtalaue below Proposed development of a classroom” vegetation and removal of non- berries for birds and improving soil Bardenberg-Pley was previously community orchard site and planting Alternative energy projects native conifers. structure and fauna. intensively cultivated but since 1994 of traditional fruit tree varieties. including promotion of Improving and expanding habitats In addition to enhancing urban has been converted by the group into Provision of outdoor educational woodfuel (60% of residents outside core areas thus providing biodiversity the site also provides a an extensively managed meadow programmes including youth camping using woodfuel), solar power stepping stones, linear habitat significant resource for area. activities. and electric vehicles. features and increasing environmental education, The group also undertakes amphibian Celebration of festivals, events “permeability” for movement and wellbeing and physical activity for rescue projects and installs fencing and local culture migration of species. Examples local people based upon during migration periods. Since 1982, Many awards at NRW, Federal including tree, hedge planting and participation in gardening activities. the group has also installed 300 bird and European level for orchard management. nesting boxes. sustainable village Development of access development. infrastructure to improve

accessibility for local people and visitors without adversely affecting conservation priorities -the creation of a village circular route around the community of Rott - The creation of a walkers refuge hut and interpretation Processes Discourses How can the unique Negotiations with the NRW The site is under a lease from the The group has a strong nature There is a degree of conflict over the “Heckenlandschaft” provide an Forestry Department can often be Aachen City Council, however it protection agenda and sees it role as groups desire to see the area used as asset to the community which slow and involved with appears that political support for protecting the area from undesirable a hub for community activities and its delivers multiple social/ conservation objectives sometimes the project is not universal. There is development – which includes status as a protected nature area. The cultural, economic and coming into conflict with ongoing discussion about the recreational and active travel conflict is managed through effective environmental benefits for all? commercial forestry production – appropriateness of the project networks such as the proposed cycle dialogue between the various Can the community as a whole in particular the timing of within an urban area - it is “autobahn”. There is concern also stakeholder interests – particularly work together to deliver added operations can be a matter of considered by some elected about encroachment on the between the local group and the value? Can the community considerable discussion. members and residents to be protected area from the activities of authorities. Where necessary the receive acknowledgement for Management operations such as untidy, scruffy and “too businesses, housing development and local group is also engaged in political these actions (through for grazing by sheep are also alternative”. Some believe it should commercial activity. There appears to lobbying behind the scenes to ensure example “Unser Dorf” problematic due to constraints be managed as a more formal park be a degree of conflict with the local that its interests are voiced competition? There has been a which include the deer culling area. Because of these concerns authority and a concern that the effectively. In addition to this most of suggestion from the season. The group also strives to the community group are worried motivations of officials and elected the practical site management work is

119 Städteregion that the maintain a balance between about the future of the area and members may be primarily directed undertaken by the local authority –

Heckenlandschaft area is conservation and the promotion of whether the lease will be renewed towards economic interests at the however there are some occasions designated as an NSG public access. Some previous path in the longer term. The group also expense of nature. Increasing number when volunteers are also able to (Naturschutzgebiet). However routes have been closed and a feel that local authority could be of recreational activities is also help. the local community feel that board walk has been constructed more supportive of the project and considered to be a threat. the current LSG designation is instead to direct visitors through they feel that the Council are not sufficient and that this affords the reserve whilst minimising geared up to support engage with adequate protection at the impact. The Struffelt is also part of community based initiatives. current time. a drinking water catchment and this creates additional constraints. Participation The group encourages The group is a member of the There are between 20 and 40 There are 70 members, 15 of whom The group is a constituted e.V. and participation for its 10 -12 regional Eifelverein and thus linked members who are active on an are regularly active. The group is very has over a hundred members, the member associations and to the Landesgemeinschaft intermittent basis. The committee mixed in terms of the social majority of whom are actively Consensus was initially sought Naturschutz und Umwelt (LNU) comprises of 8 people. background and age representation. engaged in activities. There is a high through the use of external which is one of the three officially Wider participation is also The composition has changed little level of involvement from both young facilitators from RWTH recognized nature conservative encouraged through the since the founding of the group. and old alike and the activity Institute for Urban Planning organizations in NRW. involvement of 2 local primary The group also involves schools and programme is designed to interest all and from FHS Aachen. The Because of the ownership of the schools as well as special events for kindergartens in its work through sections of the community. In this facilitators acted as Struffelt NSG – nature reserve - refugees. An open street fair is held visits and organised tours. In terms of respect the nature area provides a moderators to focus the (which is owned and partly annually. In addition members of involvement with the statutory significant social hub with added discussion and produce managed by NRW Wald und Holz) the public and users of the authorities, the group cooperates social return upon investment. tangible outputs. there is a need to work closely in adjoining Soermondt Park are with Städteregion Aachen, Stadt Partner organisations (represented by partnership. Other key partners encouraged to get involved and the statutory authorities) are also

The process of participation include the Roetgen District there is information and Würselen, Stadt Herzogenrath and actively involved but more in terms of continues through 3 group Authority and the Städteregion promotional material about the with the NRW Umwelt Ministerium. ensuring environmental compliance meetings per year which Aachen. In addition the Biologische site. The group also liaises with BUND and and ensuring that social aspects do involve the various member Station of the Städteregion Aachen The group work closely with the NABU and attends the Maas Rhine not undermine the conservation associations. has been closely involved in the City of Aachen who own the site – Forum. value of the site. coordination of management works however the role of the authority is and monitoring on the site as well primarily concerned with as managing EU funding overseeing the terms of the lease. applications for restoration of cultural and semi-natural landscapes. Monitoring Three feedback and planning Review meetings between the Planning meetings are held weekly There are monthly indoor planning Regular planning meetings are and meetings to partners per year. partners are held 2 times per year in summer and twice monthly in meetings held to discuss projects and organised. Events are planned and evaluation and the management plan is winter. processes. There is also an AGM held reviewed on an annual basis and updated accordingly. each year. through the AGM.

Promotion The activities of the group are The activities of the group are The activities of the group are The activities of the group are The activities of the group are and outreach promoted on; promoted on; http://www.hev- promoted on: https://essbares- promoted on; promoted on; http://www.eicherscheid.de- rott.de/ aachen.wordpress.com/-aktuelles/ http://www.ag-wurmtal.de/ http://www.worm-wildnis.eu/ /dorfleben/unser-dorf-hat- And on Facebook page: zukunft/ https://www.facebook.com/- The group makes extensive use EssbaresAachen

120 of its network of member

organisations for promotional purposes.

Table 27. The Comparison Framework Process adapted from Lawrence, A et.al.(2013)

5.2 SWOT Analysis based upon Comparison Framework Outcomes

Following use of the Framework for qualitative analysis, a standard SWOT analysis (University of Kansas, 2018) was undertaken using case study examples to evaluate the key strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats existing for each project. SWOT analysis was seen as the most appropriate tool for this purpose, as the aim was to primarily draw out practical and functional learning points for governance and mentoring rather than the development of theoretical constructs and models.

The results were as follows:

5.2.1 Eicherscheid Heckenlandschaft:

Strengths Characteristics Integrated approach involving a broad cross section of community stakeholders. Delivers cross-cutting social, economic and environmental benefits for the wider community. Draws upon existing local knowledge networks and expertise in the community without trying to duplicate or recreate this. Promotes a high degree of participation and stakeholder buy in. Encourages intergenerational knowledge transfer to ensure ongoing stewardship. Well promoted and documented through press coverage, interpretation and archive material. Awareness of the “Heckenlandschaft” has been significantly raised a result. Clear tangible outputs particularly with regard to access infrastructure, interpretation and environmental stewardship. The activities of the community have received a high degree of recognition through the “European Village Renewal Award” and through “Unser Dorf hat Zukunft” at state and at national level. Has been able to draw down funding from a variety of sources. Weaknesses Characteristics The steering group have no direct control over landowners to protect and manage the structural elements of the “Heckenlandschaft” as this is the responsibility of each owner – (although much of the area is under LSG designation and is listed in the Biotope Cadastre /Network). There is suspicion of the red tape associated with nature protection and how this might impact negatively on land management operations through creating additional burdens. Nature protection might be stronger through acquiring NSG status, however this is not considered to be the correct approach The leadership of the project are generally comprised of older people which might create issues regarding future, longer term sustainability. There are some localised land management issues which result degradation of the habitat features – such as damage to hedges through equestrian use of grazing areas. Opportunities Characteristics There are opportunities to extend the initiative to neighbouring communities which also share the same characteristic landscape and cultural heritage. Potential to develop community enterprises based around the “Heckenlandschaft” particularly with regards to the marketing and promotion of biomass energy and woodfuel. There is scope to carry out more proactive land management actions and interventions with individual landowners to ensure that the longer term landscape character is preserved. There is scope for developing the educational aspects of the project – the concept of the green classroom could be expanded and developed to increase its usage by schools, kitas and the general public. Local businesses and restaurants could develop the concept of local branding further with recognised “Heckenlandschaft” products, marketing, promotions and special offers. The links to the surrounding GI assets such as the Eifelsteig, the Eifel National Park and the Hohes Venn could be better promoted to make Eicherscheid more of a destination in its own right. Threats Characteristics Obtaining ongoing revenue funding to maintain existing assets and infrastructure could prove difficult in future due to decreasing public expenditure. Changes such as increasing amounts of bureaucracy might deter volunteering and participation. Funding regimes might limit the scope of future initiatives relating to the project. The aging nature of the group might mean that there are problems with its future viability. – younger people or incomers to the community might not share the energy or enthusiasm of the key players presently involved. There is potential for conflict and reduced co-operation between stakeholders.

Table 28. SWOT Analysis - Eicherscheid Heckenlandschaft, Simmerath

121

5.2.2 Rott, Heimatverein

Strengths Characteristics Track record of delivery: considerable progress achieved in terms of practical enhancements to the Struffelt NSG area and adjoining habitats. Enhancement of village path networks including village circular route and restoration of local cultural features. Innovative fund raising initiatives through tree seedling and fruit tree auction which additionally benefits wider biodiversity in the region. Effective partnerships and negotiations with statutory agencies including Städteregion Aachen, Aachen Biologische Station and NRW Wald und Holz ensure effective management of the Struffelt and a balance between the interests of the various partners. Leverage of financial resources through effective partnerships with the Aachen Biologische Station adds considerable value. Diverse interests of the group help to mobilise sections of the community with no direct interest in GI related issues. These include the organisation of cultural events such as concerts, reminiscence evenings and excursions. A firm understanding of habitat management issues and contributions to literature and best practice advice. Weaknesses Characteristics The Focus is orientated mainly towards nature conservation and recreational interests but not so much toward wider sustainable development aspirations such as energy production and conservation. The leadership of the group is somewhat elderly. The group is therefore vulnerable to losing core skills or knowledge. Mechanisms should be found for involving younger people in the administration and organisation of the group. The group is highly dependent upon maintaining a working relationship with the main landowner, NRW Wald und Hölz. At times this relationship is difficult creating a degree of vulnerability. The project has not fully realised the potential economic benefits of GI to Rott in terms of how it might benefit local businesses. The Eifelsteig, for example, skirts the village but does not provide direct economic benefit to the community; visitors should be encouraged to make use of local shops and restaurants. There appear to be some unresolved conflicts between access and nature conservation which could perhaps be better managed. Some of the adjoining land which is currently held in private ownership could be better managed for wider ecological and recreational benefit rather than for the optimisation of commercial forestry e.g. along the riparian corridor of the Vichtbachtal. The onerous nature of the bureaucracy around NSGs does not allow maximisation of community contributions because of the required legal responsibility of key actors. Opportunities Characteristics There are opportunities to draw in more visitors to use local businesses particularly the local shop and restaurant. There are opportunities to promote sustainable development practices such as through use of woodfuel and also the C02 sequestration benefits of enhancing wetland and moor areas. The health and wellbeing benefits of the paths network could be promoted and developed to encourage visitors with and interest in healthy living. The links between the community and the Eifelsteig should be better promoted. There could be more information about the activities of the group available within the village. The activities of the group could be more widely showcased as a best practice example. Threats Characteristics There is a risk of the relationship with the main landowner deteriorating which could jeopardise the future of the project. Obtaining ongoing revenue funding to maintain existing assets and infrastructure could prove difficult in future due to decreasing public expenditure. Changes to Increasing amounts of bureaucracy might deter volunteering and participation. Funding regimes might limit the scope of future initiatives relating to the project. The aging nature of the group might mean that there are problems with its future viability. There is potential for conflict and reduced co-operation between stakeholders.

Table 29. SWOT Analysis – Rott, Roetgen

122

5.2.3 Soermondt Park, Aachen

A standard SWOT analysis was undertaken with the following observations:

Strengths Characteristics Strong citizen led approach arising from a traditions of community activism. High levels of direct action and implementation of projects by local people, encouraging a strong culture of self- sufficiency. Improvements to biodiversity and local GI through community growing and planting of wildlife friendly species which provide clear ecosystem service benefits e.g. pollination, provisioning etc. Involvement of wider stakeholder groups including schools, refugees and socially disadvantaged groups. Promotes a strong “circular economy” model. Most materials used on the site come from recycled and re-usable sources with minimal consumption of new materials. On site and web-based information provides awareness raising for the wider community. The site has an open access policy and is accessible to all. The action has provided an increased provision of greenspace in a highly urbanised area with a current deficit. The action compliments the City of Aachen’s management of the adjoining Soermondt Park and provides a contrast to a more formal neighbourhood greenspace. The project is innovative and promotes multi-culturalism and sustainability through creative expressions including murals, artworks and informal seating. Anti-social behaviour in the area has decreased following the inauguration of the community gardening project and the adjoining greenspace as numbers using the area have increased. Weaknesses Characteristics The site is under lease from the City of Aachen and the group do not feel that they currently have long term security of tenure – this may affect long term investment in the site. The relationship with the City could function better. Whilst the group work with the Council to ensure that the terms of the lease are met, they feel that the Council could create structures to create a more enabling and responsive approach. There is some negatively to the project from some local residents and elected members of the City Council. There is a view that the area looks “scruffy” and would be managed more appropriately as a formal park. Some consider the project to be too radical or alternative. There has been some small-scale vandalism and antisocial use of the site late at night which has attracted negative feedback from residents. Planning of the site is somewhat “organic” in nature. Although there is an overall structure and concept, the model tends to evolve over time. The group could be perceived as representing a particular niche or clique within society – the composition of the group is generally middle class and educated people; although attempts are being made to diversify the membership. Opportunities Characteristics There is scope to extend the approach being taken here to other city neighbourhoods and to involve new sections of the community in the activities of the group. Training and employability skills could be offered by the project as a means of diversifying project activities and potential funding sources. The provision of healthy, locally grown food could be developed through marketing and branding initiatives to better promote the initiative as a whole. The project could be used more by the City of Aachen as a shop window for local sustainability initiatives and to showcase good environmental practice - including use of the circular economy, healthy eating, social inclusion etc. The project could be used increasingly as a focus for innovative community events including local festivals, arts events and social activities such as street festivals to build community capacity and social inclusion. Threats Characteristics There is a threat of the lease being revoked in the future, thus threatening the continuity of the project. The land could be used to fulfil other functions. Perceptions resulting from misinformation, anti-social behaviour and differing cultural perspectives might result in the project being widely viewed negatively. The current membership might contract due to declining levels of enthusiasm and interest. Without new membership the group could stagnate. Vandalism, littering and graffiti might lead to a physical decline in the quality of the area.

Table 30. SWOT Analysis – Soermondt Community Garden Aachen

123

5.2.4 Wurmtal NSG

Strengths Characteristics The group has a robust understanding of nature conservation and land management issues based upon many years’ experience which they have been able to implement through targeted action. The group are very active and show a high degree of commitment; both through direct practical interventions and through working through a co-ordination role with the relevant stakeholders from NGOs and the public authorities. There has been a degree of financial leverage from public authorities including the NRW Environment Ministry and LIFE funds from the EU. The group also undertake their own fundraising through organising activities, visits etc. The group have worked with schools, kindergartens and specialist bodies to organise and undertake educational events, site visits and tours. The group have lobbied effectively for the area to be afforded adequate protection through their network of contacts. This includes working at a political level. The GI network has been afforded additional protection as the land is owned or leased directly by the Association. Weaknesses Characteristics Whilst nature protection is strongly emphasised, other GI functions are viewed somewhat negatively by the group or to be in conflict with their aspirations. These topics include, for example: increasing recreational use of the Wurmtal, activities of income generating businesses (such as catering outlets) and strategic plans for cycling routes along the valley. Because of the perceived high level of landuse conflicts in the area, the group have arguably adopted a “siege mentality” and consider their interests to be threatened from development interests and recreational pressure. It is not clear to the public what resources and assets are owned or managed by the group for reasons of data protection. From this perspective, the group could arguably be perceived as somewhat elitist. The potential educational and interpretive benefits of the site have not been maximised. Information on nature conservation areas is kept low key to limit unwanted or malicious attention. The approach taken does not really appear to represent an integrated overview of the whole valley which considers conservation, landscape, access, recreation and socio-economic issues as linked themes. Opportunities Characteristics To work with the wider stakeholders to produce an integrated approach to the management of the valley which considers conservation, landscape, access, recreation and socio-economic issues. This would potentially reduce individual conflicts, create more efficient structures and reduce the need for ongoing “firefighting”. To provide better information, interpretation and educational materials for visitors. This should help to promote the ethos of conservation and integrated land management. I should aim to encourage increased environmental awareness and a culture of stewardship. To develop an environmental education centre within the Wurmtal which would capitalise on and promote the area’s natural heritage. This could potentially host specialist interpretation staff or rangers and be particularly targeted to younger audiences. To work more closely with developers, architects and businesses to ensure that the impact of developments on surrounding land are reduced through appropriate best practice, quality design and open communication channels. To provide conservation training and activities such as employability initiatives. These could specifically target socially disadvantaged groups such as the long term unemployed or those with physical or mental health problems. This could potentially open new income streams linked to health, employment training or to social wellbeing. To increase the network of volunteers involved within the group through a recruitment drive and through greater promotion of events taking place. To work more closely with partner organisations in Holland and adjoining communities to help foster cooperation and partnership development across administrative boundaries. Threat Characteristics The group membership could decline in future as the age profile increases. There is a risk that the group’s capacity to undertake practical action might be reduced through involvement in conflicts, legal challenges and increasing bureaucracy. Funding sources available to the group from statutory agencies might decline or might potentially be administered via other routes. The single issue focus of the group might deter potential new members or might alienate potential allies or funders. The issue of development of the area is a real threat which could undermine the integrity of the nature conservation efforts. In addition anti-social activities such as vandalism, litter, fires or motorcycle scrambling could have negative impacts. The low key approach of the group to managing its sites could potentially backfire meaning that the public lacks knowledge of the key issues.

Table 31. SWOT Analysis – Wurmtal NSG

124

5.2.5 Worm-Wildnis:

Strengths Characteristics The project has created a social node for the community through providing an outdoor and indoor space for events and activities. There are considerable intangible SROI benefits including the development of community capacity. Activities clearly illustrate how social and community activities might be integrated within a protected area and woodland setting without significant detrimental effects (these separate functions could be better integrated). Otherwise redundant buildings and facilities have been given new uses thus ensuring their preservation and contribution to community life. The project involves a wide cross-section of community interests including both young people and the elderly with activities which are specifically tailored for all age groups. The healthy demographic has supported this process. The project has also highlighted the importance of local cultural heritage and has helped to reinforce its preservation through practical conservation and interpretation projects. The community group have also worked closely with the private sector to achieve their aims. There is considerable goodwill between the quarry company who own the site and the local community. The group have been successful at levering a degree of private sector sponsorship for their activities through their extensive network of contacts. The group have gained considerable experience of political lobbying to achieve their ends and to reduce potential difficulties in dealing with the statutory authorities. The project benefits considerably from its association with the “Unser Dorf hat Zukunft” initiative. Participation in this competition has raised profile of the work and ensured that economic, social and environmental aspects are included within the outcomes of the project. Weaknesses Characteristics The local authority undertake most aspects of woodland and site infrastructure management. There would otherwise be greater potential for the community to become involved in these aspects which would add value to the project through engendering a culture of environmental stewardship. The site is leased from the sand and gravel company - It is understood that this lease is not entirely secure in the longer term which might affect longer term investment in the site. The relationship with the Company is good. Environmental aspects of the site could be better promoted. There is currently no information or interpretation regarding biodiversity aspects to the site. There is also scope for more positive practical interventions such as the erection of nest boxes or other habitat features. Involvement from the local authorities has tended to be on a piecemeal approach with separate departments regarding the initiative in terms of their own specialisms rather than as a single integrated entity. The Unser Dorf hat Zukunft initiative provides a counterbalance to this. The site itself could be perceived as somewhat tucked away in terms of wider public access and perceptions. It appears that most of the public access is at present enjoyed by the local community or visiting groups. More could be made to promote the existence of the facility. In addition there is little signage on the woodland paths. These could be better promoted as a strategic resource. Opportunities Characteristics There is the potential to provide better off-road path linkages between the site, the village itself and the strategic access routes along the Wurmtal. This could be done relatively easily through small scale upgrading of existing paths and the installation of new signage. The access track leading into the quarry site would have to be considered. The wildlife and biodiversity benefits of the site could be better promoted through interpretation panels, lookout points and the installation of though provoking environmental artworks. This would require a flexible approach on the part of the statutory authorities when dealing with the NSG designation to recognise the positive benefits. The site could be used for more woodland themed events which would tie in nicely with the youth camping and activity programmes. Related events could include, for example, bushcraft and survival skills, species identification and insect safaris. The secluded “natural amphitheatre” feel of the site could lend itself well to outdoor performance events, such as theatre or poetry readings. It is already a place where local festivals are celebrated with an attractive backdrop. Part of the adjoining quarry site is now used for sustainable energy production through installation of solar panels. There could be scope to link this activity with the actions of the group to promote wider concepts of sustainable development in the area and to illustrate the processes of landscape evolution. Threats Characteristics It is possible in the future that the quarry company could rescind the lease on the site. This however does not appear to be an imminent threat. The relationship between the local community and the statutory authorities could deteriorate due to conflicts over use of the site. This might jeopardise the current function of the site. Because of the secluded nature of the site and its location close to peri-urban areas, there is an ever present risk of vandalism or theft occurring. The adjoining Wurmtal corridor route shows some evidence of the occurrence of antisocial behaviour. This creates some challenges for the promotion of the site and how to maximise the benefits. As with many such projects, the demographics of the organisers are skewed towards more elderly participants. This might create problems in the longer term for sustainability. It is fair to say however that many of the activities have also focused on the involvement of younger people. The site is of extremely varied topography which could potentially create safety issues. Direct access from the woodland area into the quarry area is also possible and should be better managed with appropriate use of security fencing. This access is currently demarcated with “Danger” signs, however, it would be better for the long term to have improved safe access. Table 32: SWOT Analysis - Worm-Wildnis NSG

125

Indicative comparison of strengths and weaknesses according to predefined classes:

In addition to the detailed descriptive SWOT analysis for each site, for the purposes of comparison, a rapid scoring assessment has been used to gain a broad overview of the characteristic strengths and weaknesses exhibited by each project according to predefined attributes. In terms of strengths, a higher score can be considered as positive – Fig 43, whilst with weaknesses, lower scores are preferable – Fig 44.

Key Strengths

Eicherscheid Rott Soermondt Wurmtal Worm Wildnis

Integrative Approaches Particpation Levels Recognition / awards Financial leverage GI Impacts on the ground Social inclusion / SROI Promotion / marketing Environmental education value Long term sustainability Partnership support

Key Strengths Eicherscheid Rott Soermondt Wurmtal Worm- Wildnis Integrative Approaches high high high med med Participation Levels high med med med high Recognition / awards high med med med med Financial leverage high med med med med GI Impacts on the ground high high med med med Social inclusion / SROI med med high low high Promotion / marketing high med med low med Environmental education high high high med med value Long term sustainability high high med med high Partnership support high med med med med

Fig 43. Indicative comparison of strengths according to predefined classes

126

Key Weaknesses

Eicherscheid Rott Soermondt Wurmtal Worm Wildnis

Age / gender inequalities Unrepesentativeness Narrow focus Low GI impact /benefits Poor partnership working / conflicts Lack of promotion Short termism Low levels of participation

Key weaknesses Eicherscheid Rott Soermondt Wurmtal Worm- Wildnis Age / gender inequalities med med low med med Unrepresentativeness low med med high low Narrow focus low med med high med Low GI impact /benefits med med med med med Poor partnership working / low low med high med conflicts Lack of promotion med med med high med Short termism low low med low low Low levels of participation med med med med med

Fig. 44. Indicative comparison of weaknesses according to predefined classes

5.3 Identification of key positive and negative learning points based upon the SWOT Analysis

Key positive and negative learning points were compiled for each case study based on the results of the SWOT analysis process. These were then used to inform subsequent discussion.

127

5.3.1 Eicherscheid Heckenlandschaft

Key positive Description learning point The involvement of a diverse range of local stakeholders and interest groups for defined common objectives gives the project a robust base. The project capitalises successfully on existing organisational structures and local networks within the community, rather than duplicating or developing new ones. It is closely integrated with local political leadership and administration systems, thereby easing potential conflicts and barriers. Outcomes deliver multiple social, economic and environmental benefits making it effective and efficient as a community development mechanism. The initiative clearly illustrates the role of external, independent facilitators and mentors in bringing together key interest groups and for identifying and defining objectives. The initiative highlights the importance of recognition amongst peers and accreditation/awards as primary motivations and catalysts for action by local community groups It helps to develop and reinforce local distinctiveness thus strengthening the role of GI as a mechanism for delivering multifunctional objectives. There are perceived economic benefits to local business including shops, cafes and restaurants arising from the promotion of GI assets and the marketing of the area as a green tourism destination. It generates financial leverage and in-kind contributions through receiving funding from multiple sources. Key negative Description learning point There is no direct control over the role of local landowners in protecting and managing the structural elements of the “Heckenlandschaft” upon which the project is based. This is dependent upon the goodwill of owners. There is suspicion of the red tape associated with state nature protection designations and how this might impact negatively on land management operations through creating additional burdens for owners. As a result the potential for maximising nature conservation interests has not been fully realised by the project. The leadership of the project is generally comprised of older people. This might create issues regarding future, long term sustainability when the current leadership become less active. Some localised land management issues such as the grazing of horses have resulted in degradation of key habitat features. This is not controlled as a result of the project. The potential for maximising some aspects of the project has not been fully realised as yet, particularly in terms of the ability for the resource to produce sustainable biomass energy or for some of the infrastructure created to be fully utilised. Table 33. Key Learning Points – Eicherscheid Heckenlandschaft 5.3.2 Rott, Heimatverein

Key positive Description learning point The project shows significance and use of specialist local know-how within the community, particularly with regard to management of natural habitats and ecosystems including moorlands, upland bogs and woodlands. There is effective co-management of the project between the community, statutory agencies and NGOs to deliver effective GI management on the ground whilst respecting the interests of the various stakeholders. The role of mentoring agencies in adding value to the project through adoption of an enabling approach is a positive one. This particularly includes the role of the Aachen Biologische Station who act as an intermediary between the community and statutory agencies. Innovative fund raising mechanisms are in place for the project which include the auctioning of fruit tree species and native beech seedlings. These arrangements also help to promote ecosystem services and local biodiversity in the wider surrounding area. The project has done much to engage local citizens in a very practical way through providing opportunities for volunteering on the ground where possible. This has also helped to provide educational opportunities on conservation and habitat management. Key negative Description learning point The group is highly dependent upon maintaining a working relationship with the main landowner, the state forestry agency. At times this relationship is difficult due to commercial pressures and the prescriptive nature of planned forestry operations. This creates vulnerability in terms of the project and the need for compromise solutions. The project has not fully realised the potential economic benefits of GI to the local area. Visitors should be encouraged to make better use of local shops and restaurants in the village, thus promoting links between GI on the ground and a sustainable local economy. The routing of the Eifelsteig particularly seems a missed opportunity. The leadership of the group is somewhat elderly. The group is therefore vulnerable to losing core skills or knowledge should key members be lost. Attempts to involve younger people in the work should be increased. The Focus is orientated mainly towards nature conservation and recreational interests but not so much toward wider sustainable development aspirations. An approach considering ecosystem services would be beneficial.

Table 34. Key Learning Points – Rott Roetgen

128

5.3.3 Soermondt Park, Aachen

Key positive Description learning point The project creates an integrated approach to sustainable development including local sustainable production and the circular economy in action. There is strong integration of innovation and use of new urban gardening models within a traditional urban GI setting of formal parks, play areas and street trees. The project Involves diverse and marginalised sections of the community including refugees and young people. Specifically, there is a link up with two local primary schools. The initiative represents a bottom up, self-help approach to GI implementation which has persisted despite a widespread lack of local government support. Key negative Description learning point The relationship with the City could function better. The group feel that the City Council lack structures which create an enabling and responsive approach to be effectively realised. The site is under lease from the City of Aachen. The group do not feel that they currently have long term security of tenure – this may affect long term investment in the site. There is some negatively towards the project from some local residents and more traditionally minded elected members of the local authority. These include a view that the area looks “scruffy” and should be better managed as a formal park. The group could be perceived as representing a particular niche or clique within society i.e. generally middle class, educated people within a higher income bracket. However there is a strong motivation to diversify the project and to involve wider sections of the community. Some aspects of the project have not proved successful due to practicalities and legislation. This includes proposals to develop a food bank which has now been removed from the site. There have also been minor issues associated with vandalism and damage to the site, though in reality this is relatively low key.

Table 35. Key Learning Points – Soermondt Park, Aachen

5.3.4 Wurmtal NSG

Key positive Description learning point Shows significance and use of specialist local know-how within the community, particularly with regards to biodiversity management and nature conservation aspects of GI delivery. The project highlights the benefit of citizen power for protecting GI resources under threat through lobbying, land acquisition and leasing and through direct interventions undertaken on the ground. It illustrates how management of core sites within strategic GI/habitat networks can be undertaken through the efforts of enthusiastic and dedicated local experts. Provides a specialist education resource within the community through outreach to schools and community groups. Provides a forum for experts with an interest in the area to come together to share their specialist skills and knowledge. Key negative Description learning point Because of the perceived high level of landuse conflicts in the area, the group have arguably adopted a “siege mentality” which appears to be anti-development in principle. This includes a negative view of GI aspects relating to increasing access provision including new cycleways. Whilst nature protection is strongly emphasised, other GI functions (e.g. recreation, active travel and economic aspects) are viewed to be in conflict with core aspirations. It is not clear what resources and assets are owned or managed by the group for reasons of data protection. The group considers such information to be of a sensitive nature and therefore risks being perceived as elitist. The potential educational and interpretive benefits have not been maximised. Information is kept low key to limit unwanted attention. Given much of the outdated access infrastructure in the surrounding area of the Wurmtal, it is clear that the management approach adopted is a fragmented one which does not deliver maximum potential benefits through effective partnership working. An overall management plan involving the different stakeholders is lacking.

Table 36. Key Learning Points – Wurmtal NSG

129

5.3.5 Worm-Wildnis

Key positive Description learning point The project benefits from integrating social and recreational needs with landscape and nature conservation objectives. There is effective co-management between community, statutory agencies and NGOs, however the boundaries and divisions between responsibilities are closely set. The project illustrates the social use of a greenspace as a potential hub for a wider community GI network. The importance of lobbying and networking at a political level is highlighted in order for the project to be successful. The role of incentives and awards to initiate local action, particularly through the “Unser Dorf hat Zukunft” initiative and through input from private sponsors is clearly highlighted. This also shows how the defined evaluation criteria of the UDHZ has helped to broaden the GI scope and benefits of the project. Key negative Description learning point The main emphasis is upon providing a social / recreational space within a protected nature area. However, the two aspects are not particularly well integrated at present, the local authority undertaking most of the specialist habitat management work. The local authority have a highly top down approach and wish to carry out implantation work directly. This restricts potential community benefits. . It is fair to say that the local authority is not promoting an enabling approach. The group have a huge amount of community development experience but appear to lack specific land management, nature conservation and GI expertise. Improved local knowledge would strengthen the project further. Dialogue between the local group and the authorities does not represent a holistic view. An integrated approach could add value.

Table 37. Key Learning Points – Worm-Wildnis

5.4 Bar charts illustrating outcomes against motivations and potential:

The initial motivations for citizen participation were then considered in context to the relative significance of social, cultural, environmental and economic benefits delivered by each project. These were then illustrated graphically using bar charts:

5.4.1 Citizen’s Group Motivations and Existing GI Potential:

Using feedback from the interviews, the site investigation process and from the case study comparison framework, the citizen participation motivations behind each of the 5 case studies were identified. The motivational factors were weighted using a simple scoring system with resultant values ranked into high, medium or low classes. Using this data, a chart was then produced to illustrate this graphically – Fig 45:

130

Group Motivations

Eicherscheid Rott Soermondt Wurmtal Worm Wildnis

Local pride Biodiversity Cultural heritage / landscape conservation Economic development Capacity building and training

Group Motivations Eicherscheid Rott Soermondt Wurmtal Worm-Wildnis Local pride High High High Low High Biodiversity High High Med High Med Cultural heritage / landscape High High Low Med High conservation Economic development High Med Low Low Low Capacity building and training High Med High Low High

Fig 45. Group Motivations The resultant chart highlights the considerable variation that exists between the motivations of the various citizens’ groups.

For example, local community pride is a very strong motivational factor behind the initiation of projects being undertaken in Eicherscheid, Worm-Wildnis, Rott and Soermondt. This often linked with the related social objectives of capacity building and training for local people, which were factors particularly significant in the Worm-Wildnis and Soermondt case study examples. In Soermondt a substantial motivation behind the project was to provide training opportunities and to provide capacity building and social inclusion opportunities within the community.

One significant aspect of community pride is external recognition for achievements and outcomes by others, both locally and beyond the borders of the Städteregion Aachen. The “Unser Dorf hat Zukunft” competition has been an important factor in this process. This is a community development and village improvement initiative operating on local, state and federal level, whereby the local citizens’ groups receive accreditation and awards based upon the quality of their work. This competition has been a significant motivational force within Eicherscheid, Rott and Worm-Wildnis, all of whom have received awards in the past; particularly Eicherscheid a “Golddorf” which has received the highest level of accreditation possible in the competition (Gemeinde Eicherscheid 2020). The publicity and prestige generated around this is seen as being particularly significant as a motivational factor under the broader category of community pride.

Other case studies emphasised environmental goals, particularly in the case of the Wurmtal and in Rott. In both these examples biodiversity conservation was very much at the heart of the project,

131

however in the Wurmtal this was the primary driver, to the exclusion of almost all other activities. In Rott however, wider aspirations such as local pride, capacity building and training were also motivational drivers, possibly stemming from participation in the village development competition.

In Eicherscheid, where there were clear economic aspirations behind the project, through a desire to promote green tourism, which would directly benefit local business including shops, restaurants and cafes. In Eicherscheid, whilst there was comparatively little interest purely in nature conservation related objectives, for their own sake, there was a strong cultural heritage and landscape conservation motivation. In this respect, the historic cultural landscape was seen as an asset which was strongly associated with local distinctiveness and which had potential to market as an asset for future green tourism related enterprises. There was therefore also a relatively strong economic development impetus behind the project.

It was interesting to contrast directly the group motivations within the context of the existing GI assets present in the case study site - see Fig 46. In general the motivations of the citizens’ groups tended to accord with the opportunities offered by each location. So for example both the Wurmtal and Rott offered existing high biodiversity potential and so this tended to be emphasised by the group.

Arguably Eicherscheid chose a different path, for although the local resources offered existing high biodiversity value, the motivations of the group seemed to emphasise the economic and social potential offered by the site. Similarly in Worm-Wildnis, although the site offered a high nature conservation value, the motivations for action were primarily driven by the potential social value present. In Soermondt enhancing biodiversity became an important secondary motivation, if not the leading one, although in terms of GI potential, the site initially had seemingly little to offer in terms of biodiversity benefits. This changing emphasis is well illustrated by the project’s successful receipt of a UN Decade for Biodiversity Award within the category of community action (Geschäftsstelle UN- Dekade Biologische Vielfalt 2020).

In summary, some groups such as Rott and the Wurmtal played very much to the existing GI strengths of the sites through the restoration and enhancement of existing habitat features, whilst others such as Worm-Wildnis and Soermondt went about creating entirely new GI potential, based upon innovative visions for the management and hidden potential of sites. This was particularly true in the case of Soermondt who were ambitious in their motivation to develop an entirely new community GI resource.

132

Overall Existing GI Assets & Benefits

Eicherscheid Rott Soermondt Wurmtal Worm Wildnis

Nature Conservation and Biodiversity Landscape Value x Paths and Connectivity Social Value Economic significance Ecosystem services significance Educational benefit

Key Existing GI Benefits - indicative Eicherscheid Rott Soermondt Wurmtal Worm-Wildnis Nature Conservation and Biodiversity high high low high high Landscape Value high high low high high Paths and Connectivity high high low high low Social Value high med high high med Economic significance high med low low low Ecosystem services significance high high low high med Educational benefit med med med med med

Fig 46. Overall existing GI assets

5.4.2 Social, Environmental and Economic criteria

Using the same scoring system the outputs of the Citizen projects were then considered in terms of what they delivered, again divided into low, medium and high categories. Separate charts were produced for social, environmental and economic outputs. In addition, an overview chart is presented showing the relative proportions of these.

Social Criteria:

This included the development of recreational resources, development of community capacity, environmental and sustainability education and health and wellbeing – Fig 47.

133

Social Aspects

Eicherscheid Rott Soermondt Wurmtal Worm Wildnis

Recreational facilities Community Capacity Building Education Health and wellbeing

Social criteria Eicherscheid Rott Soermondt Wurmtal Worm- Wildnis Recreational facilities high high med low high Community Capacity Building high high high low high Education med med med med med Health and wellbeing med med med low med

Fig 47. Social aspects From the resultant chart we can see Eicherscheid, Rott, Worm-Wildnis and Soermondt all delivered a strong diversity of social outcomes. This might partly result from the fact that three of these citizen groups participated in the “Unser Dorf hat Zukunft” initiative which stresses delivery of wider community development outcomes as the basis for its evaluation system. This was also reflected very much in a similar approach shown in Soermondt, although this case study was not eligible for participation in the Competition, given its urban location.

By contrast, social outcomes were not strongly represented in the Wurmtal, other than through promoting cohesiveness directly amongst members of the group themselves. An exception to this is in terms of education, as the group have undertaken work with schools to raise awareness of biodiversity and nature conservation issues.

Education is also an aspect delivered by citizen initiatives in Eicherscheid and Rott. Eicherscheid for example have developed an “outdoor classroom” for schools and kindergartens, though it is not clear how much use this gets, whilst Rott have developed interpretation facilities. The Worm-Wildnis group also undertake educational activities, however this is wide ranging in character and not specifically related to environment and GI topics.

Recreational facilities, particularly the creation of interpretive trails have been significant as outcomes in Rott, Eicherscheid and Worm Wildness, though are of less significant in the case of Soermondt garden, given the more restricted nature of the site. In the Wurmtal there seemed to be marked resistance to the development of further recreational facilities, as these were not considered to be compatible with nature conservation objectives by members of the citizens’ initiative. In this respect the Wurmtal group appeared to have the narrowest focus of all the groups interviewed.

134

Environmental Criteria:

In terms of project outcomes, environmental criteria were scored on a similar basis. The criteria assessed were as follows: landscape enhancement, nature conservation and habitat management, local sustainability actions (including community growing projects and biomass energy production) and projects to preserve and promote local cultural heritage – Fig 48.

Environmental Aspects

Eicherscheid Rott Soermondt Wurmtal Worm Wildnis

Landscape enhancement x Nature Conservation and habitat management Local sustainability e.g. community growing /energy Cultural heritage

Environmental criteria Eicherscheid Rott Soermondt Wurmtal Worm- Wildnis Landscape enhancement med med low high med Nature Conservation and habitat med high med high low management Local sustainability e.g. community high med high low low growing /energy Cultural heritage high high low med med

Fig 48. Environmental aspects There was a strong nature conservation emphasis in the Wurmtal and Rott. In Soermondt this was somewhat lower, partly resulting from the fact that the site is not located within the wider biotope network. However, despite the initial lower emphasis accorded to biodiversity here, substantial progress has been made in this respect - the project, having recently won an award for urban biodiversity conservation (Geschäftsstelle UN-Dekade Biologische Vielfalt 2020). In Eicherscheid and the Wurmtal, there has been an emphasis upon landscape enhancement, particularly with regard to the maintenance of traditional cultural landscape features such as field boundary hedges, high hedges around dwellings, old pollards, meadows and landmark trees. In the Wurmtal, there is some overlap between enhancement of cultural landscape features and specific biodiversity objectives such as the management of shade for understorey species.

Cultural heritage features have also received attention around Worm-Wildnis, where there has been an association made with local industries such as sand and gravel extraction and glass production (Nivelsteiner Sandwerke und Sandsteinbrüche GmbH 2020). In Eicherscheid and Rott, restoration of cultural features such as wayside crosses and historic wells, have also been included in the activities of local citizens’ groups.

135

In Soermondt and in Eicherscheid, local sustainability objectives have been emphasised through community growing /urban gardening in the case of the former and production of biomass energy from management operations in the case of the latter. These activities were not apparent in other locations such as the Wurmtal or Worm-Wildnis.

Economic Criteria:

Economic criteria were assessed on the basis of including activities which might contribute to directly or indirectly generating income. This might include activities which help to promote the location for day or weekend visitors or activities such as the sale of commercial products and services which are directly derived from the GI resource – Fig 49.

Economic Aspects

Eicherscheid Rott Soermondt Wurmtal Worm Wildnis x Trail network development - physical Marketing /Interpretation e.g. signage, leaflets, web-based. Other commercial products / services (e.g. timber products) Green tourism related business development e.g. wildlife watching

Economic criteria Eicherscheid Rott Soermondt Wurmtal Worm- Wildnis Trail network development – physical high high low low low elements Marketing /Interpretation e.g. signage, high med low low med leaflets, web-based. Other commercial products / services med low low low low Green tourism related business med med low low low development e.g. wildlife watching

Fig 49. Economic aspects

There has been strong emphasis placed upon developing aspects of GI which will deliver economic benefits, particularly in Eicherscheid where a key aim of the citizen action has been to generate inward investment (Gemeinde Eicherscheid 2010). To a lesser extent this has been the case in Rott, where the hope is that the creation of circular routes for walkers and visitor “gateway” facilities such as a walkers’ carpark and grill hut will draw in visitors to benefit local services such as shops and restaurants. This contrasts markedly with the approach adopted in Soermondt, Wurmtal and Worm-Wildnis where there is no obvious economic interest present in the development of the GI initiative. In the Wurmtal this reflects a conscious decision and stated aim of the group not to promote further access or activities which might be in conflict with conservation interests (AG Wurmtal e.V. 2020). At Worm-Wildnis, there are no local businesses which would benefit from increasing

136

visitor numbers, though arguably there might be scope for creating a café bistro type facility as a community initiative. Similarly at Soermondt, due to the urban nature of the site, it is unlikely that there would be any direct economic benefit, to the wider community especially as levels of fruit and vegetable production are fairly small scale at present.

Social, environmental and economic criteria - overview:

A final chart was produced to consider the overview of social, environmental and economic outputs arising from the case studies – Fig 50.

Social, Environmental & Economic Emphasis

Eicherscheid Rott Soermondt Wurmtal Worm Wildnis

Social benefits: Evironmental benefits: Economic benfits:

Social, Environmental, Economic - Eicherscheid Rott Soermondt Wurmtal Worm- indicative Wildnis Social benefits: high med high low high Environmental benefits: high med med med med x Economic benefits: high med low low low

Social, Environmental, Economic

Eicherscheid

Social benefits:

Worm Wildnis Rott Evironmental benefits:

Economic benfits:

Wurmtal Soermondt

Fig 50. Social, environmental and economic aspects overview

137

Overall, the picture here is one of considerable contrast. Eicherscheid and Rott show a good balance between the range of social, economic and environmental objectives. This might be part influenced through participation the “Unser Dorf hat Zukunft” village development competition which encourages an overall sustainable development approach (Landwirtschaftskammer Nordrhein- Westfalen 2018, Städteregion Aachen 2019).

By contrast the Wurmtal emphasises almost exclusively environmental outputs, other than through the securing of a small amount of revenue to reinvest in the operations. At Worm-Wildnis and Soermondt however, the emphasis is very much upon the social benefits occurring, although the range of benefits being delivered at Soermondt is now diversifying from an originally narrower focus (UrbaneOasen.de 2020).

It is clear from the graphic that the GI focus and interests of the case study groups differs considerably. Consequently any programmes which aim to promote or incentivise community led GI programmes must take the diversity of local interests into account.

5.5 Stakeholder mapping charts illustrating group structure and stakeholders

Stakeholder maps were produced for the five case study areas. These aimed to show the variety of stakeholders involved in each case and their role as a citizens’ group, statutory authority or mentoring body. The number and range of participating partners varied across the case studies as did the complexity and composition of the governance arrangements and power relations.

A Key has been used to indicate the various types of stakeholder Groupings – See Fig 56:

138

Eicherscheid Heckenlandschaft:

Fig 51. Eicherscheid Heckenlandschaft – Stakeholder overview

In Eicherscheid ten main stakeholders were identified through the stakeholder mapping process - see Fig 51. However, in reality, this represents somewhat of an over-simplification, since the Eicherscheid Heimat and Eifelverein plays a pivotal role in bringing together a wider informal grouping of local associations and organisations drawn from the community, including sports clubs and youth organisations.

On the whole there is a good balance between the role of mentoring bodies and statutory bodies with an input into the project. The Städteregion Aachen acts in both roles through respective departmental structures relating both to environmental protection and to community development functions.

In terms of mentoring support to the citizens’ group, assistance and seedcorn funding have come from LEADER Nord Eifel, the local tourist association and from the Städteregion Aachen. An important aspect highlighted by the chart is the role of RWTH/FH Aachen Urban Planning and Regional Development professionals, who acted within the role of facilitators at the request of the citizens’ group (Gemeinde Eicherscheid 2010). Their role was an important one in terms of facilitating discussion and development of the action plan, agreeing priorities and fostering dialogue between diverse partner organisations. In facilitating the project they adopted a neutral, albeit supportive role.

The citizens’ initiative in Eicherscheid also benefited from a close cooperative relationship between the Eicherscheid Heimatverein and the Simmerath District Authority (Gemeinde Simmerath) which helped to smooth the process and ensured a constructive dialogue occurred (Gemeinde Eicherscheid 2010).

139

Rott Roetgen:

Fig 52. Rott – Stakeholder overview The organisational structure in Rott showed some similarities with that of Eicherscheid, the two case study locations, which are both small settlements in the Eifel, being therefore in many ways comparable – see Fig 52. Within the community of Rott, the Heimat and Eifelverein plays a leading role in co-ordinating the project and the activities of other partner organisations. Significantly, this needs to be undertaken in partnership with the landowner, NRW Wald und Holz, the State forestry service. Due to the NSG nature protection status other statutory authorities also need to be involved by default.

The Biologische Station Aachen played an interesting intermediary role in this case study with the Biologische Station effectively acting as an intermediary organisation between the Heimatverein and other statutory bodies including NRW Wald und Holz, the Städteregion Aachen Umwelt Amt and LANUV, the State nature conservation authority. Given the relatively technical nature of the habitat restoration operations, the Biologische Station provided help with aspects of site surveys, implementation of biodiversity measures and the securing of funding of the project through European programmes such as the LIFE programme (Hülsheger R, Theißen H et al. 2016).

The role of mentoring bodies is also an important one. In particular the “Unser Dorf hat Zukunft” has acted as a catalyst and incentive for local action; through its wider sustainable development agenda, it has also assisted the broadening of objectives in this case study example beyond nature conservation and landscape protection. LEADER and the Roetgen Touristik e.V. have also promoted and supported aspects of the work through the role of mentors.

140

Soermondt Community Garden:

Fig 53. Soermondt Community Garden – Stakeholder overview

The stakeholder composition for the Soermondt Community Garden project took a different form from that of the Eifel rural settlement case studies outlined previously – see Fig 53. This is a reflection of its location within the urban area of Aachen and the different administrative and statutory arrangements which operate within the City. However, there were also similarities observed, the garden being managed as an asset by local residents from the immediate community, rather than it being regarded as a resource for the City as a whole.

The Urbane Gemeinschafts Gärten Aachen e.V (Urbane Gemeinschaftsgärten Aachen e.V. 2020) is the citizens group which leads the project and which has been responsible for the initiation of the community garden. The case study area is located on land leased from the City of Aachen Municipality and is part of the wider City of Aachen “Grüne Krone” network of Greenspaces (Stadt Aachen 2019). As the site has had no formally designated conservation status e.g. NSG/LSG, there has been less input from statutory or regulatory authorities than in the situation of some other case study examples. To some extent this has made the governance arrangements simpler through the involvement of a smaller number of partners in the project. This narrower range of partners can however also create vulnerabilities, for example, in the situation where a key or leading partner no longer wants to support the initiative.

The City of Aachen municipality itself has been actively involved as the landlord and owner of the site. In its role as landlord, the City has adopted a somewhat non-partisan role, and has not otherwise proactively promoted or supported the work of the group to any great extent. In terms of its involvement, the City has therefore been primarily interested to see that contractual conditions surrounding the lease of the site have been adhered too and that the citizens’ group have effectively been compliant. There has however been a notable increase in interest from the Authority since the project received the UN Decade of Biodiversity prize (Geschäftsstelle UN-Dekade Biologische Vielfalt 2020).

Interestingly, this case study illustrates that there has also been an effective mentoring role for government agencies and statutory bodies to play in terms of supporting such urban community GI

141

projects. In this example, the citizens’ group have received training and advice from NUA, the Natur und Umweltschutz Akademie for NRW (Natur und Umweltschutzakademie NRW - NUA 2020) and also directly from LANUV, the State conservation authority, in terms of providing technical guidance for the promotion of urban biodiversity. There have also been partnerships formed with local NGOs promoting social inclusion agendas, including the Welthaus Aachen and a number of local primary schools.

Wurmtal NSG:

Fig 54. Wurmtal NSG – Stakeholder overview The format and stakeholder composition of the Wurmtal case study was different in character again – see Fig 54. In this instance, the citizens’ group represented a more specialist interest group or niche, specifically focusing on the protection of biodiversity and landscape conservation interests (AG Wurmtal e.V. 2020). This is in contrast to the broader GI interests such the social and economic aspirations illustrated by some other case study examples. In this respect this case study was clearly the most focused of all in terms of outcomes. This is reflected in the stakeholder composition and consequently, given the tighter remit and objectives of this project, a lessor and more focused group of stakeholders was involved than in other examples.

The greatest level of input came from statutory authorities particularly Herzogenrath and Würselen, as well as a limited input from the Städteregion Aachen. The nature of this input was generally around topics of compliance for detailed site management responsibilities. In addition to this there was involvement of the authorities through LANUV, the NRW State conservation agency, who have channelled funding and resources through the group for the management of protected NSG sites within the Wurmtal (Landesamt für Natur Umwelt und Verbraucherschutz Nordrhein-Westfalen 2020d). The Citizens’ Group lease and own areas of land and these are managed through a series of formal agreements with the authorities.

In terms of mentoring there has been some input from NABU and BUND, representing the NGO sector. This includes an informal linkup with these NGOs for the purpose of realising mutual objectives, such

142

as the lobbying activities with the intention of engendering political support for biodiversity conservation objectives.

An interesting aspect of this particular case study, has been the lack of participation from external partners representing wider GI interests in the local community including social and economic aspirations. This again reflects the narrower objectives of the citizens group within the Wurmtal and the desire to limit the extent of participation beyond biodiversity conservation topics. To some extent this reflects a suspicion by members of the group that biodiversity conservation objectives might be compromised by incorporation of wider GI objectives. Despite a more limited set of stakeholders, some outreach work is also undertaken with local schools, businesses and organisations. However these groups cannot in any way be considered to be amongst key stakeholders.

Worm-Wildnis:

Fig 55. Worm-Wildnis NSG – Stakeholder overview

Although part of the larger post-industrial settlement of Merkstein, the Worm-Wildnis case study has more in common with the Eicherscheid and Rott examples in terms of the composition and organisation of stakeholder participation. In common with the two rural settlement based case studies from the Eifel Region, the Worm-Wildnis project has been led by a local Heimatverein, however this is not part of a larger umbrella body like the Eifel groups – see Fig 55. However, in common with the Eifel projects this case study group have actively participated in the Unser Dorf hat Zukunft village development competition within the Städteregion Aachen.

In direct contrast to the neighbouring Wurmtal case study, the Worm-Wildnis example has primarily stressed social rather than environmental objectives, despite the fact that the initiative is located within an NSG area of naturally regenerating woodland, which has provided a substantial GI asset and a focal point for the activities of the citizen’s group (Landesamt für Natur Umwelt und Verbraucherschutz Nordrhein-Westfalen 2020c).

143

In terms of links to statutory authorities, the citizens’ group co-operate closely with the Herzogenrath District authority who are responsible for undertaking most aspects of management actions on the site. In addition the Städteregion Aachen Umwelt Amt are involved in overseeing aspects of nature conservation and site management compliance, also in co-operation with LANUV, the State conservation authority.

This case study is also noteworthy in that it involves the co-operation of a private quarrying firm, the Nivelsteiner Sandewerke and Sansteinbrücke Gmbh., which has undertaken sand and gravel extraction in the area, primarily to supply the local glass making industry. The quarrying company have also recently been active in the business of renewable energy production and have redeveloped parts of the site for generation of solar energy (Nivelsteiner Sandwerke und Sandsteinbrüche GmbH 2020). The site, including some former quarrying buildings are leased from the quarrying company for a nominal rent. There have been good links between the Citizens’ group and the quarrying company.

Although primarily established around social objectives, participation in the “Unser Dorf hat Zukunft” (Städteregion Aachen 2011) initiative has helped to diversify the objectives of the Heimatverein away from an emphasis focusing mainly upon social aspects towards a more holistic sustainability based approach.

Fig 56. Key to the stakeholder charts – Figs. 51-55

Summary table illustrating stakeholder Participation:

To gain an overview of stakeholder participation, key stakeholders across the range of case studies are shown together in one summary table - see Table 38. The table is interesting as it shows that there are a number of key players who are active across the range of projects.

Within areas under its jurisdiction the, Städteregion Aachen is clearly a significant player, particularly with regard to the role of its Environment Department - Umweltamt - which has a regulatory function to monitor and police compliance with environmental regulations and policies, including the designation and monitoring of protected areas such as NSGs and LSGs. Within the Stadt Aachen however, this role is undertaken by the City of Aachen authority itself.

The Städteregion is also very much involved through the “Unser Dorf hat Zukunft” initiative. It is particularly interesting to see that this has had a significant influence and has acted as a catalyst for initiating projects in all the locations within which the scheme operates i.e. in and around rural and urban small settlements and outside urban centres (Ministerium für Klimaschutz 2017).

144

By default, the local administration is also represented in all circumstances, usually for the purposes of satisfying statutory administrative or legal requirements and sometimes for the purpose of managing proactive site operations, as in the case of Worm-Wildnis. However the local administrations very often lack the enabling capability or the strategic overview required to provide much in the way of mentoring help. As far as mentoring support, from the Third Sector more generally, there appears to be no one single organisation which offers the geographic or thematic coverage necessary to provide assistance and support to all the range of projects involved. So, for example, the Eifelverein provides a useful umbrella structure for the Eifel communities of Eicherscheid and Rott, where there are affiliated local “Heimatvereine” operating (Eifelverein 2019). These ““Heimatvereine” have been largely responsible for providing the administrative structures and the social capital for the development of the projects on the ground. Similarly in Worm-Wildnis, a Heimatverein operates, however this is not affiliated to a larger umbrella association.

The role of supporting agents is also highlighted by the close association of the Biologische Station Aachen with the project work being undertaken in Rott (Biologische Station StädteRegion Aachen e. V. 2020a); this has undoubtedly helped to make this project successful through access to technical expertise, political leverage and funding assistance. To some extent such services have also been partially provided, and in a much more “hands off” way, to Soermondt Community Garden through LANUV training programmes (Natur und Umweltschutzakademie NRW - NUA 2020). NABU has also provided some support to the Wurmtal initiative, although there appear to be some tensions there.

Local landowners, whether this be a state authority in the case of Rott, or a private company in the case of Worm-Wildnis, have also had important roles to play, as key partners; sometimes in a supportive role but also at times in an adversarial role when land management operations and commercial priorities take precedence. In summary then, it is possible to say that whilst there are some key organisations, notably the Städteregion Aachen, who have a key role to play across the Region, there appears to be no single approach or mentoring organisation which is relevant to all the case study projects. This seems to arise from the thematic and geographical extent and range of the projects. Very significantly, there also appears to be no recognised overview or understanding of the concept of GI at a strategic or local level, or of the fact that the case studies are in any way thematically linked together as common elements of a larger infrastructure.

Partner Participation: Eicherscheid Rott Soermondt Wurmtal Worm- Wildnis

Unser Dorf hat Zukunft x x x Biologische Station Aachen x Stadt Aachen x Städteregion Aachen x x x x Wald und Holz NRW x LANUV NRW x x NABU x Eifelverein x x RWTH /FHS Aachen x Local administration (other) x x x x Private sector / business partner x LEADER x

Table 38. Presence and absence of key stakeholders across the case study projects.

145

5.6. Contribution to UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Additionally, with regard to considering the spread of social economic and environmental outcomes delivered by the various case studies, it is useful to also consider the potential for classifying the case studies in terms of how they contribute across the range of UN Sustainable Development Goals, SDGs (United Nations 2020). A simple assessment of this is shown in Table 39 below. This shows us that although there is considerable variation in terms of the range of UN goals delivered, although there are also some SDGs which are delivered across all of the case studies: these include Quality Education, Sustainable Cities and Communities and Life on Land. Good health and wellbeing, climate action and partnerships for the goals are also frequently delivered.

Significantly SDG themes have not been divided strictly along social, economic or environmental lines and in reality, some of these are cross cutting. Whilst the delivery of some SDGs is common across the range of projects, some case studies place a greater emphasis on certain topic areas. For example, economic criteria covered under DSG “Decent Work and Economic Growth” has been emphasised in the case of Eicherscheid, whilst “Responsible Production and Consumption” tends to be a more a more dominant theme in the case of Soermondt. In general, however the SDGs are very broad ranging in their character and are also open to a degree of interpretation; for practical purposes therefore the categorisation or analysis according to SDGs will not be undertaken in any greater detail.

Worm- UN Sustainable Development Indicators Eicherscheid Rott Soermondt Wurmtal Wildnis

1. No Poverty 2. Zero hunger x 3. Good health and wellbeing x x x x 4. Quality education x x x x x

5. Gender equality x 6. Clean water and sanitation x 7. Affordable and clean energy x 8. Decent work and economic growth x 9. Industry, innovation and infrastructure 10. Reduced inequalities x 11. Sustainable cities and communities x x x x x

12. Responsible production and consumption x 13. Climate action x x x x 14. Life below water x x 15. Life on Land x x x x x

16. Peace and justice strong institutions 17. Partnerships for the goals x x x x

Table 39. Synergy between case studies and UN Sustainable development goals

146

Chapter 6. Comparison with Additional Scottish Case Study Examples:

The purpose of this chapter is to present further comparisons with a number of case study examples from Scotland which are familiar to the author. In Scotland there is a well-established programme of citizen engagement in community GI, woodland and natural heritage programmes. This is embedded at policy and legislative level making the Scottish context useful and informative for purposes of comparison.

As with the examples from Städteregion Aachen, it is intended to compare the case studies using the same structured comparison framework template. The outcomes of this will again be used to compile a SWOT analysis and for the consequent identification of positive and negative learning points emerging from each of the Scottish case studies. Bar and radar charts will help to illustrate the outcomes of the projects as set against the objectives with stakeholder mapping presenting additional data on group structure and stakeholder participation.

In summary the sections of this chapter are as follows:

6.1. Context and Justification of Scottish Case Study Examples

6.2. Defining and Identifying Scottish Case Studies for Comparison

6.3. Scottish Case Study Detailed Descriptions

6.4. Use of the Adapted Comparison Framework for Qualitative Analysis

6.5. SWOT Analysis based upon Comparison Framework Outcomes for Scottish Examples

6.6. Identification of key positive and negative learning points for the Scottish case studies

6.7. Bar and Radar charts illustrating outcomes against objectives

6.8. Stakeholder mapping charts illustrating group structure and stakeholders

6.9. Delivery of UN Sustainable Development Goals

147

6.1 Context and Justification of Scottish Case Study Examples:

The five case studies from the Aachen City Region have provided valuable insights into the processes of citizen participation in rural, urban and periurban situations. These in turn can help to inform and influence policy making, the development and adoption of new potential instruments and measures by statutory authorities and mentoring bodies to assist and facilitate citizen participation. This will be investigated in more detail in the next chapter.

However, in terms of adding value to the comparison process, it was also felt useful to consider and refer to additional examples of policy and practice from outside the immediate study area of the Aachen City Region. In this respect, referring to experience gained in other parts of Europe is considered to be beneficial. It offers the advantages of bringing in alternative thinking, highlighting of innovative new approaches and methodologies and also can show alternatives to the tried and tested approaches and operating assumptions and parameters normally applied in everyday practice within discreet geographical regions.

However, it is also necessary to be aware of the limitations of transferring knowledge, practical techniques and ideological assumptions across borders, given that it’s not always possible, with regard to local cultural and geographical constraints, for approaches to be directly transplanted from one region to another. In reality some methodologies and approaches will have greater potential for transferability than others, depending upon the local cultural and institutional context – however in order to offer such suggestions, it is necessary to consider a wide range of options, including also more radical or cutting edge approaches and concepts.

Despite the existence of such limitations and acknowledging their existence, it was decided that the potential benefits on drawing on other approaches, though referring to case studies from outside the Aachen City Region, outweighed any perceived disadvantages. For the purpose of this comparison, it was decided to refer to a number of case study examples from an international context using a broadly similar approach to evaluation as that adopted for the Städteregion Aachen examples. Specifically, the value and the justification for undertaking this were seen as being as follows: i) The need for a broader perspective, through considering examples from outside Germany and the immediate study area of the Städteregion Aachen, especially in the context of situations where citizen participation approaches have become more deeply embedded and integrated within mainstream policy, legislation and organisational culture, thus promoting and facilitating the processes of change. ii) Consideration of how the potential and success of individual citizen initiatives might be influenced through creation of a stronger enabling and supportive culture, particularly through the involvement of diverse mentoring partners, including from the NGO, or Third Sector i.e. through the promotion of social enterprise based models to delivering citizen participation in GI. ii) Gaining a better understanding of how the process of change operates in terms of the evolution and development of citizen led approaches to GI management, in response to new emerging cultural and legislative policy drivers and wider societal trends.

In order to provide this broader perspective, it was decided to refer to the example of Scotland, another country located in NW Europe. Although Scotland shares some geographical and cultural similarities with NRW there are obviously also some significant differences; however, the different approaches adopted within Scotland in response to local conditions there and the lessons learned from these can potentially be useful for the process of effective comparison and the development of new solutions. In particular it was felt appropriate for the following reasons:

148

i) Scotland has historically possessed a long established tradition of community greenspace management, volunteering and third sector engagement within the GI and natural resources sectors (Hansmann R, Whitehead I et al. 2016, Whitehead I, Hansmann R et al. 2017) - see Fig 57. ii) In recent years, robust networks of “bottom up” community landownership and community forestry initiatives have emerged, particularly in rural areas of the country. These networks and approaches are now also successfully extending to include urban areas, where the challenges and needs faced by local citizens are somewhat different, albeit related (Chorley J 2018). Additionally, in urban areas, mentoring programmes, assisted through targeted state spending programmes, have helped to mobilise citizen participation, particularly in areas of high social deprivation (Chorley J 2018). These programmes have involved extensive participation between governmental agencies, NGOs, public authorities and local citizens and can therefore be considered to be examples of successful co- management in operation. iii) Scotland, unlike Germany, has actively pursued legislation aimed at promoting and facilitating direct community land ownership and management, primarily in response to perceived historical mismanagement and inequitable land ownership patterns. In particular, the 2003 Land Reform Act and “Community Right to Buy” legislation (Scottish Government 2018, Scottish Land Commission 2020b) has effectively enabled local groups to acquire land which was previously under private ownership and to manage such areas for the benefit of the local community. The legislation has been further consolidated through Part 4 of the Community Empowerment Scotland Act, 2015 which extended the “Community Right to Buy” to new areas, including urban areas, where land is placed on the market. It also allowed communities the right to purchase land which was not offered for sale from owners in situations of proven neglect or mismanagement of land (Scottish Government 2017). The Land Reform Scotland Act , 2016 Part 5 (Scottish Government 2020) further expanded the scope of community landownership through allowing local communities to purchase land for “sustainable development purposes” from landowners with the consent of Scottish Ministers. iv) As in Germany, bottom up community led initiatives in Scotland have also been complemented by strategic approaches to GI through regionally focused partnerships and initiatives including the development and mapping of Forest Habitat Networks, Integrated Habitat Networks – IHN (Scottish Natural Heritage 2013) and the creation of the ambitious Central Scotland Green Network (Central Scotland Green Network 2011) initiative covering 10,000km² of urban Central Scotland.

The Scottish example can therefore provide valuable lessons in terms of the integration of bottom up and top down approaches and how these can effectively synergise to deliver effective GI structures. In recent years a number of state sponsored schemes, particularly Forestry Commission Scotland’s “National Forest Land Scheme” (Lawrence 2009) have also provided community groups with the opportunity to lease or purchase land which was previously held under government ownership as state forest land. State guidelines are also produced facilitating the consideration of local community participation and impacts in all public and private land based interventions (Scottish Government 2018b). v) In addition to the above justifications, at an individual level, the author of this work has detailed first-hand knowledge of the Scottish context, gained through many years living and working within the GI sector within the Country. This has provided many detailed and relevant insights which are complimentary to the research undertaken in the Städteregion Aachen and which are deemed appropriate for comparison purposes.

149

Fig 57. Scotland - Citizen participation and mentoring examples overview portrait

6.2 Defining and Identifying Scottish Case Studies for Comparison

In order to integrate insights from Scotland with key learning points gained from the Aachen City Region, it was decided to focus on lessons drawn from a limited number of detailed, but diverse, Scottish case study examples. These could be analysed through a broadly similar approach using the adapted Comparison Framework to tease out key learning points which potentially might have relevance to citizen participation initiatives in the Aachen City Region. To identify a number of Scottish case study examples for comparative purposes, it was decided to apply the following methodology: i) When selecting case studies, to reference existing collated case study material where possible; particularly that collated and developed by nationally respected research bodies, such as the UK Forest Research Agency (Forest Research 2020) or best practice case studies referenced through official government bodies such as the Scottish Land Commission (Scottish Land Commission 2020b). In addition this should be supplemented through direct reference to local source material; including press items, websites, social media and official reports. ii) Through reference to literature and web based resources, particularly with respect to data held by national mentoring bodies and their local member associations and networks. This included member associations of the Community Woodlands Association (Community Woodlands Association 2020) and Community Land Scotland (Community Land Scotland 2020); both these organisations representing the broader interests of individual citizen based GI initiatives. iii) As with the Aachen City Region, the concept of a geographical transect through the study area was considered to be a useful one. This allowed the potential to take in a range of diverse case study examples from across Scotland’s geographical and topographical regions, whilst ensuring a thematic diversity of case study material selected for comparison. Three sites were selected along the line of a transect running from NW to SE across Central Scotland as shown - see Fig 58.

150

Fig 58. Central Scotland - Transect highlighting case study locations (Basemap ©OpenStreetMap contributors)

The three selected case study locations from East to West were as follows - see Fig 59:

Lochend Community Woodland – Dunbar, East Lothian:

A local citizens’ group manage 18ha of Lochend Wood, a 33ha site located on the fringe of the small town of Dunbar. The wood is owned by the Dunbar Community Development Company, DCDC, a local not-for-profit association and managed by the Dunbar Community Woodland Group. The woodland is used primarily to provide recreational, educational and nature conservation benefits for the local community. This citizens’ group has been the subject of a Forest Research Agency citizen participation case study (Van der Jagt A 2014a) and is a member of the network of the Community Woodland Association (Community Woodlands Association 2020) where it has held a Director Position.

Doune Ponds – Doune, Stirling:

A citizens’ group, the Doune Community Woodland Group – DCWG, were established to manage a 16ha area of regenerating woodland and wetland habitats on former sand and gravel pits (Scottish Land and Estates 2020, Scottish Land Commission 2020).The site is located on private land which is owned by the Murray Estates Company. A partnership was established in 2014 between the community group and the landowner following the withdrawal of the local authority as site managers. This case study is used as a best practice case study for community engagement by the Scottish Land Commission, the official body responsible for implementing land reform on behalf of the Scottish Government (Scottish Land Commission 2020).

NW Mull Community Woodland Company - Mull, Argyll.

A non-profit making company established to manage 2 areas of forest as community woodland to maximise social, environmental and economic outputs for the benefit of local people. The initiative was established opportunistically in response to Scotland’s Community Right to Buy legislation and the 2003 Land Reform Act (Scottish Government 2018, North West Mull Community Woodland Company 2020a). In recent years the initiative has expanded in scope through acquisition of the

151

2000ha Isle of Ulva Estate (Isle of Ulva 2020, North West Mull Community Woodland Company 2020b). This site is the subject of a Forest Research Agency citizen participation case study (Van der Jagt A 2014b) and is part of the network of Community Land Scotland (Community Land Scotland 2020) and the Community Woodlands Association (Community Woodlands Association 2020) and retaining Directorships on the boards of both these organisations.

More detailed descriptions of each of these three initiatives follow in the next section:

Fig 59. Selected Scottish case studies – Overview portrait

152

6.3 Scottish Case Study Descriptions

Detailed descriptions of each of these three initiatives now follow:

6.3.1 Lochend Community Woodland – Dunbar, East Lothian:

Fig 60. Lochend, Dunbar, Community Woodland Group – Overview portrait (Dunbar Community Woodland Group 2020, Dunbar Community Woodland Group 2020b)

1. Overview of Location and Project:

In Dunbar a local community woodland group manage 18ha of Lochend Wood on a 33ha site located on the fringe of the town. The wood is owned by the Dunbar Community Development Company (DCDC), a local not-for-profit association, however day to day management responsibilities and actions are delegated and undertaken by the Lochend Community Woodland Group, LCWG, an active group of volunteers and local residents (Van der Jagt A 2014a). The woodland is used primarily to provide recreational, education and nature conservation benefits for the local community. Dunbar is small rural commuter town which is located on the East coast of Scotland, around 30 miles to the East of Edinburgh and relatively close to the English border. The population was 8,486 in 2011, however this is now rising as a result of new peripheral housing developments within the town and particularly, adjacent to the woodland site. In general the local residents group comprise “empty nesters”, older retired people or young families who commute to larger towns in the Central Belt, particularly Edinburgh (Van der Jagt A 2014a). The town remains popular with commuters to the Central Belt. The DCDC had the opportunity to acquire Lochend Wood after it was handed over by Hallhill Development Company in 2007 following the development of the housing estate to the east of the woodland. This was part of the agreement that the development company signed when purchasing the land off the local authority. DCDC also received an endowment from the developer of £50,000, to be invested in the development of a path network, maintenance of the site and creation of a woodland play area (Dunbar Community Woodland Group 2020).

153

2. What is physically delivered:

Since 2007, the LCWG has engaged in thinning and felling operations, in addition to other woodland management activities to sustainability of the forest and improve access and recreation. To improve biodiversity, the group has planted around 600 native trees, donated by Scottish Native Woods and the Woodland Trust, within a clear-felled area and a further 200 trees in other parts of the woods (Van der Jagt A 2014a). It has also undertaken woodland maintenance activities e.g., controlling encroachment of understory to paths, remedial work on trees and wildlife monitoring i.e., bird survey (Dunbar Community Woodland Group 2020, Dunbar Community Woodland Group 2020c). LCWG has facilitated the development of a woodland bicycle fitness track, a project which was initiated by Dunbar Cycling Group. LCWG has provided an area of land and facilitated the preparation of a grant application to Viridor, a community landfill tax fund (Van der Jagt A 2014a, Dunbar Community Woodland Group 2020).

The woodland group has a strong social agenda and co-ordinates and activity programme with the aim to involve, entertain and educate the local community in aspects relating to woodland management, crafts and ecology. Consequently LCWG regularly organizes events such as Easter egg hunts, open air performances and courses on woodworking, stool making and building a clay oven (Dunbar Community Woodland Group 2020). Most of these events are held in the community ‘gathering space’, which the group created as a venue for the community to meet. In partnership with Sustaining Dunbar, LCWG also developed a Tree Quest leaflet (Dunbar Community Woodland Group 2020b) providing information on two woodland walks and including information on the ecology and history of the site.

Specific actions Details /outputs Ownership and A local community woodland group who manage 18ha of Lochend Wood, a 33ha site located on the fringe of the management town of Dunbar, a small commuter settlement approximately 30 miles SE of Edinburgh (Van der Jagt A 2014a). The of 18ha of wood is owned by the Dunbar Community Development Company (DCDC), a local not-for-profit association and Woodland management responsibilities are delegated to the Dunbar Community Woodland group, a subsidiary of the development company. Ownership of the property was passed on by a housing developer as a compensation measure for granting of planning permission for housing on an adjoining site. The woodland is used primarily to provide recreation, education and nature conservation benefits for the local community. Since 2007, the DCWG has engaged in thinning and felling operations, in addition to other woodland management activities. Native tree and To improve biodiversity, the group has planted c. 600 native trees, donated by Scottish Native Woods and the shrub planting Woodland Trust, in a clear-felled area, and a further 200 in other parts of the woods (Van der Jagt A 2014a). The work aims to diversify the age structure and species diversity within the woodland, thereby ensuring its continuity and biodiversity benefits in the future. Management The group have been actively developing and maintaining the path network through the woods to a satisfactory and standard and through installation of necessary gates, handrails and signage. Work has also involved the creation of maintenance of all abilities trails which are suitable for wheel chair use – the flat nature of the topography assist this process. paths and tree Dangerous trees which overhang paths and adjoining properties have also been maintained and pruned, or felled, as issues necessary (Dunbar Community Woodland Group 2020). Creation of Two dedicated trails have been developed (ref). These are the “Tree Quest” trail which has an educational function waymarked including a number of interpretive stations highlighting historical and ecological features of interest, particularly trail networks heritage trees and woodland wildlife. The shorter “Trim Trail” is aimed at providing a fitness route for joggers and and fitness walkers within the wood and features less interpretation. However there is an intention to provide outdoor training track equipment in the future (Dunbar Community Woodland Group 2020b). Development The group run a varied events programme which includes Easter egg hunts, summer play schemes, woodland crafts, of events and open air theatre and performances. In addition the group have constructed a clay pizza oven on the site which is training used for cookery demonstrations. This is located within the area known as the Gathering Space (Dunbar Community program Woodland Group 2020c). Creation of a The community woodland features a gathering space which is used regularly for community events and open air gathering space performances (Dunbar Community Woodland Group 2020, Dunbar Community Woodland Group 2020c) including for events music and outdoor theatre. Interpretive The leaflet provides simple orientation around the site and further in depth information about the wildlife and tree leaflet and resources of the woodland. There are also some historical and cultural points of interest which are highlighted “tree quest”

Table 40. Lochend Community Woodland, Dunbar - Outputs and actions

154

3. What is the strategic GI interest that the project helps to manage, enhance protect or promote ?

Within the woodland the majority of trees have been planted immediately after the Second World War and are now around 70 years old. The predominant species are sycamore and ash. Other species include elm, larch, pine and spruce, lime, beech, birch, rowan and aspen. Lochend wood also includes several older trees - yew, cedar, walnut & grand fir - that are from the remains of an old landscaped garden which was once part of the property. Ground flora is patchy due to a dense forest canopy with distinctive woodland ground flora found in the more open areas of the site (Van der Jagt A 2014a, Dunbar Community Woodland Group 2020). The woodland is classified as mainly mixed broadleaved woodland. The predominant species are sycamore and ash.

Lochend Woods is listed on the Inventory of semi natural ancient woodlands for Scotland and forms part of the Lothians Forest Habitat Network (Forest Research 2007). It is included within the coastal margins category within the Edinburgh and Lothians Forestry and Woodland Strategy (Lothians and Fife Green Network Partnership 2012). There is a good existing formal and well-maintained path network within the woodland, which includes a trim trail and a woodland trail - both described in the ‘Tree Quest’ leaflet. These routes include benches and bridges. LCWG planted 600 native trees in 2011, including 50 alder in the low lying, wet area and intends on keeping hazel and elder coppices (Van der Jagt A 2014a). There are several features of interest within Lochend Wood. These include a pond, the ‘Lily Pond’ and a relatively open wetland area known as ‘The Wilderness’. Being located on the urban fringe of Dunbar, the site has been eligible for Scottish Forestry WIAT – Woods in and Around Towns, (Scottish Forestry 2020) funding which accords it a high social and recreational value from a Green Infrastructure perspective.

Strategic GI Significant elements within the case study area Theme Overview: Lochend Woods forms part of a 33ha greenspace adjoining an established residential area on the edge of town. It provides landscape, ecological and recreational benefits. The woodland is classified as mainly mixed broadleaved woodland (Van der Jagt A 2014a). Nature Lochend Woods is listed on the Inventory of semi natural ancient woodlands for Scotland (Van der Jagt A 2014a) and conservation forms part of the Lothians Forest Habitat Network. It is included within the coastal margins category within the and Edinburgh and Lothians Forestry and Woodland Regional Strategy (Lothians and Fife Green Network Partnership biodiversity 2012). The woodland is classified as mainly mixed broadleaved woodland. The predominant species are sycamore and value: ash. Other species include: elm, larch, pine and spruce, some lime, beech, birch and a few rowan and aspens. Landscape: Lochend wood also includes several older mature trees - yew, cedar, walnut & grand fir - that are from the remains of an old landscaped garden which was once part of the property. The woodland helps to soften the impact

Paths and There is a good existing formal and well-maintained path network within the woodland, which includes a trim trail and connectivity: a woodland trail, both described in the ‘Tree Quest’ leaflet (Dunbar Community Woodland Group 2020b). These routes include benches and bridges. These interconnect with an extensive local path network providing links to the town centre of Dunbar and the surrounding countryside. Socio- The site does not provide much in terms of economic benefits as the primary use is generally by local people for economic walking and informal recreation, although arguably, the woodland could complement other green attractions in the aspects: town, notably the birthplace of nature conservation pioneer, John Muir (John Muir's Birthplace Trust 2020). The site does however provide a valuable social function to the surrounding community. This includes through active participation in volunteering and committee work, which draws the community together and helps to build local capacity. In addition to this events and activities held on the site help to provide a focal point for local people, as well as providing health and educational benefits. Ecosystem The woodland provides a diverse variety of habitats which promote local biodiversity within the community. It also Services creates an important landscape setting and cultural heritage and educational benefits for surrounding residents. The significance: physical presence of the woodland provides an important shelter function from the strong winds which characterise the East coast of Scotland. There are also other local benefits to the micro climate through storm water retention and controlling runoff. In terms of provisioning services, small amounts of usable timber, firewood and non-timber forest products such as berries are also available. Educational The site is important for educational events relating to environmental topics. Groups of young people including local Aspects: schools and scouts are actively involved in site management activities which helps to engender increased environmental awareness. Official organised events such as woodland craft days also provide additional opportunities (Dunbar Community Woodland Group 2020).

Table 41. Lochend Community Woodland, Dunbar - Strategic GI elements

155

4. History and development including initial catalyst for action:

The DCDC had the opportunity to acquire Lochend Wood in 2007 after it was handed over by Hallhill Development Company following the development of the housing estate to the east of the woodland (Van der Jagt A 2014a). This was part of the agreement that the development company signed when purchasing the land off the local authority. DCDC also received an endowment from the developer of £50,000, to be invested in the development of a path network and a play area.

5. Process of engagement and partnership working:

Decisions are made by the Committee of LCWG meeting on a monthly basis and members attending these meetings and the AGM. There are no restrictions on who is eligible to join the group. Nonetheless, the membership is exclusively based in Dunbar with the highest concentration of members residing in the housing estate directly adjacent to the woodland. LCWG offers two types of membership; individual membership is £5 and a family membership is £10 p/annum. There are 88 paying members out of a total of 101 members (Van der Jagt A 2014a).

The Dunbar Community Development Company, the DCDC, have legal and financial responsibility for all aspects of ownership, however practical decision making is delegated to the Community Woodland Group who are a subgroup of the DCDC. Charity Law, the terms and conditions of the management agreement with DCDC are the main responsibilities which structure the management and actions of the group. The project has also been the recipient of funding from Forestry Commission Scotland’s, now “Scottish Forestry”, WIAT programme (Scottish Forestry 2020). Scottish Forestry therefore retain some influence as do the local authority for the purposes of ensuring compliance in day to day management operations.

6. Resources and support mechanisms:

Following the acquisition of the site as a result of a developer contribution and endowment, LCWG successfully applied for FCSs WIAT – Woodlands in and Around Towns - funding. The application initially required the development of a management plan for the site, which was produced by an established forestry contractor. Income from the successful grant application process was then used towards undertaking woodland management works, tree safety and access infrastructure. Another large project was the implementation of a £17,600 cycle fitness track, or ‘Pump Track’, which was carried out in collaboration with Dunbar Cycling Group and was funded by Viridor Landfill Tax Credits.

Other grant income has been received from Forestry Commission Scotland. In addition, funding by British Trust for Conservation Volunteers, the BTCV, has assisted the tidying and restoration of the woods following the large-scale felling operation under the WIAT bid. Scottish Native Woods and The Woodland Trust have provided tree saplings without cost. LCWG has furthermore won £1,000 prize money by ending as runner-up in the Scottish Finest Woods Awards (Scotland's Finest Woods Awards 2020), which was spent on the purchase of equipment and tools for the woods.

156

7. Typology Context:

According to the typology developed by the Green Surge (Ambrose-Oji B, Buijs A et al. 2017), this is a Grassroots initiative. In this respect the project is a good example of outright community ownership, although there are still aspects of co-management in evidence.

157

Figs 61/62. Dunbar Community Woodland location details (Van der Jagt A 2014a)

158

Fig 63. Lochend Community Woodland trails map (Dunbar Community Woodland Group 2020b)

159

Fig 64. Lochend Community Woodland Group - Site activities

(Dunbar Community Woodland Group 2020)

160

6.3.2 Doune Ponds Local Nature Reserve – Doune, Stirling:

Fig 65. Doune Ponds - Case study overview portrait (Doune Community Woodland Group 2020), (Rowbotham J 2016)

1. Overview of Location and Project:

The Doune Community Woodland Group, DCWG, established in 2014 to manage a 16ha area of regenerating woodland and wetland habitats on former sand and gravel pits (Scottish Land Commission 2020). The site is located on private land which is owned by the Murray Estates Company. An effective partnership has been established between the community group and the landowner following the withdrawal of the local authority from site management activities due to financial cutbacks (Scottish Land and Estates 2020).

The site has regenerated naturally since the abandonment of quarrying operations and now provides diverse habitats incorporating ponds, wetlands and birch woodland. It has been split up into different sections which include three large ponds surrounded mainly by native regenerating birch, sallow, osier and willow woodlands. The large central pond has resident ducks, swans and many other varieties of migrating breeding birds. The site is important for fungi with over 300 species recorded including some rare ones (Doune.co 2020). The regeneration of scrub and wetland plants has encouraged a wide range of invertebrates to colonise the site. Small mammals are also present and attract stoats, kestrels and foxes. A small population of red squirrels has also been present in the area (Doune.co 2015).

From a recreational point of view there is a good path network throughout the site, with picnic tables, bird watching hides and open spaces for activities. The site is located directly on the periphery of the town and is thus favoured by local residents including children and dog walkers. The site is culturally significant. Doune fairs were held near here from the 17th century where trading was concluded at the “Gold Stone”, a Bronze age standing stone, made of Schist, left by a melting ice sheet and now sited near the Doune ponds entrance (Doune.co 2015).

161

2. What is physically delivered ?:

Work has involved the management of the 16ha site for recreation, social and biodiversity objectives. To date much has been done in terms of both managing the ponds and improving the visitor facilities. This has included tree felling to open up vistas of the main pond, the installation of new paths, the repair and replacement of steps, repair and maintenance of access infrastructure including picnic tables and benches, bird hides and bridges (Scottish Land and Estates 2020, Scottish Land Commission 2020). A network of accessible paths including 1000m of new all abilities paths for wheelchair users and other upgraded routes, has been created. Works have included construction of a new footbridge and have generated, in total 5000 volunteer hours from 70 regular volunteers (Rowbotham J 2018). A large amount of weeding and general tidying of neglected woodland has also occurred. The woodland is being restructured through the supplementary planting of native broadleaved species.

In terms of social outcomes there have been considerable capacity building benefits for the local community through participation in volunteering. A number of other special events have also been organised; these include summer fun days, family days and educational events. Camphill School, which provides education for people with learning disabilities has also been involved in a number of activities on the site (Rowbotham J 2016).

Specific actions Details /outputs

Management of a To date much has been done in terms of both managing the ponds and improving the visitor facilities. This 16ha site for has included tree felling to open up vistas of the main pond, the installation of new paths, the repair and recreation and replacement of steps, repair and maintenance of access infrastructure including picnic tables and benches, biodiversity bird hides and bridges (Doune Community Woodland Group 2020, Scottish Land Commission 2020). Habitat management A large amount of weeding and general tidying of neglected woodland has also occurred. The woodland is work including being restructured through supplementary planting of native broadleaved species. In addition work is woodlands, ponds periodically undertaken to manage the ponds themselves, though bank maintenance, dredging of certain and wetland areas areas and provision of floating rafts as wildfowl nesting platforms (Doune Community Woodland Group 2020). The site is Important for wildfowl and also for diversity of fungus species and is managed in accordance with these existing priorities. Development of an all Specifically this has included creation of a network of accessible paths including 1000m of new all abilities abilities path paths for wheelchair users and other upgraded paths. Works included construction of a new footbridge and network generated, in total 5000 volunteer hours from 70 regular volunteers (Rowbotham J 2018). The group have also recently undertaken the upgrading and resurfacing of the Commonty Walk path to provide a local circular walk option which links with other trails and the wider village path network around the settlement of Doune. Construction of bird A number of existing bird hides on the site have been repaired or renewed as appropriate. In addition pond hides and boardwalks dipping platforms and board walks have been replaced and upgraded to provide for casual recreation and environmental education activities (Doune Community Woodland Group 2020). Site Access, Signage New signage has been installed at access points to promote visitor access to the site and also to provide and interpretation ecological and cultural heritage background information. In addition to this, the site of an old open air market panels stance has been promoted as a historical feature of interest with associated interpretation. A new carpark for visitors has also been developed on the periphery of a new housing development. In general the access points from the housing estate have been improved to encourage local walkers to use the site (Doune Community Woodland Group 2020). Fun days and A number of fun days are held throughout the year including Easter Egg Hunts, summer play schemes and educational events treasure hunts (Doune Community Woodland Group 2020). In addition the group encourage use of the site for general environmental education activities e.g. by the Stirling Council Ranger Service where appropriate. Capacity building and There is a link with a special needs residential school at nearby Camphill which encourages young people with special needs learning disabilities to participate in the conservation work and educational activities of the Doune education Community Woodland Group (Rowbotham J 2016). The aim is to involve new groups where possible. Creation of artworks The group have worked with local artists and sculptors to create some environmental artworks on the site – on environmental these also function as seating and benches (Doune Community Woodland Group 2020). themes.

Table 42. Doune Ponds Local Nature Reserve - Outputs and actions

162

3. What is the strategic GI interest that the project helps to manage, enhance protect or promote?

The site is a valuable wildlife habitat, although it does has not a formal natural heritage designation or status. However, the site is listed on the Scottish ancient semi natural woodland inventory and forms part of the forest network as shown on the CSGN Integrated Habitat Network, IHN, mapping (Central Scotland Green Network 2020).

In particular, the site provides naturally regenerating birch woodland, open standing water and wetlands, thus providing diverse habitats. The location of the site close to local amenities and residential areas and its existing path network also increases its significance as a recreational resource for local people. The site offers potential for use for educational activities and as an informal meeting place for local people.

Strategic GI Theme Significant elements within the case study area

Overview: Management of the 16ha site for recreation and biodiversity objectives. To date much has been done in terms of both managing the ponds and improving the visitor facilities. This has included tree felling to open up vistas of the main pond, the installation of new paths, the repair and replacement of steps, repair and maintenance of access infrastructure including picnic tables and benches, bird hides and bridges (Scottish Land and Estates 2020, Scottish Land Commission 2020). Nature conservation The site is a valuable wildlife habitat, although it does not have a formal natural heritage designation or and biodiversity value: status. However, the site is listed on the Scottish ancient semi natural woodland inventory and forms part of the forest network as shown on the CSGN Integrated Habitat Network, IHN, mapping. It is also covered under the Stirling and Clackmannanshire Forestry and Woodland Strategy (Stirling Council 2019, Central Scotland Green Network 2020). In particular, the site provides naturally regenerating birch woodland, open standing water and wetlands. Thus providing valuable diverse habitats adjacent to a settlement. Tree species found on the site include rowan and wayfaring tree. The woodland is being restructured through supplementary planting of native broadleaved species. The site is Important for wildfowl and also for diversity of fungus species (Doune.co 2015). Other bird species include whitethroats, willow warblers, robins, swallows, swifts and grey herons. Mammals include red squirrels and roe deer. Fish in the ponds– including pike and perch. It is particularly noted as an important site for fungi. Landscape: The naturally regenerating birch woodlands and ponds on the site provide an attractive setting for the village and in particular help to mitigate the impact of new housing development on an adjacent piece of land immediately to the east of the site. The site also helps to provide a buffer between the settlement, adjoining farmland and the busy A84 transport route. The naturally regenerating vegetation has also helped to soften the visual impact of former sand and gravel extraction activities on the site. Paths and connectivity: The location of the site close to local amenities and residential areas and its existing path network also increases its significance as a recreational resource for local people. Specifically this has included creation of a network of accessible paths including 1000m of new all abilities paths for wheelchair users and other upgraded paths (Rowbotham J 2018). Socio-economic aspects: The site is of little strategic significance from an economic development perspective. However, to a small extent, it does help to complement the existing attractions that the village of Doune has to offer; particularly Doune Castle which has a high number of day visitors, the River Teith walkway, Deanston Distillery and the Commonty Walk. There are a number of local shops, hotels and restaurants which are able to benefit from these visitors. In addition the village of Doune is located on the main approach to Loch Lomand and the Trossachs National Park (Loch lomand and the Trossachs National Park 2020), making it good stopping off point. The location of the site close to local amenities and residential areas and its existing path network also increases its significance as a recreational resource for local people. The site offers potential for use for educational activities and as an informal meeting place for local people. Ecosystem Services Cultural – the site is important for leisure, recreation, health, community cohesion and providing a local significance: sense of place. Regulating services – water retention, local microclimate impacts including reducing wind speed, filtering particulates and providing shade. Biodiversity - protection of important wetland and woodland habitats with special significance for fungi, pollination, breeding and overwintering site. Educational Aspects: In terms of social outcomes there have been considerable capacity building benefits for the local community through participation in volunteering (Rowbotham J 2016, Scottish Land Commission 2020). A number of other special events have also been organised. These include summer fun days, family days and educational events. Camphill school, which provides education for people with learning disabilities has also been involved (Rowbotham J 2016).

Table 43. Doune Ponds Local Nature Reserve – Strategtic GI elements

163

4. History and development including initial catalyst for action:

The Community Group was developed in response to the formal withdrawal of Council support for the Doune Ponds site following a local authority spending review. This reflected a general policy decision to no longer support activities on land owned by third parties. Following a short campaign, the Kilmadock Community Council and local development trust, approached the landowner and established the DCWG (Scottish Land Commission 2020). In particular the DCWG were keen to ensure that the site continued to provide local benefits for people and wildlife.

From its abandonment as a working sand and gravel quarry in the 1970s, the site was managed by Stirling District Council Ranger Service as a local amenity and nature area. However, following a corporate policy decision by the Council not to support activities on private land, the local authority withdrew its support in 2014 (Scottish Land and Estates 2020). The withdrawal of Council support was the catalyst for the formation of the Community Woodland Group with the concept being promoted by the Kilmadock Community Council and the local Kilmadock Development Trust (Scottish Land and Estates 2020). The local citizens entered into discussion with Murray Estates, the landowner, to initiate and develop a new management partnership. The relationship functions well and is based on mutual trust and respect (Scottish Land and Estates 2020). The group have been successful at attracting funding through grants and corporate sponsorship for local companies.

The volunteering aspect of the project has generated considerable interest and high levels of participation from Doune and surrounding communities. The efforts of the group have been further recognised through awards including the 2017 “Scotland’s Finest Woods” awards for best community woodland category (Scotland's Finest Woods Awards 2020). The group also received a Stirling Provost’s Award in 2018 for their “outstanding voluntary contribution” in the Stirling Area (Marjoribanks K 2018).

5. Process of engagement and partnership working:

Participation is open to all with volunteers being encouraged to participate from the local community. The group appear to be open and inclusive, though generally the active volunteers tend to be older due to their availability of time to participate. This open approach has attracted high rates of volunteering and practical contributions. DCWG operate a Facebook page which has over 450 followers and which documents all activities undertaken by the group (Doune Community Woodland Group 2020).

The group also encourage active participation by the wider community through the organisation of fun days, summer play schemes and one off events and activities. There is a social inclusion aspect to this as the group work specifically with special needs individuals from the nearby Camphill School. The group have very much emphasised practical “hands on” approaches over enabling and have made use of existing structures to facilitate administrate requirements. In particular the links with the Kilmadock Community Council and the Kilmadock Development Trust have been key.

The balance of power appears to be equally shared between the landowner and the community group. Whilst the bulk of management interventions are undertaken directly by the DCWG, the landowner also provides some specialist help with tree management and felling works and at times has also been personally involved in the project through family member participation (Scottish Land and Estates 2020). Formerly Stirling Council had been responsible for the site, however spending cutbacks have meant that the arrangement was terminated in 2014 (Scottish Land and Estates 2020). The Council

164

remain supportive of the new initiative, however they are no longer directly involved to the same extent as previously.

6. Resources and support mechanisms:

The DCWG has been successful in obtaining funding through a variety of local sources. Funding contributions have been received from the Windfarm Trust, Paths for All Partnership, the Postcode Lottery, Stirling Community Pride Project, Kilmadock Community Council, CEMEX Aggregates who were formerly involve in sand and gravel extraction on the site have also provided contributions (Agg- Net 2016). In addition Murray Estates, the landowners have matched fundraising efforts by the local community and have donated materials for specific projects. Significantly there has been a substantial contribution of volunteer labour to the project from within the community. This has helped to galvanize support. The project has also received a £1,000 prize for winning Scotland’s Finest Woods Awards which has been reinvested into the project (Scotland's Finest Woods Awards 2020).

Volunteers from the DCWG have provided direct labour to undertake project delivery. This has included tree felling to open up vistas of the main pond, the installation of new paths, the repair and replacement of steps, repair and maintenance of access infrastructure including picnic tables and benches, bird hides and bridges. A huge amount of weeding and general tidying of neglected woodland has also taken place. The group have undertaken 5000 volunteer hours of work between 2014-2017 (Rowbotham J 2018).

7. Typology Context:

According to the typology developed by the Green Surge initiative (Ambrose-Oji B, Buijs A et al. 2017) this clearly represents a grassroots Initiative. The project represents a creative partnership model between a private landowner and a local community group. The landowner has delegated day-to-day responsibility to the community group, however still maintains an interest in the development of the site through attendance at meetings and events.

165

Fig 66. Doune Ponds - Site map illustrating GI features (Doune Community Woodland Group 2020)

166

Fig 67. Doune Ponds – Site and participation activities

(Doune Community Woodland Group 2020)

167

6.3.4. NW Mull Community Woodland Company - Mull, Argyll:

Fig 68. NW Mull Community Woodland Company – Case study overview portrait (North West Mull Community Woodland Company 2020a)

1. Overview of Location and Project:

The Island of Mull is located in the Inner Hebrides group of islands which are located on the Western seaboard of Scotland within the Local Authority administrative rea of Argyll. Access to the island is by a short ferry journey from the regional centre of Oban.

The NW Mull case study has involved the acquisition and management of 2 plantation woodlands by a trust, representing the local community (Van der Jagt A 2014b). As an addition to these landholdings, the Company have recently acquired the adjacent 2000 ha Island of Ulva as part of a well-publicised Community Buyout process, funded through the Scottish Land Fund (North West Mull Community Woodland Company 2020a, North West Mull Community Woodland Company 2020b).

The Trust, known as the North West Mull Community Woodland Company – NWMCWC has been established to maximise the social, environmental and economic outputs of the land holdings for the benefit of local people (North West Mull Community Woodland Company 2020a). The initiative was established opportunistically in response to Scotland’s Community Right to Buy legislation and the 2003 Land Reform Act (Scottish Government 2018). Through this legislation, the Company has been able to acquire land which was formerly under the management of Forestry Commission Scotland, the state forestry agency, in response to the Agency’s National Forest Land Scheme (Lawrence 2009).

By contrast the Island of Ulva was previously under private ownership. Ulva is located within the Loch Na Keal National Scenic Area and is a proposed protected marine area (MacLeod 2017). Ulva has a more diverse range of habitats than the forestry plantations, however these have become substantially degraded over time through inappropriate management, rural depopulation and overgrazing by herbivores.

168

The Company also has a strong social agenda and aims to encourage repopulation and the long term sustainable development of the area, which has been heavily affected by outmigration over successive years - including the forced removal of people during the 19th Century Highland Clearances (MacLeod 2017). In particular the acquisition of Ulva is seen as being an important milestone in the Land Reform process within Scotland and has consequently received a considerable degree of media attention in the UK national media (The Guardian 2018).

2. What is physically delivered:

The project has already delivered considerable benefits. These include the management of 2 forest areas, Langamull at 251 ha and West Ardhu at 440ha, including diversification and restructuring of the woodlands for landscape and biodiversity objectives. Harvesting and restocking of the woods has required the creation of 16.5km of new forest extraction routes (Van der Jagt A 2014b, North West Mull Community Woodland Company 2020a).

As a complimentary addition to these activities, the Company has also been involved in the creation of the “Island Woodfuels” subsidiary, which is developing the sustainable marketing and supply of biomass energy (North West Mull Community Woodland Company 2020a) for both the local market and also for export further afield. Other commercial enterprises of the Company include the creation of a woodland burial ground at Langamull. In addition to these activities the Company is developing outdoor access infrastructure for locals and visitors to enjoy and appreciate the local landscape. This has included creation of an access path and archaeological interpretation at Kildavie, an agricultural settlement, or township, abandoned around 1800, shortly before the period of the Highland Clearances (North West Mull Community Woodland Company 2020a).

Natural heritage attractions are also being developed by the Company in partnership with local ecotourism and conservation groups. In particular these have included the creation of a successful sea eagle, or white tailed eagle, viewing hide (Mull Eagle Watch 2020) which allows visitors to view this iconic reintroduced species at close hand. This links closely with Mull’s burgeoning ecotourism industry which supports an ever increasing number of local wildlife guides and generates considerable income – a report produced in 2011 by RSPB suggested that White-tailed eagles alone were responsible for supporting between 64-108 local jobs and bringing 1.4 -2.4 million pounds local income to Mull as a whole (Malloy D 2011).

In June 2018 the Company acquired the 2000ha of the Isle of Ulva estate, following a high profile campaign which received considerable media attention. This was enabled through the Scottish Community Right to Buy legislation and received considerable funding through the National Lottery backed Scottish Land Fund (The Guardian 2018). An aim of acquiring the island is to bring about ecological and social restoration and regeneration of the island which has lost most of its population over the years (MacLeod 2017, The Guardian 2018, Isle of Ulva 2020). The Company has already been responsible for the creation of nine “woodland crofts” within its existing woodland holdings (North West Mull Community Woodland Company 2020a), a new variation upon traditional crofting which attempts to reintroduce new forms of small scale subsistence agriculture within a more varied and sustainable overall pattern of landuse which includes forestry (Planterose B 2019).

The company delivers these outputs as a managing agent, facilitator and co-ordinating body. It employs 3 staff in a coordination role to ensure effective project delivery. The role of the Company is not a commercial one, but is based on the principles of social enterprise which any returns reinvested in the organisation and its objectives (North West Mull Community Woodland Company 2020a).

169

Specific actions Details /outputs

Management and Acquisition and management of 2 forest areas located in the NW of Mull – Langamull - 251 ha, and West restructuring of 2 Ardhu - 440ha, including diversification and restructuring of the woodlands for commercial harvesting, forest plantation landscape and biodiversity objectives (Van der Jagt A 2014b, North West Mull Community Woodland areas Company 2020a).

Creation of forest Creation of 16.5km of new forest roads to permit management and harvesting of previously unmanaged access and extraction blocks of woodland (North West Mull Community Woodland Company 2020a). routes Acquisition of the Isle Recent acquisition of the 2000ha Isle of Ulva Estate in June 2018, following a Community Buyout process. The of Ulva and purchase was enabled through a successful application to the National Lottery Funded, Scottish Land Fund development of long (The Guardian 2018). An aim of acquiring the island is to bring about ecological and social restoration and term management regeneration of the island which has lost most of its population over the years. A long term plan for the objectives sustainable development of the site has been prepared. Further plans for Ulva are to (MacLeod 2017, North West Mull Community Woodland Company 2020b): -Provide security of tenure for existing and future residents -Improve housing stock and other buildings -Improve infrastructure -Revitalise and expand agriculture -Manage forestry sustainably and seek new opportunities -Unlock the very large tourism potential largely untapped at present -Care for and promote the cultural heritage of the island -Enhance biodiversity and conserve sensitive habitats and species -Safeguard natural habitats of the isolated associated islands and skerries -Support Marine Industries, Fishing and Aquaculture The aim is for economic and social development leading to sustainable population increases. After 5 years a doubling to 10 people, after 10 years up to 20 people and ultimately after 20 years or so as many as 30 or more full time residents on the island are envisaged.

Development of Creation and development of the “Island Woodfuels” subsidiary, through the purchase of an existing firm Island Woodfuels Crannich Woodfuel (North West Mull Community Woodland Company 2020a). The aim of this has been to subsidiary create an additional income stream for the Company, to provide new employment opportunities and to ensure the long term supply of woodfuel to residents on the island of Mull.

Creation of 9 forest The Company has already been responsible for the creation of nine “woodland crofts” within its existing crofts. woodland holdings, which attempt to reintroduce new forms of small scale subsistence agriculture within a more varied and sustainable overall pattern of landuse (Planterose B 2019). The Woodland crofts provide an opportunity for individuals and communities to build lives and livelihoods based on a woodland resource. They are governed by a combination of crofting legislation and forest regulation, linking housing, local rural livelihoods and woodland management opportuni ties. This management approach is currently rare in Scotland – but similar models are common the world over, where it might be more commonly described as ‘family forestry’, typically defined as small scale forestry, based on personal involvement and strong stewardship values (Woodland Crofts Partnership 2020).

Micro Hydro The Company has developed a micro hydro scheme in West Ardhu Forest to supply local energy needs. Development Woodland Burials Creation of a woodland burial ground has been developed at Langamull. This reflects a growing interest in “green” burial practices generally (North West Mull Community Woodland Company 2020a).

Cultural Heritage Provision of an access path and archaeological interpretation at Kildavie, a crofting settlement, or township, Access abandoned during the period of the Highland Clearances in the mid-1800s (North West Mull Community Woodland Company 2020a). Archaeological excavations have also been taking place on the site in partnership with a number of UK Universities.

Sea Eagle viewing Development of a sea eagle viewing hide at West Ardhu Forest to promote sustainable ecotourism practices. hide. The hide is run in Partnership with the Mull Eagle Watch project and provides an income to a number of freelance wildlife guides (Mull Eagle Watch 2020). White tailed sea eagles are an iconic reintroduced species which has thrived on the island of Mull.

Staff and The company delivers these outputs as a managing agent, facilitator and co-ordinating body. It employs 3 organisational staff in a coordination role to ensure effective project delivery (North West Mull Community Woodland management Company 2020a).

Table 44. North West Mull - Outputs and actions

170

3. What is the strategic GI interest that the project helps to manage, enhance protect or promote ?

The project has involved the acquisition and management of 2 forest areas located in the NW of Mull – Langamull - 251 ha, and West Ardhu - 440ha, including diversification and restructuring of the woodlands for commercial harvesting, landscape and biodiversity objectives. In addition to this the 2000ha Isle of Ulva Estate was acquired in June 2018, following a Community Buyout process (The Guardian 2018). An aim of acquiring the island has been to bring about ecological and social restoration and regeneration of the island which has lost most of its population over the years. The two forest areas are generally of low ecological value, having been established and managed as commercial plantations, on poor ground and with a low level of management intervention. However, the Argyll Islands Forest Habitat Network proposals by Forest Research have illustrated further potential for these to contribute to habitat connectivity, biodiversity and consolidation of the network through restructuring and improvement (Forest Research 2020b). This process is now underway through the recent felling, restocking and structuring of the woodlands (North West Mull Community Woodland Company 2020a) and in accordance with the Argyll Forestry Strategy (Argyll and Bute Council 2011).

Although, their original ecological connectivity value has also been low, however they do create habitat for a number of iconic species, particularly white tailed sea eagles which have been reintroduced to Scotland. The recently acquired island of Ulva is within the Loch Na Keal National Scenic Area and in a proposed protected marine area (MacLeod 2017). Ulva had a more diverse range of habitats, however these have become substantially degraded over time through inappropriate management. Although, the woodland areas on Ulva are currently of low ecological value, the Company are currently starting the process of diversifying these through the creating of more broadleaved habitats, riparian zones and open glades within the woodlands. The group are also managing the site with the aim of increasing local biodiversity - species of interest include freshwater pearl mussels, otters, white-tailed eagles, hare, golden eagle, buzzard, red deer, hen harrier, barn owl and short eared owl (MacLeod 2017).

171

Strategic GI Theme Significant elements within the case study area

Overview: Acquisition and management of 2 forest areas located in the NW of Mull – Langamull - 251 ha, and West Ardhu - 440ha, including diversification and restructuring of the woodlands for commercial harvesting, landscape and biodiversity objectives (North West Mull Community Woodland Company 2020a). In addition to this the 2000ha Isle of Ulva Estate was acquired in June 2018, following a Community Buyout process (The Guardian 2018). An aim of acquiring the island has been to bring about ecological and social restoration and regeneration of the island which has lost most of its population over the years.

Nature conservation The two forest areas are generally of low ecological value, having been established and managed as and biodiversity value: commercial plantations, on poor ground and with a low level of management intervention. Their current ecological connectivity value is also low, however they do create habitat for a number of iconic species, particularly white tailed sea eagles which have been reintroduced to Scotland.

The recently acquired island of Ulva is within the Loch Na Keal National Scenic area and in a proposed protected marine area (MacLeod 2017). Ulva had a more diverse range of habitats, however these have become substantially degraded over time through inappropriate management. Although, the woodland areas on Ulva are currently of low ecological value, the Company have a plan to diversify these through the creating of more broadleaved habitats, riparian zones and open glades within the woodlands (MacLeod 2017). The group are also managing the site to increase Local Biodiversity - species of interest include freshwater pearl mussels, otters, white-tailed eagles, hare, golden eagle, buzzard, red deer, hen harrier, barn owl and short eared owl.

Landscape: The recently acquired island of Ulva is located within the Loch Na Keal National Scenic area which is characterised by dramatic rocky coastlines with many small islands and skerries. The landscape is sparsely vegetated with the underlying volcanic geology largely defining the characteristics of the landscape character.

Paths and connectivity: The significance of the site for outdoor access includes the 16.5km of forest timber extraction routes which are also available for walkers and mountain bikers (North West Mull Community Woodland Company 2020a). Significantly, these include a through route to Langamull Beach, a popular location on the North West Coast. There is also a walkers’ path to Kildavie, an abandoned farming settlement from the era of the Highland Clearances. With West Ardhu forest, there is a short circular trail for visitors. The Isle of Ulva has a path network which allows, visitors to explore the island, including old abandoned settlements (Isle of Ulva 2020). Socio-economic aspects: The initiative offers significant social and economic benefits (Van der Jagt A 2014b, North West Mull Community Woodland Company 2020a): - Delivery of associated income generating projects including “Island Woodfuels” and woodland burials which help to create local employment opportunities and provide for local sustainability. - Development of ecotourism initiatives, particularly the West Ardhu sea eagle viewing hide which helps to provide employment for local independent guides and ecotourism companies. - Production of sustainable energy from the West Ardhu micro-hydro initiative - Repopulation of the area through support to low cost housing initiatives, particularly on the Isle of Ulva and through support to land management initiatives – e.g. deer management/ forestry which aim to promote long term income streams for local people - Capacity building projects which encourage people to become involved in project management including local food production systems and participation in the operation of the managing Company.

Ecosystem Services The initiative provides significant ecosystem service benefits including: significance: Provisioning – Supply of local timber supply, wild game, wood fuel and sustainable energy production. Cultural – Sense of place and local cultural heritage preservation, provision of leisure and recreation opportunities, educational initiatives, preserving and increasing local population, capacity building Regulating services – water retention, local microclimate impacts through appropriate afforestation, filtering particulates and providing shade. Biodiversity: enhancement of important habitats to increase habitat diversity and to protect and promote iconic species including sea eagles, hen harriers and the marine environment.

Educational Aspects: A forest school site has been developed for local schools to (North West Mull Community Woodland Company 2020a). In addition to this, there are initiatives to interpret the historical and cultural environment.

Table 45. North West Mull – Strategic GI elements

172

4. History and development including initial catalyst for action:

The Company was established on an opportunistic basis, based upon the chance to acquire 2 former Forestry Commission Woodlands under the FCS National Forest Land Scheme. The aim has been to improve management of the 2 woodland areas for multifunctional objectives including woodland diversification and the social needs to the rural population (Lawrence 2009, Van der Jagt A 2014b). The purchase was made possible through specific legislation, policies and financial support mechanisms operating within Scotland as a result of the Community Right to Buy legislation (Scottish Government 2018), including Forestry Commission Scotland’s National forest Land Scheme. To purchase the land, the community had to set up a not for profit Company and to undertake detailed feasibility studies to illustrate best practice in terms of sustainable land management options. The later purchase of the Isle of Ulva also occurred on an opportunistic basis in response to the Community Right to Buy option (The Guardian 2018), following the advertisement of the property on the open market.

5. Process of engagement and partnership working:

The group operates from Dervaig and represents the community of North West Mull. Membership is available to adults coming from within the catchment area of North West Mull i.e. postcode areas PA73 to PA75 (Van der Jagt A 2014b). Membership of the community organisation is free. NWMCWC also offers Associate and Junior Memberships to people living outside the community and between 12 and 17 years old, respectively. Associate and junior members can neither vote nor are eligible to stand for election.

In January 2012 NWMCWC had 163 Ordinary Members, 54 Associate Members, 10 Junior Members and 9 Directors - out of a maximum possible of 16. Members nominate and elect Company Directors on the annual general meeting (Van der Jagt A 2014b). One third of the elected Directors are required to stand down after each AGM. A retiring Director is eligible for re-election after one 3-year term of office, but no Director can serve more than two consecutive terms of office. The activities of the NWMCWC are promoted extensively on their webpage (North West Mull Community Woodland Company 2020a). There has also been considerable recent media interest in the Ulva buyout.

To be eligible under the terms of the Community Right to Buy scheme, the Trust had to prove the existence of significant support amongst local residents for the initiative, through undertaking local opinion polls and surveys of the population (North West Mull Community Woodland Company 2020a). A completed plan for the ongoing social and economic development of Ulva was published in 2020 (North West Mull Community Woodland Company 2020c).

6. Resources and support mechanisms:

The original acquisition of the 2 forest plantation areas was financed through the National Forest Land scheme through Forestry Commission Scotland (Lawrence 2009, Van der Jagt A 2014b). The purchase was also assisted by the Scottish Land Fund, the Robertson Trust, Hugh Fraser Foundation. In addition there have also been significant local fundraising initiatives. In addition an interest free loan of 700,000 pounds has been received to finance construction of timber extraction routes which totalled 2.4 million pounds. The subsequent acquisition of the Ulva Estate has been made possible by a 4.4 million pound contribution from the Scottish Land Fund, which is funded by the National Lottery (The Guardian 2018).

173

The group have excellent knowledge of forestry through their network of contacts and employ a professional forester to oversee the works. The group are also increasingly developing expertise in the fields of sustainable energy, forest crofting and rural regeneration. Diverse skills including business management are represented on the Board of Directors (North West Mull Community Woodland Company 2020a). The company delivers these outputs as a managing agent, facilitator and co- ordinating body. It employs 3 staff in a coordination role to ensure effective project delivery. The organisation also works closely with commercial contractors including UPM Tillhill Harvesting and local ecotourism businesses and operators (Van der Jagt A 2014b).

7. Typology Context:

According the Green Surge Typology (Ambrose-Oji B, Buijs A et al. 2017) this would be a good example of co-governance, but also features as a green hub for the local community. Although the initiative has been pioneered through the bottom up actions of local individuals and actors, success would not have been possible without the involvement and support of many Government agencies and mentoring bodies.

The project is an excellent example of co-governance but with outright community ownership enabled by FCS National Forest Land Scheme (Ambrose-Oji B, Buijs A et al. 2017) and the Scottish Government’s Community Right to buy Scheme. The further acquisition of the Ulva Estate through the Community Right to buy scheme has effectively created a green hub focusing on multifunctional community development aspirations.

174

Fig 69. NW Mull - Map of the Langamull and West Ardhu forest areas (Van der Jagt A 2014b)

Fig 70. NW Mull - Map of Ulva Estate showing woodland habitats (MacLeod 2017)

6.4 Use of the Adapted Comparison Framework for Qualitative Analysis:

As with the case studies from the Städteregion Aachen, the adapted Comparison Framework – tabular format - based upon Lawrence., A et. al. (Lawrence, De Vreese et al. 2013) was once again used to provide a consistent approach. Other analytical approaches such as radar charts and stakeholder mapping were also included for the Scottish examples. The results of the Comparison Framework were subsequently analysed using a SWOT analysis and the identification of positive and negative learning points as per the German examples. The adapted Comparison Framework for the Scottish examples follows - see Table 46.

175

Comparison of the 3 selected GI Case Studies from Scotland – Using Tabular Component: based upon Lawrence., A et.al.(2013)

Case Study Lochend Community Woodland – Dunbar, East Lothian: Doune Ponds Local Nature Reserve – Doune, Stirling: NW Mull Community Woodland Company - Mull, Argyll. (Scotland, UK) (Scotland, UK) (Scotland, UK)

Type Project Project Project Description A local community woodland group who manage 18ha of A local community woodland group (DCWG) established to manage Non-profit making company established to manage 2 areas Lochend Wood, a 33ha site located on the fringe of the a 16ha area of regenerating woodland and wetland habitats on of forest as community woodland to maximise social, town. The wood is owned by the Dunbar Community former sand and gravel pits. The site is located on private land environmental and economic outputs for the benefit of Development Company (DCDC), a local not-for-profit which is owned by Murray Estates. A partnership was established in local people. The initiative was established association. The woodland is used primarily to provide 2014 between the community group and the landowner following opportunistically in response to Scotland’s Community recreational, education and nature conservation benefits the withdrawal of the local authority as site managers. Right to Buy legislation and the 2003 Land Reform Act. for the local community. Scale Local Local District Context GI Within the woodland the majority of trees have been The site has regenerated naturally since the abandonment of The 2 forest areas are generally of low ecological value, planted immediately after the Second World War and are quarrying operations and now provides diverse habitats having been established as commercial plantations. Their now around 70 years old. The predominant species is incorporating ponds, wetlands and birch woodland. The site has current connectivity value is low, however they do create sycamore and ash. Other species include: elm, larch, pine been split up into different sections. It has three large ponds habitat for iconic species including white tailed sea eagle. and spruce, some lime, beech, birch and a few rowan and surrounded mainly by native regenerating Birch trees, Sallow, Osier The recently acquired island of Ulva is within the Loch Na aspen, plus an alder nursery. Lochend wood also includes and Willow. The large central pond has resident ducks, swans and Keal National Scenic area and in a proposed protected

176 several older trees (yew, cedar, walnut & grand fir) that many other varieties of migrating breeding birds. The site is marine area. Ulva had a more diverse range of habitats, are the remains of an old garden. Ground flora is patchy important for Fungi with over 300 species recorded including some however these have become substantially degraded over due to a dense forest canopy. LCWG planted 600 native rare ones. The regeneration of scrub and wetland plants has time through inappropriate management. trees in 2011, and 50 Alders in the low lying wet area and encouraged a wide range of invertebrates to colonise the site. Small intends on keeping hazel and elder coppices. There are mammals are also present and attract stoats, kestrels and foxes. A several features of interest within Lochend Wood. These small population of red squirrels has also been present in the area. include a pond (‘Lily Pond’), a relatively open wetland From a recreational point of view there is a good path network area (‘the wilderness’), throughout the site, with picnic tables, bird watching hides and open spaces for activities. The site is located directly on the periphery of the town and is thus much favoured by local residents including children and dog walkers. The site is culturally significant. Doune fairs were held near here from the 17th century where trading was concluded at the Gold stone, a Bronze age standing stone (made of Schist, left by a melting ice sheet) now sited near the Doune ponds entrance. Catchment Dunbar is small rural commuter town located on the East Doune is a small community which is rural in character, increasingly NW Mull has a dispersed rural population pattern. In 2017, population coast of Scotland, around 30 miles to the East of favoured by families and commuters – being located within 401 people were registered as voters. The Isle of Mull has (inhabitants) Edinburgh and relatively close to the English border. The commutable range of both Glasgow and Edinburgh. The population been subject depopulation decline during the last few population was 8,486 in 2011 and is currently stable. The is growing following new housing development on the periphery of centuries due to enforced migration of the highland town remains popular with commuters to the Central the settlement. The population was estimated to be around 2150 in clearances and declining access to economic opportunities. Belt. 2016.

Institutional framework Policies Scottish Forestry Strategy, Edinburgh and Lothians Scottish Forestry Strategy, Central Scotland Green Network, Stirling Scottish Forestry Strategy, Scottish Rural Development Forestry and Woodland Strategy, Central Scotland Green Community Pride, Stirling Local Plan. Plan, SNH National Scenic Areas policy, Argyll Islands Network, SESPlan Forest Habitat Network , Argyll and Bute Woodland and Forestry Strategy. Planning and Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015. Land Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015. Land Reform Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015. Land regulations Reform (Scotland) Act - 2016. Planning etc. (Scotland) Act (Scotland) Act - 2016. Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006. Scottish Reform (Scotland) Act - 2016. Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006. Scottish Planning Policy. Planning Policy. 2006. Scottish Planning Policy. Ownership Classification of tenure: Ownership (by associated The site is owned by Murray Estates, a large private Scottish The 2 woodland areas and the Isle of Ulva are under the community body). Eighteen hectares of the 33 ha Landowner. It was previously managed by Stirling District Council ownership of NWMCWC - a community managed trust woodland is owned by Dunbar Community Development until the Council formerly stepped down in 2014 as the result of Company (DCDC), which is chaired by a Councillor. corporate policy changes. Lochend Community Woodland Group (LCWG) manages this part of the woodland on behalf of DCDC. The remaining 15 ha of Lochend Wood is in private ownership. Access and Open Access Open Access Open access use rights Actors and coalitions

177 Primary Dunbar Community Development Company (DCDC), Doune Community Woodland Group (DCWG), Murray Estates NWMCWC, stakeholders Lochend Community Woodland Group, Forestry Commission Scotland, SNH, UPM Tillhill

Harvesting, Mull and Iona Community Trust, Argyll and Bute Council, Community Land Scotland, Community Woodland Association Other Forestry Commission Scotland, Community Woodlands Windfarm Trust, Paths for All Partnership, Postcode Lottery, Stirling Historic Scotland, Tobermory Harbour Association, stakeholders Association, East Lothian Council, Scottish Native Woods, Community Pride Project, Kilmadock Community Council, Stirling Strathclyde police, RSPB, 2 local schools Woodland Trust. Council, CEMEX Aggregates. Partnerships Power Grassroots initiative. The project is a good example of Grassroots Initiative. The project represents a creative partnership Co-governance / green hub: analysis outright community ownership. The Dunbar Community model between a private landowner and a local community group. The project is an excellent example of co-governance but Development Company (DCDC) have legal and financial The landowner has delegated day-to-day responsibility to the with outright community ownership enabled by FCS responsibility for all aspects of ownership, however community group, however still maintains an interest in the National Forest Land Scheme and the Scottish practical decision making is delegated to the Community development of the site through attendance at meetings and Government’s Community Right to buy Scheme. The Woodland Group who are a subgroup. Charity Law, the events. The balance of power appears to be equally shared between further acquisition of the Ulva Estate through the terms and conditions of the management agreement the landowner and the community group. Whilst the bulk of Community Right to buy scheme has effectively created a with DCDC are the main responsibilities which structure management interventions are undertaken directly by the DCWG, green hub focusing on multifunctional community the management and actions of the group. The project the landowner also provides some specialist help with tree development aspirations. has also been the recipient of funding from Forestry management and felling works. Commission Scotland’s (FCS) WIAT programme. FCS Formerly Stirling Council had been responsible for the site however therefore retain some influence as do the local authority spending cutbacks have meant that the arrangement was for the purposes of ensuring compliance. terminated in 2014. The Council remain supportive of the new initiative, however they are no longer directly involved.

Initial catalyst The DCDC had the opportunity to acquire Lochend Wood The Community Group was developed in response to the formal Opportunistic based upon the chance to acquire 2 former for Action after it was handed over by Hallhill development withdrawal of Council support for the Doune Ponds site following a Forestry Commission Woodlands under the FCS National company following the development of the housing local authority spending review. This reflected a general policy Forest Land Scheme. The aim has been to improve estate to the east of the woodland. This was part of the decision to no longer support activities on land owned by third management of the 2 woodland areas for multifunctional agreement that the development company signed when parties. Following a short campaign, the Kilmadock Community objectives including woodland diversification and the social purchasing the land off the local authority. DCDC also Council and local development trust, approached the landowner needs to the rural population. received an endowment from the developer (£50,000) to and established the DCWG. In particular the DCWG were keen to be invested in the development of a path network and a ensure that the site continued to provide local benefits for people play area. and wildlife. Resources Funding Following the acquisition of the site as a result of a The DCWG has been successful in obtaining funding through a National Forest Land scheme through Forestry Commission developer contribution and endowment, LCWG variety of local sources. Funding contributions have been received Scotland for purchase, Scottish Land Fund, the Robertson successfully applied for FCSs WIAT funding. Income from from the Windfarm Trust, Paths for All Partnership, the Postcode Trust, Hugh Fraser Foundation. There has also been this was used towards undertaking woodland Lottery, Stirling Community Pride Project, Kilmadock Community significant local fundraising initiatives. In addition an management works, tree safety and access Council, CEMEX Aggregates who were formerly involve in sand and interest free loan of 700,000 pounds has been received to infrastructure. Another large project was the gravel extraction on the site have also provided contributions. finance timber extraction routes which totalled 2.4 million implementation of a £17,600 cycle fitness track (‘Pump In addition Murray Estates, the landowners have matched pounds. The acquisition of the Ulva Estate has been made Track’), which was carried fundraising efforts by the local community and have donated possible by a 4.4 million pound contribution from the out in collaboration with Dunbar Cycling Group and was materials for specific projects. Significantly there has been a Scottish Land Fund, which is funded by the National funded by Viridor Credits. substantial contribution of volunteer labour to the project from Lottery. Other grant income has been received from Forestry within the community. This has helped to galvanize support. The Commission Scotland. Funding by British Trust for project has also received a £1,000 prize for winning Scotland’s

178 Conservation Volunteers Finest Woods Awards which has been reinvested into the project.

(BTCV) has accommodated tidying of the woods following the large-scale felling operation under the WIAT bid. Scottish Native Woods and The Woodland Trust have provided tree saplings without cost. LCWG has furthermore won £1,000 prize money by ending as runner-up in the Scottish Finest Woods Awards, which was spent on purchasing equipment. Knowledge The board of LCWG has a membership of people from a The group have developed practical habitat management, path The group have excellent knowledge of forestry through variety of professional backgrounds, mostly incomers. construction and conservation management skills through active their network of contacts and employ a professional Group members have skills and expertise in Forest School participation in the project. Administrative backup has also been forester to oversee the works. The group are also education, woodworking, bird surveying, organizing provided by the Kilmadock Community Council and the Local increasingly developing community events, forestry, archaeology, mechanics and Development Association. Project management and event Expertise in the field of sustainable energy, forest crofting coordinating infrastructural projects. The Secretary of organisation skills have also developed through participation in and rural regeneration. Diverse skills including business DCWG has also been a Director of the Community larger projects such as the construction of all-abilities access paths. management are represented on the Woodlands Association, which is drawn upon as a useful Board. forum for sharing ideas and gaining knowledge. Group members have attended training on volunteer coordination and practical woodworking skills.

Delivery LCWG has engaged in thinning and felling operations, in Volunteers from the DCWG have provided direct labour to The company delivers these outputs as a managing agent, mechanisms addition to other woodland management activities to undertake project delivery. This has included tree felling to open up facilitator and co-ordinating body. It employs 3 staff in a sustainability of the forest and improve access and vistas of the main pond, the installation of new paths, the repair and coordination role to ensure effective project delivery. The recreation. These operations are undertaken by replacement of steps, repair and maintenance of access organisation also works closely with commercial contractors under the management of the LCWG. Where infrastructure including picnic tables and benches, bird hides and contractors including UPM Tillhill Harvesting and local appropriate work is also undertaken directly by local bridges. A huge amount of weeding and general tidying of neglected ecotourism businesses and operators. volunteers, including pupils from the local grammar woodland has also taken place. The group have undertaken 5000 school, scouts and rotary club members. Volunteer tasks volunteer hours of work between 2014 – 2017. have involved tree planting, vegetation management, path management, litter picks and creation of an events space and clay oven. GI General Lochend Woods is listed on the Inventory of semi natural The site is a valuable wildlife habitat, although it does has not a Although, the woodland areas are currently of low Benefits ancient woodlands for Scotland and forms part of the formal natural heritage designation or status. However, the site is ecological value, the Company have a plan to diversify Lothians Forest Habitat Network. It is included within the listed on the Scottish ancient semi natural woodland inventory and these through the creating of more broadleaved habitats, coastal margins category within the Edinburgh and forms part of the forest network as shown on the CSGN Integrated riparian zones and open glades within the woodlands. Lothians Forestry and Woodland Strategy. Habitat Network (IHN) mapping. The group are also managing the site to increase Local The woodland is classified as mainly mixed broadleaved In particular, the site provides naturally regenerating birch Biodiversity - species of interest include freshwater pearls, woodland. The predominant species are sycamore and woodland, open standing water and wetlands. Thus providing otters, white-tailed eagles, hare, golden eagle, buzzard, red ash. Other species include: elm, larch, pine and spruce, diverse habitats. deer, hen harrier, barn owl and short eared owl. Ulva is some lime, beech, birch and a few rowan and aspen, plus The location of the site close to local amenities and residential areas located within the Loch Na Keal National Scenic Area. an alder nursery. There is a good existing formal and and its existing path network also increases its significance as a well-maintained path network within the woodland, recreational resource for local people. The site offers potential for

179 which includes a trim trail and a woodland trail (both use for educational activities and as an informal meeting place for

described in the ‘Tree Quest’ leaflet). These routes local people. include benches and bridges. Being located on the urban fringe of Dunbar, the site is eligible for FCS WIAT funding which accords it a high social and recreational value from a Green Infrastructure perspective. GI Since 2007, the LCWG has engaged in thinning and felling Management of the 16ha site for recreation and biodiversity The project has already delivered considerable GI benefits Deliverables operations, in addition to other woodland management objectives. To date much has been done in terms of both managing which include: activities to sustainability of the forest and improve the ponds and improving the visitor facilities. This has included tree Management of the 2 forest areas – Langamull (251 ha) access and recreation. To improve biodiversity, the group felling to open up vistas of the main pond, the installation of new and West Ardhu (440ha), including diversification of the has planted c. 600 native trees, donated by Scottish paths, the repair and replacement of steps, repair and maintenance woodlands for landscape and biodiversity objectives. Native Woods and the Woodland Trust, in a clearfelled of access infrastructure including picnic tables and benches, bird Creation of 16.5km of new forest extraction routes. Recent area, and a further 200 in other parts of the woods. hides and bridges. acquisition of the Isle of Ulva estate in June 2018 (2000ha). Thereby, it has also undertaken woodland maintenance A large amount of weeding and general tidying of neglected Creation of Island Woodfuels subsidiary activities (e.g., controlling encroachment of understory to woodland has also occurred. The woodland is being restructured Creation of 9 forest crofts. Development of a micro hydro paths, remedial work on trees) and wildlife monitoring through supplementary planting of native broadleaved species. The scheme in West Ardhu Forest. (i.e., bird survey). LCWG has facilitated the development site is Important for wildfowl and also for diversity of fungus Creation of a woodland burial ground at Langamull. of a woodland bicycle fitness track; a project initiated by species. Creation of an access path and archaeological Dunbar Cycling Group. LCWG provided an area of land Specifically this has included creation of a network of accessible interpretation at Kildavie. and facilitated the preparation of the grant application to paths including 1000m of new all abilities paths for wheelchair users Development of a sea eagle viewing hide to promote Viridor community landfill tax. To involve, entertain and and other upgraded paths. Works included construction of a new sustainable ecotourism. educate the community, LCWG regularly organizes footbridge and generated, in total 5000 volunteer hours from 70 events such as Easter egg hunts, open air performances regular volunteers.

and courses on woodworking, stool making and building In terms of social outcomes there have been considerable capacity The company delivers these outputs as a managing agent, a clay oven. Most of these events are held in the building benefits for the local community through participation in facilitator and co-ordinating body. It employs 3 staff in a ‘gathering space’, which the group created as a space for volunteering. A number of other special events have also been coordination role to ensure effective project delivery. the community to meet. In partnership with Sustaining organised. These include summer fun days, family days and Dunbar, LCWG also developed a Tree Quest leaflet educational events. Camphill school, which provides education for providing information on two woodland walks, people with learning disabilities has also been involved.

Processes Discourses Crucial to ownership has been the agreement between From its abandonment as a working sand and gravel quarry in the Some local residents do not see the benefits of community the local authority and the developer to transfer 1970s, the site was managed by Stirling District Council Ranger ownership – this was particularly the case with the ownership of the woodland, including an endowment, to Service as a local amenity and nature area. However, following a acquisition of the Island of Ulva, though most resistance the community. corporate policy decision by the Council not to support activities on came from traditional landowner groups representing The outsourcing of legal and financial matters to the private land, the local authority withdrew its support in 2014. vested interests. Some doubts were expressed about the parent charity, DCDC, has facilitated the process of The withdrawal of Council support was the catalyst for the ability of the NWMCWC to manage these challenges. Also transferring ownership. In line with the management formation of the Community Woodland Group with the concept there have been a number of internal conflicts within the agreement, DCDC also provides public liability insurance. being promoted by the Kilmadock Community Council and the local organisation regarding approaches to timber harvesting. Advice from the Community Woodland Association Kilmadock Development Trust. Generally however the group adopts an integrated/ multi- (CWA) on potential funding sources, including WIAT, to The Community Woodland Group approached Murray Estates, the disciplinary approach to all aspects of its operations. The which the group successfully applied. landowner to initiate and develop a new management partnership. Acquisition of Ulva has raised the game of the NWMCWC The availability of a forestry consultant, funded as part of The relationship functions well and is based on mutual trust and and placed it at the forefront of the land reform agenda the WIAT-bid, who provided a consultancy service on respect. within Scotland. The company seeks to work on a business

180 preparing the documentation required for the WIAT- The group have been successful at attracting funding through grants model and seeks that projects should finically sustainable.

application. and corporate sponsorship for local companies. Active recruitment of new members through distributing The volunteering aspect of the project has generated considerable membership forms to public buildings such as the library, interest and high levels of participation from Doune and advertising on the website and creating leaflets (e.g., surrounding communities. The efforts of the group have been ‘Tree Quest’). further recognised through awards including the 2017 “Scotland’s Advice from Forestry Commission and the Community Finest Woods” awards for best community woodland category. The Woodlands Association on how to set up a constitution group also received a Stirling Provost’s Award in 2018 for their for the woodland group. “outstanding voluntary contribution” in the Stirling Area. LCWG have experienced difficulties in the communication with their parent charity around such issues as the provision of public liability insurance, the sharing of certified accounts, the agenda for meetings and the updating of the management plan. This has resulted in uncertainty and delays in decision-making. To improve this situation, LCWG included a clause in the management agreement stating that LCWG may appoint a representative to represent their interests as a Director on the DCDC-board. In the past, engagement as well as group development was frustrated by the lengthy time frame associated with the transfer of woodland ownership from the developer to LCWG. This constrained woodland management for

many years and discouraged some of the group members. Decreasing membership numbers and lack of response by members to requests for renewal of membership or payment of membership fees. LCWG is currently in the transition from the woodland investment stage to the woodland maintenance stage. As a result, there is only a limited number of available funding schemes that can be applied to in regard to woodland management. Due to the location of the woodland close to a housing estate, LCWG has experienced several conflicts with local people. For example, there have been issues with illegal timber extraction for private purposes, and associated with that, damage to the paths due to motorized vehicles. There have also been instances of fly tipping and illegal fires. Furthermore, there have been complaints by local people about overhanging branches or, conversely, the removal of trees. There has also been one instance of private garden encroachment into the forest. LCWG aims to deal with these

181 Participation There are no restrictions on who is eligible to join the Participation is open to all with volunteers being sought to The group operates from Dervaig and represents the

group. Nonetheless, the membership is exclusively based participate from the local community. The group appear to be open community of North West Mull. Membership is available to in Dunbar with the highest concentration of members and inclusive, though generally the active volunteers tend to be adults coming from within the catchment area of North residing in the housing estate directly adjacent to the older due to availability of time to participate. This open approach West Mull (postcodes: PA73 to PA75). Membership is free. woodland. has attracted high rates of volunteering and practical contributions. NWMCWC also offers Associate and Junior Memberships to LCWG offers two types of membership. Individual DCWG operate a Facebook page which has 458 followers (Nov 18) people living outside the community and between 12 and membership is £5 and a family membership is £10 and which documents all activities undertaken by the group. 17 years old, respectively. Associate and junior members p/annum. There are currently 88 paying members out of The group also encourage active participation by the wider can neither vote nor are eligible to a total of 101 members (on a total population of c. community through the organisation of fun days, summer play stand for election. 9,700). Decisions are made by the Committee of DCWG schemes and one off events and activities. There is a social inclusion In January 2012 NWMCWC had 163 Ordinary Members, 54 meeting on a monthly basis and members attending aspect to this as the group work specifically with special needs Associate Members, 10 Junior Members and 9 Directors these meetings and the AGM. individuals from the nearby Camphill School. (out of a maximum of 16). Members nominate and elect The group have very much emphasised practical “hands on” Company Directors on the annual general meeting. One approaches over enabling and have made use of existing structures third of the elected to facilitate administrate requirements. In particular the links with Directors are required to stand down after each AGM. A the Kilmadock Community Council and the Kilmadock Development retiring Director is eligible for re-election after one (3- year) Trust have been key. term of office, but no Director can serve more than two consecutive terms of office.

Monitoring The Committee meet on a monthly basis to review The group have monthly meetings which are attended also by Between 10 -12 meetings of the Directors are held annually and progress and make policy decisions. In addition there is representatives of Murray Estates. They also report to formal to discuss formal business and to review progress achieved. evaluation an AGM. There is a management plan for the woodland meetings of the Kilmadock Community Council. A 10 year with stated objectives which is revised periodically by a management plan has also recently been produced for the site for professional forestry consultant. the process of regulating and monitoring management actions. Promotion Communication to the membership proceeds via a bi- DCWG operate a Facebook page which has 458 followers (Nov 18) The activities of the NWMCWC are promoted extensively and outreach annual newsletter distributed to the email list of and which documents all activities undertaken by the group. on their webpage. There has also been considerable recent members. In addition to the newsletters, members are The group also encourage active participation by the wider media interest in the Ulva buyout: also informed by email about any group meetings, the community through the organisation of fun days, summer play AGM and events. Thereby, it is aimed to limit emails to a schemes and one off events and activities. minimum in order not to overload people. To appeal to a wider audience, including non-members, events are also advertised via posters in the local supermarket, townhouse and library, a notice board at the town house and press releases sent to regional newspapers and radio stations. DCWG furthermore maintains a Facebook page, which is regularly updated with event information and reports including pictures. In the past, LCWG has distributed leaflets to local people to advertise the AGM. Telephone and email are used for communicating within the group of active members.

182

Table 46. Comparison Framework for the Scottish case studies

6.5 SWOT Analysis based upon Comparison Framework Outcomes for Scottish Examples

Following use of the Framework for qualitative analysis, a standard SWOT analysis (University of Kansas, 2018) was then also undertaken using the Scottish case study examples to evaluate the key strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats existing for each project. The results of this were as follows:

Add additional references regarding SWOT process

Lochend Community Woodland – Dunbar, East Lothian:

SWOT analysis observations:

Strengths Characteristics

Strong local group focused on a significant greenspace which is strategically located within the heart of the community and adjacent to residential areas. There is much active support and practical involvement from those living immediately adjacent to the woodland. High levels of participation through hands on volunteering and co-ordinated activity on the site. Effective partnership working and involvement of a diverse range of external groups on the site for activities and volunteering including scouts, local schools, rotary clubs and sports associations. Direct ownership of the site by the local community allows for a high level of control and effective decision making. This has been facilitated through robust agreements between the local authority and the housing developer which has enabled effective transfer of the land to local community ownership. Effective use of the area as a resource for activities, events, environmental education and as an informal meeting place. These multiple functions have been incorporated into the strategic plan for the site. Good levels of communication between the group, its members and with wider stakeholders through social media, newsletters, posters, promotional events and onsite information. Effective leverage of external funding for the project from statutory funding bodies and private sponsorship – e.g. WIAT funding Effective long term planning and management of the site through production of appropriate management plans and regular meetings of the committee to review and monitor progress updates. Close relationship between the community woodland group and their parent body, the Dunbar Community Development Company, allows for effective division of labour and responsibilities. Overarching legal and financial matters are co-ordinated by the parent body allowing the community woodland group to focus on hands-on practical management issues. Good access to support networks including membership and representation on the Community Woodlands Association, a national mentoring and policy body. Good range of professional expertise and skills within the management group to allow for creative solutions and to effectively deal with a wide range of scenarios.

Weaknesses Characteristics

There are disputes with local residents bordering the woodland which have proved difficult to resolve. These have included illegal felling of trees and encroachment of private gardens onto the site. Equally some residents have been concerned about potential property damage to their properties from falling trees and overhanging branches. There have been periodic communication difficulties with the parent body, the Dunbar Community Development Company and sometimes conflicts have occurred. The CWG find the communication issues frustrating and have been a barrier to progress. There have been issues of vandalism and antisocial behaviour on the site which have been difficult to police and manage. Some pieces of infrastructure installed on the site including the clay oven have been damaged. It can be difficult to attract new members to become involved in the project and to take on the responsibilities involved in managing the woodland. Decreasing membership in the past and a lack of response to calls for action from existing members can be a problem. There are a limited number of grants and funding opportunities which can be applied for from external sources thus creating difficulties with obtaining funding. Revenue funding in particular is an ongoing issue.

183

Opportunities Characteristics

There is potential for greater use of the site to deliver and develop a health and physical activity agenda in accordance with Scottish Government Objectives. This potential could be developed in association with local schools, colleges and organisations involved in promoting physical and mental health. Possible initiatives might include “Branching out” for those with learning disabilities, active schools and green gyms. There is scope for the site to provide an enhanced meeting place and social space for local people to meet. There is potential to develop the wider social enterprise benefits of the initiative through use of the site for providing training, rehabilitation and other potential income generating activity derived from woodland products. This could be done in association with other community woodlands in the area such as Wooplaw and training initiatives such as New Caledonian Woodlands. Links could be promoted between the Community Woodland and US conservation champion, John Muir who was born in Dunbar and spent his early years there. The recently extended John Muir Way finishes in Dunbar and is attracting increasing numbers of walkers. Some visitors could be directed to the site through appropriate signage and interpretation materials. The woodland could offer greater scope as a practical location for forest school and kindergarten activities thus increasing its social and environmental value. Threats Characteristics

Disputes with neighbours regarding boundaries, encroachment and liability issues could intensify and increase in frequency. Possible deterioration of the relationship between the Dunbar Community Woodland Group and their parent body the Dunbar Community Development Company. Liabilities, financial and statutory responsibilities could become too burdensome for the group to manage in the future. The availability of volunteers able to undertake these key roles might be reduced as the locally active population ages. The asset value of the land and lack of other available greenfield sites for housing might attract attention from developers and landuse planners. Table 47: SWOT Analysis - Lochend Community Woodland, Dunbar

6.3.2 Doune Ponds Local Nature Reserve – Doune, Stirling:

SWOT analysis observations:

Strengths Characteristics

A good illustration of the power of community participation to manage a resource effectively following the withdrawal of management support from the local authority. A successful partnership in action between a community and a private landowner with power equally shared. Effective direct action and volunteering by the local community, thereby developing community capacity and new skills. A large number of volunteer hours have been invested in the project. Delivery of multifunctional objectives including; habitat enhancement, biodiversity, outdoor access (including all abilities access), interpretation, environmental education, social inclusion and community capacity building Effective leverage of resources through grants acquisition, corporate sponsorship and provision of help in kind. Good use of contact networks. Recognition of achievements through awards and accreditation including through “Scotland’s Finest Woods” awards 2017. A high degree of local media coverage and interest. The site is located close to a new residential area and to village amenities, thereby according it a high recreational value for local people. The site is also popular with dog walkers. The project has been good for its social inclusion aspects which include creation of all abilities paths suitable for wheelchair users and for involvement with Camphill School, a nearby centre for people with learning disabilities. Young people have also been involved through summer play schemes and events. Use of the site for a wide range of themed community events including family fun days, orienteering, storytelling, bug hunts and wildlife watching. Weaknesses Characteristics

The continuation of the project is largely dependent upon the goodwill of the landowner and ongoing voluntary cooperation. Most of the active members are of retirement age, raising questions about the longer term sustainability of the project. There is no assurance that income streams will be maintained or that current levels of income can be sustained in the future. The full green tourism benefits of the site have not been fully optimised. Many visitors to Doune, including the castle are unaware of the ponds site and the associated natural heritage interests.

184

Opportunities Characteristics

To further develop the site further as a focus for events based around natural heritage, outdoor activities and environmental education. To promote social inclusion through involvement of special needs groups, corporate social responsibility programmes and through organisation of local community events. To integrate the ponds into wider concepts for the development of green tourism in Doune, particularly through encouraging the use of local trails by visitors to Doune Castle, thereby increasing footfall in local shops, cafes and restaurants. Threats Characteristics

The relationship between the community and the landowner could deteriorate. There could be demand for further residential development in Doune, thereby putting the site at risk. The capacity of the group to undertake practical management works might be put in jeopardy due to an aging demographic.

Table 48. SWOT Analysis - Doune Ponds Local Nature Reserve

NW Mull Community Woodland Company - Mull, Argyll.

SWOT analysis observations:

Strengths Characteristics

Adoption of a model which provides a high degree of autonomy to the local community to manage the GI resource in a manner considered most appropriate – albeit within the criteria and the confines of the appropriate legislation. Local ownership of the resource and long term security of tenure for residents allowing for a long term approach to management. A business driven model which encourages innovation and entrepreneurialism as key determining factors for success. A willingness to experiment with new management concepts and approaches ignored by traditional land owners as well as the ability to access new sources of public and private funding. A holistic and integrated approach which emphasises sustainable development principles through encompassing diverse social, environmental and economic objectives. A capacity building approach which increases the core competencies and skills of the local people through active participation in governance and project management.

Instils Community pride and a “yes we can” culture. Counters long held perceived historical injustices – i.e. heralds a new era in terms of land ownership / social justice.

Seen as being at the cutting edge of land reform in Scotland, with associated media interest. The publicity generated has helped to encourage and enthuse local people about the viability of the initiative. Politically very much flavour of the month – large amount of support from central government agencies, NGOs and mentoring bodies. Able to access large amounts of public funding through programmes such as the Scottish Land Fund and the Scottish Rural Development Programme. Weaknesses Characteristics

There is pressure upon the Company to succeed where private ownership has previously failed to deliver effective economic, social and environmental outcomes. With the newly acquired ownership also comes pressure and responsibility to achieve results. There are significant challenges involved in reversing the impact of past management practices. The primary assets belonging to the Company have been historically subject to poor and unsustainable management practices in terms of silvicultural, ecological stewardship, grazing pressure and the social welfare of tenants and residents Unlike private owners, the NWMCWC can never realise the asset value of the land as the acquisition has been assisted through public funding programmes including the Scottish Land Fund. Upon failure, land managed by the Company would revert to public/state control. The Company has initially lacked expertise in certain key areas particularly with regards to forestry management and timber harvesting practices, thus requiring the need for additional external assistance. Capabilities in these areas are now increasing however and gaps have been bridged through engagement of external consultants /advisors.

185

A number of internal conflicts have emerged over decision making processes for timber harvesting procedures. There has been difficulty in securing long term commitment by volunteers to fill director posts and to participate in projects due the lengthy timescales involved, perception of onerous bureaucracy and pre-existing commitments. There has been resistance to community ownership approaches from vested interest groups within the traditional landowning and field sports sector. Consequently a number of negative press articles have appeared in specialist publications targeted at landowning interests. These have promoted scepticism that the Company will be able to deliver its targets and whether community ownership is a realistic option. Concern has been expressed that the high amount of public funding required for community purchase of the assets does not represent effective value for money- particularly with regard to the Island of Ulva, given the low population density there. However this does not take into account future growth projections and the perception of Ulva as being a component of the wider NW Mull area. Opportunities Characteristics

An opportunity to showcase best practice through good stewardship, social and ecological restoration and the creation of new economic opportunities to reverse a previous cycle of decline. This has the potential to result in the creation of new innovative enterprises in the sectors of tourism, energy generation and social service provision / infrastructure. A number of other case studies have already illustrated the viability of this approach e.g. Eigg, Gigha, Assynt A chance to highlight and to showcase the positive benefits of community based land management approaches which might be applicable to other areas and situations. For example there is potential to transfer similar methodologies and community ownership models into urban areas particularly through the participation of national mentoring groups / umbrella bodies e.g. Community Land Scotland, Community Woodlands Association. An opportunity for local residents to take a long term view through offering security of tenure. Economic potential through the chance to tap in to the growing demand for alternative tourism through favouring enterprises based upon local distinctiveness, local product branding, wildlife watching, special interest holidays and adventure activities. Overall there is a reaction against mass tourism and increasing demand for local authenticity. An opportunity to insure that investment and revenue is targeted back into the area through supporting locally based products and services. The chance to retain and enhance local core services such as transport links and schools through providing new housing provision, economic opportunities and essential infrastructure. This should help to reverse centuries of depopulation within the region. The chance to create a confident and forward looking community. Threats Characteristics

The success of the NWMCWC is dependent upon the investment of public funds – such income streams cannot be guaranteed in future meaning that the organisation must aim to become self-sufficient in terms of funding. The Land reform agenda is highly political and is supported in Scotland by the present SNP Government. However it is unpopular with the traditional landowning classes who see it as a potential threat to their continuing existence. The future success of the project will therefore be carefully watched- there has already been criticism of the NWMCWC’s financial projections by the outgoing landowner and within specialist publications. These include claims that the Community Company is not truly representative of the wider public. There is potential for disagreement and conflict amongst the Directors and members of the Company which could jeopardise future operations and projects of the Company. Much of the potential for tourism development on Mull is based around key Scottish Government policies such as the widespread application of Road Equivalent Tariffs for ferry transport to the island which has seen a great increase in tourism numbers. Such policies are politically determined and could change in future making island tourism enterprises less viable. At present the tourism market is buoyant in Scotland, however this could change if economic conditions alter. The impact of Brexit upon subsidies for rural development and agriculture is, as yet, unknown. This is likely to have an impact upon funding available in future.

Table 49. SWOT Analysis – North West Mull

Comparison of strengths and weaknesses according to predefined classes:

In addition to the detailed SWOT analysis for each site, for the purposes of comparison, a rapid scoring assessment has been used to gain a broad overview of the characteristic strengths and weaknesses exhibited by each project according to predefined attributes. In terms of strengths - Fig 71, a higher score can be considered as positive, whilst with weaknesses lower scores are preferable – Fig 72.

186

Key Strengths

NW Mull Dunbar Doune

Integrative Approaches Particpation Levels Recognition / awards Financial / in kind leverage GI Impacts on the ground Social inclusion / SROI Promotion / marketing Environmental education value Long term sustainability Partnership support

Key Strengths NW Mull Dunbar Doune Integrative Approaches high med high Participation Levels med high high Recognition / awards high med high Financial leverage high med med GI Impacts on the ground high high high Social inclusion / SROI med med high Promotion / marketing high med med Environmental education value high high high Long term sustainability high med high Partnership support high high med

Fig 71. Indicative comparison of strengths according to predefined classes - Scotland

187

Key weaknesses

NW Mull Dunbar Doune

Age / gender inequalities Unrepesentativeness Narrow focus Low GI impact /benefits Poor partnership working / conflicts Lack of promotion Short termism Low levels of participation

Key weaknesses NW Mull Dunbar Doune Age / gender inequalities med med med Unrepresentativeness low low low Narrow focus low low low Low GI impact /benefits low low low Poor partnership working / conflicts low low low Lack of promotion low low low Short termism low low med Low levels of participation med med low

Fig 72. Indicative comparison of weaknesses according to predefined classes - Scotland

188

6.6 Identification of key positive and negative learning points for the Scottish case studies based upon the SWOT Analysis

Key positive and negative learning points were compiled for each case study based the results of the SWOT analysis process. These were then used to inform subsequent discussion.

Lochend Community Woodland – Dunbar, East Lothian: Key learning points

Key positive Description learning point The project shows how green infrastructure can be effectively safeguarded and created through developer contributions and through use of the planning system with appropriate safeguards in place. Illustrates how a community owned company can effectively manage assets for the benefit of local people, rather than through the local authority undertaking this work. The importance of involving local activists in the process to co-ordinate practical work whilst devolving statutory responsibilities and administration to a parent organisation Clearly shows how a small woodland can deliver multifunctional benefits including: health, wellbeing, social interaction, recreation, biodiversity and ecological benefits. The significance of local partnerships with external groups such as scouts, schools, sports organisations and local rotary clubs to maximise the potential stakeholder participation in the site. The need for an effective management plan to deliver maximum benefits, ensure effective monitoring and to lever resources from external funders. The need to liaise closely with local residents and to ensure that disputes are effectively resolved. Key negative Description learning point Problems of neglect and vandalism have been an issue in the woodland Difficulties in mobilising volunteers as well as getting people to join committees and steering groups. Encouraging active participation of members at meetings and events can be a problem Communication difficulties between activists who are directly involved and those working at committee level especially with regard to the parent organisation. Disputes have arisen over boundary issues, particularly with regards to overhanging trees and vegetation.

Table 50. Key Learning Points - Lochend Community Woodland, Dunbar

Doune Ponds Local Nature Reserve – Doune, Stirling: Key learning points

Key positive Description learning point A good illustration of the power of community participation to manage a resource effectively following the withdrawal of management support from the local authority. A successful partnership in action between a community and a private landowner with power being equally shared. Effective direct action and volunteering by the local community, thereby developing community capacity and new skills. A large number of volunteer hours have been invested in the project. Effective leverage of resources through grants acquisition, corporate sponsorship and provision of help in kind. Good use of contact networks and local support structures. Recognition of achievements through awards and accreditation including through “Scotland’s Finest Woods” awards 2017. Use of the site for a wide range of themed community events including family fun days, orienteering, storytelling, bug hunts and wildlife watching. The project has been good for its social inclusion aspects which include creation of all abilities paths suitable for wheelchair users and for involvement with Camphill School, a nearby centre for people with learning disabilities. Young people have also been involved through summer play schemes and events. Key negative Description learning point The problems experienced in relying upon existing local authority support structures in a climate of diminishing public spending. Problems that can arise from deteriorating infrastructure if investment and site maintenance is not adequately maintained.

Table 51. Key Learning Points - Doune Ponds Local Nature Reserve

189

NW Mull Community Woodland Company - Mull, Argyll: Key Learning Points:

Key positive Description learning point Direct Community ownership can provide am effective alternative structure for the management of GI to more traditional forms of ownership. Effective community ownership requires tailored legislation and support structures to enable this to take place. It needs to be integrated into governmental and agency policies through clearly communicated and tested procedures. Community buy outs such as Ulva would not be possible without the necessary legislation in place. Local control of the resource can create a more business-like and entrepreneurial approach to GI management including the development of integrated scenarios which deliver multifunctional social, environmental and economic outcomes. The processes of developing community ownership develops capacity and self-confidence within the community to tackle larger and more complex projects thus developing social capital and capability. Community ownership models also require effective partnerships with co-manging agencies including, governmental bodies, NGOS and business in order to deal with the complexities of land management. The role and significance of mentoring bodies and umbrella associations is key to providing support and best practice models to local groups. These bodies can provide assistance in negotiations with statutory authorities, legal and financial advice and contact with similar initiatives. There is untapped potential in terms of local knowledge and skills within the community which can be developed as a resource. The models and approaches learned can be applied in other geographical and thematic situations including potentially in urban environments. Long term security of tenure by local people can help project sustainability through removing uncertainty element.

Key negative Description learning point Vested interest groups can prevent innovation and maintain the status quo. Groups need to representative and have a broad community endorsement in order to stem criticism and to deliver a cross section of benefits. A lack of core skills or administrative expertise will limit the success of any community ownership initiatives. Communities lacking in this capacity will struggle to undertake the necessary administrative and technical management activity. Unrealistic or poorly defined objectives will lead to project failure with significant negative implications. Narrow communities of interest or cliques will lead to perceptions of self-interest and will reduce potential benefits. Community interest alone is not a panacea – this needs to be backed up with sound cooperation, partnership working with co-managing agents and prudent financial decision making Community ownership is highly reliant on political intervention and appropriate policies existing at high level

Table 52. Key Learning Points – North West Mull

6.7 Bar and Radar charts illustrating outcomes against objectives

As with the German case studies, the initial motivations for citizen participation were then considered in context to the relative significance of social, cultural, environmental and economic benefits delivered by each project. These were then illustrated graphically using bar charts:

6.7.1 Citizen’s Group Motivations and Existing GI Potential:

Respective motivations varied less than the German case studies, the exception to this being the factor of economic development which varied considerably – for example this was very high in NW Mull as a motivational factor whilst in Doune and Dunbar the motivational factors were spread across other variables including a desire to enhance local landscapes and nature conservation - see Fig 73. Similarly in Dunbar, economic development was less of a driver for the development of the initiative, the primary aim being to create a resource for developing the potential of local people, whilst delivering

190

landscape and nature conservation objectives. It is fair to say that the motivations were probably more diverse and were not quite as polarised as in the case of German case studies; these tended to have a stronger individual thematic basis. This may result from a more joined up policy agenda within the Scottish context which promotes multifunctional social, economic and environmental outcomes (Scottish Government 2020b).

Fig 73. Group motivations - Scotland

These motivations were also largely a good reflection upon the existing GI resource and potential offered by each site - see Fig 74. NW Mull for example had a strong economic focus, with the aim being to build upon the legacy of commercial forest management which had been undertaken in the area by former owners, Forestry Commission Scotland, the state forestry service. However the citizens’ group also saw potential for delivering additional economic benefits from the GI resource which had received less previous emphasis. This included particularly the development of wildlife tourism attractions, through the creation of observatories for sea eagles, an iconic reintroduced species to the Island (Malloy D 2011). The NW Mull group also saw the social benefits of the site into terms of offering capacity building and community development opportunities, despite the fact that the existing potential was fairly low. These strong community regeneration motivations have also been behind the group’s recent acquisition of the Island of Ulva, with the social aspirations and

191

ambitions of the citizens’ group being very much at odds with the present status quo, which had favoured outmigration and depopulation of the area (MacLeod 2017, Isle of Ulva 2020, North West Mull Community Woodland Company 2020b).

In Dunbar and Doune, by contrast, economic development aspects were accorded overall, a significantly lower priority in terms of motivation and this was reflected quite closely by situation on the ground. Both of these case study sites were primarily seen as offering a recreational and social resource for local people and were considered to offer little in terms of economic potential. The nature of the existing GI resource in these instances, helped to naturally focus the interests of the group towards nature conservation and landscape enhancement. This seems to be closely balanced with an understanding of how the sites might also offer potential as a resource for developing capacity building, providing training opportunities and educational potential. In this respect, existing and potential path infrastructure was seen as a potential asset which might be developed further, providing considerable potential for participation and training.

Overall, the notion of local civic pride, or indeed rivalry between local communities, seems to be less of a factor behind the Scottish examples than the German ones and there generally appears to be less competition for individual status and local prestige. By contrast, the Scottish communities appear to see themselves as being more part of a wider social reform movement, through creating greater equality in land ownership, initiating processes of change and in so doing, righting perceived historical wrongdoings (MacLeod 2017, The Guardian 2018). However, despite a less competitive approach, these citizen’s groups are keen to stand out as perceived innovators and to receive recognition for their efforts. Accreditation schemes such as the “Scotland’s Finest Woods” (Scotland's Finest Woods Awards 2020) Awards, in the case of Doune, or equally, the supportive press coverage surrounding the community buyout of the Isle of Ulva, in NW Mull (The Guardian 2018), are therefore seen as being significant accolades by the respective citizens’ groups involved.

192

Key Existing GI Values

NW Mull Dunbar Doune

Nature Conservation and Biodiversity Landscape Value Paths and Connectivity Social Value Economic significance Ecosystem services significance Educational benefit

Key Existing Green Infrastructure - indicative NW Mull Dunbar Doune Nature Conservation and Biodiversity med med high Landscape Value high high high Paths and Connectivity med high high Social Value med high high Economic significance high low low Ecosystem services significance high med high Educational benefit med high high

Fig 74. Overall existing GI assets - Scotland

6.7.2 Social, Environmental and Economic criteria

Compared with the German sites, social aspects are fairly well balanced across the 3 Scottish sites, though in NW Mull, community capacity building has received a special emphasis - see Fig 75. This reflects a strong local agenda focused upon community regeneration and the development of opportunities and skills for the island’s community, especially for attracting and retaining younger people in the area (North West Mull Community Woodland Company 2020a). This focus aims to encourage retention of the Islands’ existing population whilst also to helping to attract new residents; especially in the case of the recently acquired island of Ulva which has undergone significant historical population decline (MacLeod 2017). By Comparison, health and recreation are accorded a slightly lower emphasis in NW Mull, perhaps given the extensive nature of the sites involved and their distance from the existing settlements and centres of population. Nevertheless, initiatives on the sites have included trail network development and upgrade of existing paths with a view to attracting tourists.

The projects within the small settlements at Doune and Dunbar however, have a somewhat different emphasis in that they more directly serve the needs of the local resident populations, many of whom live directly on the periphery of these sites. Trail networks within these locations consequently address

193

the immediate health, wellbeing and recreational demands of the local inhabitants. Their development and management is consequently accorded a high priority.

Environmental education receives considerable attention across all three of the Scottish case studies, with local groups having well developed links with local schools, including special needs establishments. The educational role also goes beyond the normal school curriculum and includes informal education for groups such as scouts, guides, Duke of Edinburgh’s Award participants, as well as activity days and summer play schemes for kids.

Social Aspects

NW Mull Dunbar Doune

Recreational facilities Community Capacity Building Education Health and wellbeing

Social aspects - indicative NW Mull Dunbar Doune Recreational facilities med high high Community Capacity Building high high high Education high high high Health and wellbeing med high high

Fig 75. Social Aspects - Scotland

6.7.3 Environmental aspects:

In terms of environmental aspects, the greatest variation can be seen to exist between NW Mull and the Doune case study - see Fig 76. In NW Mull there is considerable emphasis upon productive forestry, including sustainable harvesting. In the latter case, the main emphasis of site management has been to provide for local amenity functions, in terms of landscape value, nature conservation benefit and as a local cultural heritage resource for the community. Dunbar on the other hand, has a fairly even distribution of environmental outcomes, which include landscape and nature conservation objectives as well as small amounts of sustainable harvesting of timber products. The historical and cultural heritage aspects of the site, including the composition and structure of the woodland itself and individual heritage trees, are also considered to be of importance.

In general, other environmental aspects are broadly compatible. All the case studies are involved to some extent, in the conservation and promotion of minor cultural heritage features or monuments

194

within site boundaries; these including active archaeological excavations on historic farm dwellings in the case of NW Mull. NW Mull has also placed slightly less emphasis upon landscape and nature conservation as the resource being managed is mainly former commercial forestry land, traditionally of low ecological value, despite some localised pockets of higher biodiversity. However work includes replanting proposals to diversify these woodland areas and to integrate them better within their landscape and ecological setting.

Environmental Aspects

NW Mull Dunbar Doune

Landscape enhancement Nature Conservation and habitat management Local sustainability e.g. community growing /energy Cultural heritage

Environmental aspects - indicative NW Mull Dunbar Doune Landscape enhancement med high high Nature Conservation and habitat management med high high Local sustainability e.g. community growing /energy high med low Cultural heritage high med high

Fig 76. Environmental Aspects - Scotland

6.7.4 Economic aspects:

As already indicated under previous headings, economic outcomes received the highest priority in NW Mull - see Fig 77. This was primarily through the management and marketing of commercial forest products, particularly timber sales, derived from the felling and restocking of existing woodlands (Van der Jagt A 2014b). However, green tourism initiatives, particularly the establishment of viewing hides and sea eagle observatories, in addition to more general wildlife tours and guiding, were also seen as being significant initiatives contributing to economic wellbeing. Profits made from these initiatives were then reinvested back into the community organisation to cover its ongoing administration and future projects. These projects included the provision of physical infrastructure on the ground to promote sustainable tourism initiatives including trail networks, signage and interpretation boards.

195

In Doune and Dunbar there is also investment of resources to develop access infrastructure and interpretive facilities. The emphasis in these 2 case study locations is different however and aims more towards catering for needs of local residents, rather than through boosting visitor numbers to generate inward investment. In Doune, however, there is also some potential for generating income indirectly through increasing visitor footfall to local shops, cafes and other service businesses. This could also capitalise on the reputation of Doune as a historic centre and its strategic location on the main tourist route to Loch Lomand and the Trossachs National Park (Loch lomand and the Trossachs National Park 2020) from the Central Belt of Scotland. However, overall, Doune is of considerably lesser tourism significance than NW Mull and is more likely to attract day visitors rather than those seeking an extended stay.

Economic Aspects

NW Mull Dunbar Doune

Trail network development - physical Marketing /Interpretation e.g. signage, leaflets, web-based. Other commercial products / services (e.g. timber products) Green tourism related business development e.g. wildlife watching

Economic Aspects - Indicative NW Mull Dunbar Doune Trail network development - physical high High High Marketing /Interpretation e.g. signage, leaflets, web-based. high High High Other commercial products / services high low low Green tourism related business development e.g. wildlife watching high low low

Fig 77. Economic Aspects - Scotland

6.7.5 Overview of Social, Environmental and Economic Aspects:

The overview of social, environmental and economic aspects - Fig 78, illustrates the key trends very clearly. The significance of social and environmental aspects is reasonably consistent across all 3 of the Scottish projects with the respective citizens’ groups making concerted efforts to match environmental protection with a strong social agenda through delivering training, capacity building and educational outcomes.

196

By contrast, the NW Mull case study has a much stronger economic focus than the other case studies; it being based upon sustainable management of former commercial plantations for income generation purposes and with an underlying objective to create conditions suitable for sustaining vulnerable rural populations through developing inward investment opportunities, related to rural development, land management and sustainable ecotourism.

In this respect, the NW Mull project is certainly the largest project in terms of scale and turnover and is also the most ambitious in terms of organisational objectives. The basic premise of promoting sustainable rural development objectives whilst sustaining local livelihoods and delivering GI represents a very holistic approach reflecting this level of ambition. However, participation by the NW Mull citizens’ organisation in the community land buy-out process - also supported by considerable external resources and with UK National media scrutiny (The Guardian 2018) - has also created considerable pressure to achieve success and to meet operational objectives through employment and mobilisation of a full time staff team. The recent acquisition of Ulva Island has further added to these responsibilities whilst opening up considerably greater opportunities.

However, whilst it’s easy to identify operational and Ideological differences between the projects, all share the common objective of managing GI resources in a sustainable manner, both by and on behalf of, local citizens.

Overview - Social, Environmental & Economic Aspects

NW Mull Dunbar Doune

Social benefits: Evironmental benefits: Economic benfits:

Social, Environmental, Economic - indicative NW Mull Dunbar Doune Social benefits: high high high Environmental benefits: high high high Economic benefits: high med med

Fig 78. Social, environmental and economic aspects overview - Scotland

6.8 Stakeholder Mapping charts illustrating group structure and stakeholders

Stakeholder maps were produced for the three Scottish case study areas. These aimed to show the variety of stakeholders involved in each case and their roles as a citizens’ group, statutory authority or mentoring bodies. The number and range of participating partners varied across the case studies as did the complexity of the governance arrangements. Although not intended to give a detailed

197

breakdown of the power relations existing within each group, the stakeholder mapping does help to provide a basic overview of the scale, complexity and composition of each of the case studies. A Key has been used to indicate the various types of stakeholder Groupings – See Fig 82.

Lochend Community Woodland – Dunbar, East Lothian:

Fig 79. Lochend Community Woodland – Stakeholder overview

The governance arrangements for the Dunbar Community Woodland are less strategic and ground breaking in nature compared with other case study examples, notably the NWMCWC, and focus very much on the local level impact of the initiative and the day to day tasks of site management - see Fig 79.

The local authority has a role to play; however this was notably more significant at the start to the process and is now primarily restricted to addressing routine matters of mutual concern. Scottish Government agencies, Forestry Commission Scotland and Scottish Natural Heritage, have also acted both in an advisory and a regulatory capacity, but at the same time, have been able to maintain a positive working relationship with the group.

In terms of the involvement of NGOs as mentoring bodies, a select number of organisations have been involved in co-management functions, often in a short term advisory capacity. These include specialist bodies such as Scottish Native Woods and the Woodland Trust, both of whom have a remit to protect and manage woodlands as native habitats.

In terms of providing mentoring assistance, the role of the Community Woodlands Association has also been a significant one. They have provided assistance on the ground, technical help and capacity building through providing technical guidance, workshops and participation in study tours (Community Woodlands Association 2020). The Dunbar Community Woodland Group have also been represented on the board of the Community Woodland Association at Director level which has helped with the sharing of skills and knowledge transfer.

The relationship with the parent body, the Dunbar Community Development Company, can at times be problematic and a source of low level conflict, however overall, the community woodland group benefit from this association in terms of financial and legal compliance issues.

198

Doune Ponds Local Nature Reserve – Doune, Stirling:

Fig 80. Doune Ponds – Stakeholder overview

The Doune Ponds Local Nature Reserve illustrates effective cooperation between a private landowner, Murray Estates Ltd, which has the legal ownership of the site, and the Doune Community Woodland Group, a local citizen’s initiative - see Fig 80. This arrangement has come about as a practical solution in light of the withdrawal of Council support and funding, which was previously provided by the Council’s Countryside Ranger service. The citizens’ group has been proactively established by a parent body, the Kilmadock Community Council, which is elected to directly represent and act upon the interests of the local community.

In reality there is a good shared power balance between the 2 main partners with effective cooperative working, generation of added value and a high degree of mutual understanding. There is a formal management agreement in place, although ultimately the landowner retains the control and the ownership of the GI resource. From the chart it can be seen that although Stirling Council still also retains involvement. However, this is now greatly restricted and is directed through the Council’s Local Pride initiative (Rowbotham J 2018); this provides some limited benefits including access to small scale funding streams and support mechanisms which are made generally available across a range of community initiatives.

Mentoring bodies provide a moderate level of assistance, albeit very much at an arms-length basis, with the citizens’ group wanting to operate in a relatively autonomous manner and to make decisions according to their own judgements. In this respect, although there are links with national mentoring bodies, particularly the Community Woodland Association, the group are primarily concerned with aspects of the project which deliver the greatest tangible local benefits, rather than the bigger picture themes around community land management.

There has also been some active involvement from the local business community in the capacity of sponsors and donors for projects which have been initiated by the citizens’ group. This includes support from CEMEX aggregates, which is a firm which was once involved in the extraction of sand

199

and gravel from the site (ref). This cooperation has arisen through contacts which are already personally known to the group.

NW Mull Community Woodland Company - Mull, Argyll:

Fig 81. NW Mull Community Woodlands – Stakeholder overview Fig 81 shows there is a significant representation of public authorities and statutory bodies who work with NWMCWC to ensure mutual objectives are met; including compliance with necessary legislation and with funding conditions. However the public authorities are not formally represented on the Board of the Company but have an advisory and consultative role.

Maintaining close working relationships with the statutory authorities at a formal and informal level, helps funding opportunities to be maximised, particularly in terms of acquiring state aid to the project through various grant schemes as well as helping to ensure high levels of compliance are maintained. Input from funders has proved, for example, particularly constructive in terms of targeting applications to the Scottish Community Land Fund, administered by the Big Lottery Scheme with input from the HIE Community Assets team (The Guardian 2018).

Meanwhile, the link up with a commercial company, UPM Tillhill, has helped to ensure that effective harvesting arrangements are in place and function efficiently, that income through timber sales has been effectively maximised and that felled areas are properly restocked according to planned management operations and grant aid packages.

The role of the mentoring organisations in NW Mull is very significant, particularly that of the Community Woodlands Association and Community Land Scotland. The representation on both these mentoring bodies by a Board member of NWMCWC also helps to increase lobbying power of NWMCWC at a national level and helps to facilitate connections with key government officials and departments.

Links to the local community and business associations are also very important in helping to align the priorities of the NWMCWC with wider issues of community interest, the needs of the business community and the practical logistics of local transport infrastructure and its organisation.

200

In general the high level of supportive contacts within government, the NGO sector and business has helped the project to flourish, to take full advantage of fiscal measures, funding packages and policies. Similarly this has also allowed the NWMCWC to actively become involved in helping to shape these policies and measures for the future and to help other similar initiatives to derive benefits from these.

Fig 82. Key to the stakeholder charts – Figs. 79-81

Summary table illustrating stakeholder Participation:

To gain an overview of stakeholder participation, key stakeholders across the range of case studies are shown together in one summary table - see Table 53. The table is interesting as it shows that there are a number of significant players which are active across the range of projects, although their role is not necessarily significant as a dominant partner:

Partner organisation Involvement - overview NW Mull Dunbar Doune

Forestry Commission Scotland × x Scottish Natural Heritage x Historic Scotland x Local Authority x x x

Postcode Lottery x Private Enterprise e.g. commercial forestry, aggregates or agribusiness x x Community Land Scotland x Community Woodland Association x x x

RSPB x Police x Education Authority x x x

Scottish Native Woods x Harbour Association x Windfarm Trust x Woodland Trust x Paths for All Partnership x

Table 53. Presence and absence of key stakeholders across the case study projects - Scotland

The respective local authorities in each location have some involvement in each of the projects, however this role is generally on a consultative basis, rather than as a leading agent. This reflects the changing nature of citizen participation initiatives in Scotland, whereby local authorities are generally withdrawing from direct financial responsibilities and burdens and are instead adopting more arms- length and enabling roles as clearly illustrated by the example from Doune, where the local authority

201

has largely opted out of a previous management function (Scottish Land and Estates 2020). The role of the authorities then appears to be primarily concerned with issues of compliance and strategic planning, as well as through supporting small scale schemes with an enabling ethos, as is the ethos with the Stirling Community Pride initiative.

Although local authority education departments are also involved in each project, this participation appears to occur at the local level in terms of development of links with individual schools by the respective local citizens’ groups. This will, to some extent, be determined by the ethos and willingness of the individual schools to participate, however existing enrolment in nationally recognised initiatives such as Eco-schools, the John Muir Award Scheme or Forest Schools may increase the likelihood of the schools becoming involved.

The involvement of mentoring bodies is also a common thread across the three case studies, particularly the Community Woodlands Association which acts in a supportive, advisory and lobbying role in all the Scottish case studies (Community Woodlands Association 2020). The Mull example illustrates how this can raise the profile of the local initiatives themselves through having a direct influence upon national policy decisions, funding streams and incentives. Community Land Scotland, although currently only active in the Mull example, is a more recently established mentoring association which is also consolidating its national influence and membership base. It is active across a wide range of GI related projects throughout Scotland, increasingly also within urban areas (Community Land Scotland 2020).

Governmental agencies also have a key role to play, particularly Forestry Commission Scotland, recently renamed as “Forestry and Land Scotland” and Scottish Natural Heritage, in terms of providing advice and funding as well as operating in a compliance function. A number of smaller organisations such as the Paths for All Partnership, RSPB and the Woodland Trust can also provide opportunities for accessing grant assistance and technical assistance.

It is also apparent that there is potentially a role for the private sector to play in the support for projects, mainly in terms of sponsorship opportunities from local businesses, though possibly in other forms such as provision of labour or materials through corporate social responsibility programmes. This will of course vary according to each locality, unless it becomes part of some larger corporate sponsorship programme.

6.9 Delivery of UN Sustainable Development Goals

Additionally, with regard to considering the spread of social economic and environmental outcomes delivered by the various case studies, it is useful to also evaluate the potential for classifying the case studies in terms of how they contribute to the range of UN Sustainable Development Goals – SDGs (United Nations 2020). A simple assessment of this is shown in Table 54 below. Significantly some of the SDG themes have not been divided strictly along social, economic or environmental lines and are therefore in reality, cross cutting.

202

UN Sustainable Development Indicators NW Mull Dunbar Doune

1. No Poverty x 2. Zero hunger 3. Good health and wellbeing x x x 4. Quality education x x x

5. Gender equality 6. Clean water and sanitation x 7. Affordable and clean energy x 8. Decent work and economic growth x 9. Industry, innovation and infrastructure x 10. Reduced inequalities x x x 11. Sustainable cities and communities x x x

12. Responsible production and consumption x 13. Climate action x 14. Life below water x x 15. Life on Land x x x

16. Peace and justice strong institutions x 17. Partnerships for the goals x x x

Table 54. Synergy between case studies and UN Sustainable Development Goals - Scotland

Looking at the chart, it becomes immediately apparent that the Mull case study contributes to the widest range of SDGs. This is due to the cross cutting nature of the project and the fact that social and economic regeneration goals have been embedded at the heart of the project since the inception stage – these include ambitious objectives to reverse rural population decline, to create inward investment opportunities, to promote stronger local communities and to be involved in sustainable energy production. These are balanced against SDGs which might be more traditionally associated with mainstream GI projects such as; 3 – Good health and wellbeing, 14 – Life below water, 15 – Life on Land (United Nations 2020).

Although NW Mull stands as an exceptional example in terms of its ability to deliver multifunctional outcomes and hence contribute to SDGs, there are a number of SDGs which appear to be common to the 3 case studies. These are: 3 – Good health and wellbeing, 4 – Quality education, 10 – Reduced inequalities, 11 – Sustainable cities and communities, 15 – Life on Land, 17 – Partnerships for the Goals. There are some similarities to be found here with the German examples which also largely incorporate health, wellbeing and educational components. However, in Scotland there seems to be a greater emphasis upon the delivery of social justice through reducing inequalities. This may well result from perceived historical injustices in the Scottish context as regards to inequitable patterns of land ownership and the negative impacts of landlordism upon vulnerable tenants (MacLeod 2017).

SDGs delivered by the Scottish examples also appear to be more clustered around certain themes, whilst in –Germany, the spread of activity across the various SDG groups appears to be a more even, or perhaps random spread.

203

Chapter 7: Results arising from the Evaluation, analysis and comparison process

This Chapter reviews the positive and negative learning points from both the Städteregion Aachen primary case studies and also from the Scottish comparative examples, identified during the evaluation procedure and as outlined in the last chapter. These are grouped according to 14 identified topic areas and their associated subtopics.

Draft policy responses, informed by both negative and positive learning points from both countries, are then formulated through grouping of the actions within each topic area. These will form the basis of more concrete policy proposals to be provided in the following chapter, which will also take into account of strategic GI considerations.

7.1 Identification and listing of Key Topic Areas

7.2 Allocation of Key Learning Points to Topic Areas:

7.3 Key learning points according to topics with appropriate policy responses:

7.4 Distilled and collated policy responses:

204

7.1 Identification and listing of Key Topic Areas

From the positive and negative key learning points identified through the SWOT Analysis, 14 Topic Areas were identified which reflect the diversity of the key learning points. This was done through sifting through the list of learning points and through grouping the responses into common themes. These Topic areas are described as follows - see Table 55:

Positive/negative Topic Area illustrated Topic Area Description 1. Thematic: Relating to breadth and scope of thematic areas covered - social, environmental & ecomomic. 2. Partnerships: The extent and function of partnership activities. 3. Mentoring: The role of mentoring bodies providing positive assistance as facilitators. 4. Inclusion: Involvement of minority or marginalised groups in project activities. 5. Delivery functions: The effective delivery of project outputs. 6. Structure: Issues relating to the structure and functions of the citizens’ initiative itself. 7. Legislative: The significance of supportive legislation in determining successful outcomes. 8. Funding: Effective acquisition or leverage of financial or other “in kind” resources. 9. Communication: Communicating aspects of the project to the public or wider stakeholders. 10. Accreditation: Gaining increased recognition through awards and accreditation. 11. Added Value: The ability of the initiative to provide diverse benefits and additionality

205 12. Knowledge: Local knowledge networks are tapped into or developed further.

13. Capacity building: Potential to develop skills and a self-help ethos. 14. Durability and Tenure: The ability for the participation initiative to endure in the longer term.

Table 55. Key Topic Areas identified from the key learning points

7.2 Allocation of Key Learning Points to Topic Areas:

The key positive and negative learning points which were identified, on a site by site basis in the previous chapter are collated below in Tables 56 -59, including primary examples from Germany and the comparative examples from Scotland. The tables also allocate each key learning point to one of the 14 Topic Areas listed for purposes of classification:

206

Städteregion Aachen - key positive learning points with topic areas:

Eicherscheid, DE Topic area illustrated The involvement of a diverse range of local stakeholders and interest groups for defined common objectives gives the project a robust base. Partnerships (2) The project capitalises successfully on existing organisational structures and local networks within the community, rather than duplicating or developing new ones. Partnerships (2) It is closely integrated with local political leadership and administration systems, thereby easing potential conflicts and barriers. Partnerships (2) Outcomes deliver multiple social, economic and environmental benefits making it effective and efficient as a community development mechanism. Thematic (1) The initiative clearly illustrates the role of external, independent facilitators and mentors in bringing together key interest groups and for identifying and defining objectives. Mentoring (3) The initiative highlights the importance of recognition amongst peers and accreditation/awards as primary motivations and catalysts for action by local community groups. Accreditation (10) It helps to develop and reinforce local distinctiveness thus strengthening the role of GI as a mechanism for delivering multifunctional objectives. Thematic (1) There are perceived economic benefits to local business including shops, cafes and restaurants arising from the promotion of GI assets and the marketing of the area as a Added value (11) green tourism destination. It generates financial leverage and in-kind contributions through receiving funding from multiple sources. Funding (8) Rott, DE Topic area illustrated The project shows significance and use of specialist local know-how within the community, particularly with regard to management of natural habitats and ecosystems Knowledge (12) including moorlands, upland bogs and woodlands. There is effective co-management of the project between the community, statutory agencies and NGOs to deliver effective GI management on the ground whilst respecting Partnerships (2) the interests of the various stakeholders. The role of mentoring agencies in adding value to the project through adoption of an enabling approach is a positive one. This particularly includes the role of the Aachen Mentoring (3) Biologische Station who act as an intermediary between the community and statutory agencies. Innovative fund raising mechanisms are in place for the project which include the auctioning of fruit tree species and native beech seedlings. These arrangements also help to Funding (8) promote ecosystem services and local biodiversity in the wider surrounding area. The project has done much to engage local citizens in a very practical way through providing opportunities for volunteering on the ground where possible. This has also helped Inclusion (4)

207 to provide educational opportunities on conservation and habitat management. Soermondt, DE Topic area illustrated

The project creates an integrated approach to sustainable development including local sustainable production and the circular economy in action. Thematic (1) There is strong integration of innovation and use of new urban gardening models within a traditional urban GI setting of formal parks, play areas and street trees. Added value (11) The project Involves diverse and marginalised sections of the community including refugees and young people. Specifically, there is a link up with two local primary schools. Inclusion (4) The initiative represents a bottom up, self-help approach to GI implementation which has persisted despite a widespread lack of local government support. Durability and Tenure (14) Wurmtal, DE Topic area illustrated Shows significance and use of specialist local know-how within the community, particularly with regards to biodiversity management and nature conservation aspects of GI Knowledge (12) delivery. The project highlights the benefit of citizen power for protecting GI resources under threat through lobbying, land acquisition and leasing and through direct interventions Delivery (5) undertaken on the ground. It illustrates how management of core sites within strategic GI/habitat networks can be undertaken through the efforts of enthusiastic and dedicated local experts. Knowledge (12) Provides a specialist education resource within the community through outreach to schools and community groups. Thematic (1) Provides a forum for experts with an interest in the area to come together to share their specialist skills and knowledge. Knowledge (12) Worm-Wildnis, DE Topic area illustrated The project benefits from integrating social and recreational needs with landscape and nature conservation objectives. Thematic (1) There is effective co-management between community, statutory agencies and NGOs, however the boundaries and divisions between responsibilities are closely set. Partnerships (2) The project illustrates the social use of a greenspace as a potential hub for a wider community GI network. Added value (11) The importance of lobbying and networking at a political level is highlighted in order for the project to be successful. Communication (9) The role of incentives and awards to initiate local action, particularly through the “Unser Dorf hat Zukunft” initiative and through input from private sponsors is clearly Accreditation (10) highlighted. This also shows how the defined evaluation criteria of the UDHZ has helped to broaden the GI scope and benefits of the project. Thematic (1)

Table 56. Key positive learning points allocated to different topic areas – Städteregion Aachen

Städteregion Aachen - key negative learning points with topic areas:

Eicherscheid, DE Topic area illustrated There is no direct control over the role of local landowners in protecting and managing the structural elements of the “Heckenlandschaft” upon which the project is based. This Structure (6) is dependent upon the goodwill of individual owners. There is suspicion of the red tape associated with state nature protection designations and how this might impact negatively on land management operations through creating Legislative (7) additional burdens for owners. As a result the potential for maximising nature conservation interests has not been fully realised by the project. The leadership of the project is generally comprised of older people. This might create issues regarding future, long term sustainability. Durability & Tenure (14) Some localised land management issues such as the grazing of horses have resulted in degradation of key habitat features. This is not controlled as a result of the project. Delivery functions (5) The potential for maximising some aspects of the project has not been fully realised as yet, particularly in terms of the ability for the resource to produce sustainable biomass Added value (11) energy or for some of the infrastructure created to be fully utilised. Rott, DE Topic area illustrated The group is highly dependent upon maintaining a working relationship with the main landowner, the state forestry agency. At times this relationship is difficult due to commercial Partnerships (2) pressures and the prescriptive nature of planned forestry operations. This creates vulnerability in terms of the project and the need for effective compromise solutions. The project has not fully realised the potential economic benefits of GI to the local area. Visitors should be encouraged to make better use of local shops and restaurants in the Added value (11) village, thus promoting links between GI on the ground and a sustainable local economy. The routing of the Eifelsteig particularly seems a missed opportunity in this respect. The leadership of the group is somewhat elderly. The group is therefore vulnerable to losing core skills or knowledge should key members be lost. Attempts to involve younger Durability and Tenure (14) people in the work should be increased. The Focus is orientated mainly towards nature conservation and recreational interests but not so much towards wider sustainable development aspirations. A more broad based Thematic (1) approach considering ecosystem service delivery would be beneficial. Soermondt, DE Topic area illustrated The relationship with the City could function better. The group feel that the City Council lack structures which create an enabling and responsive approach. Partnerships (2) The site is under lease from the City of Aachen. The group do not feel that they currently have long term security of tenure – this may affect long term investment in the site. Durability and Tenure (14)

208 There is some negativity towards the project from some local residents and more traditionally minded elected members of the local authority. These include a view that the area Communication (9) looks “scruffy” and should be better managed as a formal park.

The group could be perceived as representing a particular niche or clique within society i.e. generally middle class, educated people within a higher income bracket. However Inclusion (4) there is a strong motivation to diversify the project and to involve wider sections of the community. Some aspects of the project have not proved successful due to practicalities and legislation. This includes proposals to develop a food bank which has now been removed from Legislative (7) the site. There have also been minor issues associated with vandalism and damage to the site, though in reality this is relatively low key. Wurmtal, DE Topic area illustrated Because of the perceived high level of landuse conflicts in the area, the group have arguably adopted a “siege mentality” which appears to be anti-development in principle. This Thematic (1) includes a negative view of GI aspects relating to increasing access provision including new cycleways. Whilst nature protection is strongly emphasised, other GI functions (e.g. recreation, active travel and economic aspects) are viewed to be in conflict with core aspirations. Thematic (1) It is not clear what resources and assets are owned or managed by the group for reasons of data protection. The group considers such information to be of a sensitive nature Partnerships (2) and therefore risks being perceived as elitist. The potential educational and interpretive benefits have not been maximised. Information is kept low key to limit unwanted attention. Communication (9) Given much of the outdated access infrastructure in the surrounding area of the Wurmtal, it is clear that the management approach adopted is a fragmented one which does Added value (11) not deliver maximum potential benefits through effective partnership working. An overall management plan involving the different stakeholders is lacking. Worm-Wildnis, Topic area illustrated DE The main emphasis is upon providing a social / recreational space within a protected nature area. However, the two aspects are not particularly well integrated at present, the Thematic (1) local authority undertaking most of the specialist habitat management work. The local authority have a highly top down approach and wish to carry out implementation work directly. This restricts potential community benefits. . It is fair to say that the Partnerships (2) local authority is not promoting an enabling approach. The group have a huge amount of community development experience but appear to lack specific land management, nature conservation and GI expertise. Improved local Knowledge (12) knowledge would strengthen the project further. Dialogue between the local group and the authorities does not represent a holistic view. An integrated approach could add value. Partnerships (2)

Table 57. Key negative learning points allocated to different topic areas - Städteregion Aachen

Scotland - key positive learning points with topic areas:

Dunbar,SCO Topic area illustrated The project shows how green infrastructure can be effectively safeguarded and created through developer contributions and through use of the planning system with Legislative (7) appropriate safeguards in place. Illustrates how a community owned company can effectively manage assets for the benefit of local people, rather than through the local authority undertaking this work. Structure (6) The importance of involving local activists in the process to co-ordinate practical work whilst devolving statutory responsibilities and administration to a parent organisation Structure (6) Clearly shows how a small woodland can deliver multifunctional benefits including: health, wellbeing, social interaction, recreation, biodiversity and ecological benefits. Thematic (1) The significance of local partnerships with external groups such as scouts, schools, sports organisations and local rotary clubs to maximise the potential stakeholder Partnerships (2) participation in the site. The need for an effective management plan to deliver maximum benefits, ensure effective monitoring and to lever resources from external funders. Delivery (5) The need to liaise closely with local residents and to ensure that disputes are effectively resolved. Communication (9)

Doune, SCO Topic area illustrated A good illustration of the power of community participation to manage a resource effectively following the withdrawal of management support from the local authority. Durability and Tenure (14) A successful partnership in action between a community and a private landowner with power being equally shared. Partnerships (2) Use of the site for a wide range of themed community events including family fun days, orienteering, storytelling, bug hunts and wildlife watching. Capacity building (13) Effective leverage of resources through grants acquisition, corporate sponsorship and provision of help in kind. Good use of contact networks and local support structures. Funding (8) Recognition of achievements through awards and accreditation including through “Scotland’s Finest Woods” awards 2017. Accreditation (10) Use of the site for a wide range of themed community events including family fun days, orienteering, storytelling, bug hunts and wildlife watching. Communication (9) The project has been good for its social inclusion aspects which include creation of all abilities paths suitable for wheelchair users and for involvement with Camphill School, a Inclusion (4) nearby centre for people with learning disabilities. Young people have also been involved through summer play schemes and events. NW Mull ,SCO Topic area illustrated

209 Direct Community ownership can provide am effective alternative structure for the management of GI to more traditional forms of ownership. Structure (6) Effective community ownership requires tailored legislation and support structures to enable this to take place. It needs to be integrated into governmental and agency Legislative (7)

policies through clearly communicated and tested procedures. Community buy outs such as Ulva would not be possible without the necessary legislation in place. Local control of the resource can create a more business-like and entrepreneurial approach to GI management including the development of integrated scenarios which deliver Durability and Tenure (14) multifunctional social, environmental and economic outcomes. The processes of developing community ownership develops capacity and self-confidence within the community to tackle larger and more complex projects thus developing Capacity building (13) social capital and capability. Community ownership models also require effective partnerships with co-manging agencies including, governmental bodies, NGOS and business in order to deal with the Partnerships (2) complexities of land management. The role and significance of mentoring bodies and umbrella associations is key to providing support and best practice models to local groups. These bodies can provide Mentoring (3) assistance in negotiations with statutory authorities, legal and financial advice and contact with similar initiatives. There is untapped potential in terms of local knowledge and skills within the community which can be developed as a resource. Capacity building (13) The project illustrates the social use of a greenspace as a potential hub for a wider community GI network. Added value (11)

Long term security of tenure by local people can help project sustainability through removing uncertainty element. Durability and Tenure (14)

Table 58. Key positive learning points allocated to different topic areas – Scotland

7.2.4 Scotland - key negative learning points with topic areas:

Dunbar,SCO Topic area illustrated Problems of neglect and vandalism have been an issue in the woodland Inclusion (4) Difficulties in mobilising volunteers as well as getting people to join committees and steering groups. Encouraging active participation of members at meetings and events can Structure (6) be a problem Communication difficulties between activists who are directly involved and those working at committee level especially with regard to the parent organisation. Structure (6) Disputes have arisen over boundary issues, particularly with regards to overhanging trees and vegetation. Communication (9) Doune, SCO Topic area illustrated The problems experienced in relying upon existing local authority support structures in a climate of diminishing public spending. Funding (8) Problems that can arise from deteriorating infrastructure if investment and site maintenance is not adequately maintained. Durability and Tenure (14) NW Mull, SCO Topic area illustrated Vested interest groups can prevent innovation and maintain the status quo. Structure (6) Groups need to representative and have a broad community endorsement in order to stem criticism and to deliver a cross section of benefits. Inclusion (4) A lack of core skills or administrative expertise will limit the success of any community ownership initiatives. Communities lacking in this capacity will struggle to undertake the Knowledge (12) necessary administrative and technical management activity. Unrealistic or poorly defined objectives will lead to project failure with significant negative implications. Structure (6) Narrow communities of interest or cliques will lead to perceptions of self-interest and will reduce potential benefits. Inclusion (4) Community interest alone is not a panacea – this needs to be backed up with sound cooperation, partnership working with co-managing agents and prudent financial decision Structure (6) making Community ownership is highly reliant on political intervention and appropriate policies existing at high level Legislative (7)

210 Table 59. Key negative learning points allocated to different topic areas - Scotland

7.3 Key learning points sorted according to topics with appropriate policy responses:

Following on from this, Table 60 proposes potential policy responses to each of the key learning points proposed under the Topic Area headings. This is shown as a series of separate tables for the German positive and negative learning points, followed by separate one for Scottish comparative examples:

Städteregion Aachen – Key positive learning points:

Topic Area: Key positive learning points for local citizens’ Relevant Case Appropriate policy response for mentoring bodies and statutory authorities : initiatives: Study

1. Thematic: Outcomes should deliver multiple social, economic EI Mentoring and funding agencies should adopt an accreditation and assessment system based upon multiple sustainable development and environmental benefits making it effective and indicators, potentially similar to that of the UDHZ (Unser Dorf Hat Zukunft) initiative. Potentially this could be extended to cover urban efficient as a community development mechanism. and peri-urban, areas drawing upon the experience of the UDHZ. Projects should develop and reinforce local EI GI policy linkage within mentoring organisations and statutory authorities should be increased, recognising the potential for delivering distinctiveness thus strengthening the role of GI as a multifunctional outcomes. GI outcomes should consequently be considered within diverse policy areas such as community mechanism for delivering multifunctional objectives. development, education, health and economic development. The project should create an integrated approach to SO Mentoring and funding agencies should adopt an accreditation system for local projects based upon achievement of multiple UN sustainable development including local sustainable Sustainable Development goals. Trained advisers could assist local communities directly in identifying and delivering more diverse production and the circular economy in action. outcomes. Provides a specialist education resource within the WT Integration of nature and greenspace related topics into the local school curriculum, including use of the greenspaces to deliver a wide community through outreach to schools and variety of themes beyond the usual environmental or natural science topics

211 community groups. The project benefits from integrating social and WW Policy linkage within statutory authorities and enhanced interdepartmental communication. recreational needs with landscape and nature conservation objectives. The defined evaluation criteria of the UDHZ has WW Broadening of the objectives of the UDHZ programme into urban and peri-urban areas, potentially through a new regional branding. helped to broaden the GI scope and benefits of the e.g. “Our Community has a Future” project. 2. Partnerships: The involvement of a diverse range of local EI Mentoring organisations should favour diverse and robust local partnerships when allocating funding provision. To receive support there stakeholders and interest groups for defined common should be a requirement for groups to show broad based representation within the community. These could be affiliated around an objectives gives the project a robust base. existing community body such as a local Heimatverein. The project capitalises successfully on existing EI Promotion of a model based upon existing local structures and support mechanisms. organisational structures and local networks within Production of a toolkit indicating criteria for successful functioning of the citizens’ initiative – including volunteering, funding and the community, rather than duplicating or administrative functions. developing new ones. It is closely integrated with local political leadership EI Series of central and local workshops to bring together the diversity of mentoring organisations involved in natural resources and and administration systems, thereby easing potential community development to identify and develop common ground. conflicts and barriers. There is effective co-management of the project ROT Development of a strategic level GI partnership for the Städteregion should be considered. This should involve both practitioners and between the community, statutory agencies and those involved in policy making at senior level. Its purpose should be to co-ordinate policy, provide a structure for delivery and to deliver NGOs to deliver effective GI management on the best practice. Mentors should provide tool kits setting out mechanisms for engagement, group structure and responsibilities. ground whilst respecting the interests of the various stakeholders. There is effective co-management between WW Seminars and events to raise awareness and encourage communication between funding and co-managing agents. community, statutory agencies and NGOs, however the boundaries and divisions between responsibilities are closely set.

3. Mentoring: The initiative clearly illustrates the role of external, EI Local authorities and mentoring organisations could offer an advisory role directly to assist citizen led actions. This role could also be independent facilitators and mentors in bringing undertaken through the development of a strategic GI partnership involving local authority, government and NGO stakeholders. together key interest groups and for identifying and Authorities should also maintain lists of external advisers who can assist groups with development of an initiative or project. Financial defining objectives. assistance to provide this advice would be beneficial. The role of mentoring agencies in adding value to the ROTT The concept of developing a strategic regional partnership should be investigated involving local authorities, government agencies and project through adoption of an enabling approach is a the Third sector. State funding should be provided as a seedcorn with the aim of levering additional funding. Organisations with a strong positive one. This particularly includes the role of the technical background such as the Aachen Biologische Station should be included. Aachen Biologische Station who act as an intermediary between the community and statutory agencies. 4. Inclusion: The project has done much to engage local citizens in ROT Local citizens’ groups should be encouraged to become practically involved through training and provision of tools and materials by a very practical way through providing opportunities mentoring bodies and authorities. A regional core group of volunteers could be trained up to provide additional hands on assistance to for volunteering on the ground where possible. This local groups where needed. This could be part of a social programme to encourage physical activity for older people (e.g. Green Gym has also helped to provide educational opportunities model), or for skills /employability training on conservation and habitat management. The project Involves diverse and marginalised SO The authorities should encourage the involvement and participation of youth groups and schools within projects to provide additional sections of the community including refugees and social inclusion and educational benefits across the school curriculum. The concept of the outdoor classroom should be promoted, young people. Specifically, there is a link up with two particularly in urban areas of high social deprivation. local primary schools. 5. Delivery functions: The project highlights the benefit of citizen power for WT Statutory authorities, including the local authorities should make themselves more approachable and accountable to local citizens protecting GI resources under threat through groups. There should be clear points of contact for local citizens with a GI interest. This could potentially be through the creation of new

212 lobbying, land acquisition and leasing and through partnership structures. direct interventions undertaken on the ground.

6. Structure: N/A 7. Legislative: N/A 8. Funding: It generates financial leverage and in-kind EI The availability of grants and funding support available within the Region needs to be promoted through a central location such as a contributions through receiving funding from multiple mentoring body, regional GI partnership or through the Städteregion. “In kind” contributions by local citizens’ groups, including volunteer sources. labour should be factored in as leverage for financial support. Innovative fund raising mechanisms are in place for ROT Mentoring organisations to provide best practice guidance on funding raising for projects, including innovative solutions and factoring in the project which include the auctioning of fruit tree volunteer time contributions as potential for acquisition of matched funding. species and native beech seedlings. These arrangements also help to promote ecosystem services and local biodiversity in the wider surrounding area. 9.Communication: The importance of lobbying and networking at a WW Local authority structures should be clear and accountable with recognised points of contact with influence and connections across local political level is highlighted in order for the project to authority structures. be successful. 10. Accreditation: The initiative highlights the importance of recognition EI Mentoring organisations should encourage local citizen initiatives to compete in existing award and accreditation programmes. amongst peers and accreditation/awards as primary Consideration should be given as to the potential to integrate the various rural, urban and other thematic accreditation schemes. motivations and catalysts for action by local community groups.

The role of incentives and awards to initiate local WW The potential to extend the “Unser Dorf hat Zukunft” scheme to include urban community groups should be considered. An audit should action, particularly through the “Unser Dorf hat also be undertaken of the role of such initiatives in delivering a wider range of multifunctional outcomes. Zukunft” initiative and through input from private sponsors is clearly highlighted. 11. Added Value: There are perceived economic benefits to local EI When delivering funding, help in kind or advisory services, mentoring bodies should encourage citizens’ groups to consider potential local business including shops, cafes and restaurants arising economic benefits that might arise from project activities and to modify outputs, where appropriate to maximise these. from the promotion of GI assets and the marketing of the area as a green tourism destination. There is strong integration of innovation and use of SO Local authorities, as urban land managers, should encourage more diverse and multifunctional uses of urban greenspaces to create new urban gardening models within a traditional productive spaces, engage local communities and assist urban biodiversity. urban GI setting of formal parks, play areas and street trees. The project illustrates the social use of a greenspace WW Mentoring agencies and statutory authorities should encourage citizens’ groups to integrate a wider range of social inclusion benefits as a potential hub for a wider community GI network. into projects which are the recipients of funding, help in kind or advisory services.

The project shows significance and use of specialist ROT Local knowledge should be valued by mentoring bodies and statutory agencies and should be incorporated into project planning along local know-how within the community, particularly with the outputs of official surveys, data collection and management planning. with regard to management of natural habitats and ecosystems including moorlands, upland bogs and woodlands. Shows significance and use of specialist local know- WT Local knowledge should be valued by mentoring bodies and statutory agencies and should be incorporated into project planning along how within the community, particularly with regards with the outputs of official surveys, data collection and management planning. to biodiversity management and nature conservation aspects of GI delivery.

213 It illustrates how management of core sites within WT Management agreements should be formalised where appropriate to allow skilled citizens’ groups to undertake management works on

strategic GI/habitat networks can be undertaken behalf of statutory agents where a suitable level of competence is evident. Training programmes through official agents such as LANUV through the efforts of enthusiastic and dedicated local should aim to bridge skills gaps and encourage higher competence levels. experts. Provides a forum for experts with an interest in the WT Mentoring groups should encourage the development of networking and training events to pull core knowledge and expertise. The area to come together to share their specialist skills development of structured approaches to management should also be promoted with a wide range of skills represented on management and knowledge. groups. 12. Knowledge N/A 13.Capacity building: N/A 14.Durability & Tenure: The initiative represents a bottom up, self-help SO Local authorities to provide more receptive and welcoming structures with the aim of encouraging self-help approaches. approach to GI implementation which has persisted despite a widespread lack of local government support.

Table 60. Key positive learning points, sorted according to topics with policy responses - Städteregion Aachen

Städteregion Aachen - key negative learning points:

Topic Area: Key Learning Points: Case Study Appropriate Local Policy Response: Examples 1.Thematic diversity: The Focus is orientated mainly towards nature ROT GI policy linkage within mentoring organisations and statutory authorities should be increased, recognising the potential for delivering conservation and recreational interests but not so multifunctional outcomes. GI outcomes should consequently be considered within diverse policy areas such as community much toward wider sustainable development development, education, health and economic development. aspirations. A more broad based approach considering ecosystem service delivery would be beneficial. Because of the perceived high level of landuse WT Mentoring organisations should favour diverse and robust local partnerships when allocating funding provision. To receive support conflicts in the area, the group have arguably there should be a requirement for groups to show broad based representation within the community. These could be affiliated around adopted a “siege mentality” which appears to be an existing community body such as a local Heimatverein. anti-development in principle. This includes a negative view of GI aspects relating to increasing access provision including new cycleways. Whilst nature protection is strongly emphasised, WT The statutory authorities should approach new and existing citizens’ initiatives with the aim of developing integrated management other GI functions (e.g. recreation, active travel approaches to areas such as the Wurmtal which deliver on key green infrastructure topics and UN sustainable development indicators. and economic aspects) are viewed to be in conflict Both incentives and statutory mechanism should be used to increase cooperation and partnership working. with core aspirations. The main emphasis is upon providing a social / WW GI policy linkage within mentoring organisations and statutory authorities should be increased, recognising the potential for delivering recreational space within a protected nature area. multifunctional outcomes. Local authorities to produce a proforma describing potential GI deliverables and mechanisms for producing However, the two aspects are not particularly well these. 214 integrated at present, the local authority undertaking most of the specialist habitat management work. 2. Partnerships The group is highly dependent upon maintaining a ROT State authorities should provide specialist training to operational staff on working with local citizens’ groups to deliver multifunctional working relationship with the main landowner, the outcomes. This should be accompanied by provision of a manual on appropriate methods and outcomes and examples of best practice. state forestry agency. At times this relationship is Third sector mentoring organisations could work as external consultants to provide support with the development of these. difficult due to commercial pressures and the prescriptive nature of planned forestry operations. This creates vulnerability in terms of the project and the need for effective compromise solutions. The relationship with the City could function SO Statutory authorities should provide appropriate mentoring contacts to enable them to respond appropriately to local community better. The group feel that the City Council lack proposals. In addition training should be provided to other frontline technical staff to enable them to develop a more enabling approach. structures which create an enabling and responsive approach to be effectively realised. It is not clear what resources and assets are WT Citizen’s groups in receiving financial or in kind support from state authorities must be required to be open and transparent about their owned or managed by the group for reasons of activities, including landholdings, assets and business activities. Board papers and AGM information should be fully available to interested data protection. The group considers such members of the public. In addition funders should prioritise activities which deliver multiple social, environmental and economic information to be of a sensitive nature and outcomes – according to a clear management plan. therefore risks being perceived as elitist. The local authority have a highly top down WW Local authorities should encourage their staff to take on a more enabling role and to encourage the activities of volunteer groups and approach and wish to carry out implementation the third sector, through appropriate supervision and training as necessary. work directly. This restricts potential community benefits. . It is fair to say that the local authority is not promoting an enabling approach.

Dialogue between the local group and the WW When approached by local citizens’ groups, statutory authorities should aim to develop a more coherent vision for areas. The aim should authorities does not represent a holistic view. An be to consider how citizens’ initiatives can add value in the longer term. integrated approach could add value. 3.Mentoring: N/A 4.Inclusion: The group could be perceived as representing a SO Before receiving financial or in-kind support, local groups should have to develop appropriate inclusion and outreach policies to show particular niche or clique within society i.e. that appropriate social return upon investment can be achieved. generally middle class, educated people within a higher income bracket. However there is a strong motivation to diversify the project and to involve wider sections of the community. 5. Delivery functions: Some localised land management issues such as the EI The organisational structure of citizens’ initiatives should encourage inclusion and appropriate consultation with private landowners to grazing of horses have resulted in degradation of ensure appropriate added value within landscape scale initiatives. Where appropriate, statutory authorities should also try to influence key habitat features. This is not controlled as a this through appropriate use of legislation and access to financial assistance. result of the project. 6.Structure There is no direct control over the role of local EI The organisational structure of citizens’ initiatives should encourage inclusion and appropriate consultation with private landowners to landowners in protecting and managing the ensure appropriate added value within landscape scale initiatives. structural elements of the “Heckenlandschaft” upon which the project is based. This is dependent upon the goodwill of individual owners. 7.Legislative

215 There is suspicion of the red tape associated with EI Greater clarity needs to be provided by the statutory authorities on the purpose and functioning of statutory designations. State state nature protection designations and how this authorities should develop community engagement guidelines for their organisations to ensure more productive partnerships with local

might impact negatively on land management communities. Changes to legislation should be considered to grant local communities more autonomy to manage local land management operations through creating additional burdens for operations. owners. As a result the potential for maximising nature conservation interests has not been fully realised by the project. Some aspects of the project have not proved SO Legislation relating to food storage and distribution needs to be evaluated within the context of community gardens and local foodbanks. successful due to practicalities and legislation. This Where appropriate, this should be revised as necessary. includes proposals to develop a food bank which has now been removed from the site. There have also been minor issues associated with vandalism and damage to the site, though in reality this is relatively low key. 8.Funding and resources N/A 9.Communication There is some negativity towards the project from SO Environmental and greenspace staff need to keep elected council members and officials advised on current innovation and trends in some local residents and more traditionally minded greenspace management. Where possible senior management staff within authorities should also be co-opted to act as champions. The elected members of the local authority. These development of formalised partnerships involving elected members in governance roles would also help to reduce conflicts and to include a view that the area looks “scruffy” and increase awareness. should be better managed as a formal park. The potential educational and interpretive benefits WT Citizens’ groups should view involvement of statutory authorities as a positive, rather than as a negative influence. Local groups should have not been maximised. Information is kept low target awareness and educational programmes much more at wider stakeholders, canvassing political support as necessary through key to limit unwanted attention. events, launches and promotional activities.

10.Accreditation: N/A

11.Added Value: The potential for maximising some aspects of the EI State and local authority incentives should be made available to undertake feasibility and marketing studies to maximise niche products project has not been fully realised as yet, and additional benefits which might be derived from the GI resources. A database of appropriate consultants should be maintained by particularly in terms of the ability for the resource officers of the local authority. to produce sustainable biomass energy or for some of the infrastructure created to be fully utilised. The project has not fully realised the potential ROT External funders should consider potential added value when providing project resources and seedcorn funding; there should be a economic benefits of GI to the local area. Visitors checklist featuring potential social, environmental and economic benefits of every project. should be encouraged to make better use of local For larger strategic projects such as long distance walking routes, the potential to maximise economic benefits to each local community shops and restaurants in the village, thus close to the route should be evaluated. promoting links between GI on the ground and a sustainable local economy. The routing of the Eifelsteig particularly seems a missed opportunity in this respect. Given much of the outdated access infrastructure WT Greater added value should be achieved by local authorities working more closely with local citizen initiatives to develop an integrated in the surrounding area of the Wurmtal, it is clear approach to the development and management of GI assets within each community. Citzens’ groups should be encourage to co-ordinate that the management approach adopted is a their work through the development of partnerships with the statutory authorities e.g. with regards to developing local path networks fragmented one which does not deliver maximum and interpretation around key nodes. potential benefits through effective partnership working. An overall management plan involving the different stakeholders is lacking. 12.Knowledge

216 The group have a huge amount of community WW State authorities and funding bodies should be more proactive about providing technical knowledge of site management and biodiversity

development experience but appear to lack specific issues. Where necessary this could involve use of a third party mentoring body such as the Aachen Bio-station. land management, nature conservation and GI expertise. Improved local knowledge would strengthen the project further. 13.Capacity building: N/A 14.Durability and Tenure: The leadership of the project is generally comprised EI Incentives and accreditation should be offered which recognises the contribution of younger people to projects. Youth workers should of older people. This might create issues regarding also be encouraged to contribute to the development and operation of local GI initiatives. future, long term sustainability when the current leadership become less active. The leadership of the group is somewhat elderly. ROT Incentives and accreditation should be offered which recognises the contribution of younger people to projects. Youth workers should The group is therefore vulnerable to losing core also be encouraged to contribute to the development and operation of local GI initiatives. skills or knowledge should key members be lost. Attempts to involve younger people in the work should be increased. The site is under lease from the City of Aachen. The SO Local authorities should consider offering more flexible leasing arrangements to community groups that ensure a greater security of group do not feel that they currently have long tenure. term security of tenure – this may affect long term investment in the site.

Table 61. Key negative learning points, sorted according to topics with policy responses - Städteregion Aachen

Scotland - key positive learning points:

Topic Area: Key positive learning points for local citizens’ Case Study Appropriate policy response for mentoring bodies and statutory authorities : initiatives: Examples

1. Thematic: Clearly shows how a small woodland can deliver DUNBAR Production and showcasing of best practice examples through publications, web based materials and organisation of study tours and multifunctional benefits including: health, exchanges within the Städteregion Aachen and beyond. wellbeing, social interaction, recreation, biodiversity and ecological benefits. 2. Partnerships: The significance of local partnerships with external DUNBAR There is a need to involve a greater number of organisations beyond those usually concerned with environment. This might include for groups such as scouts, schools, sports example healthcare professionals, youth development etc. organisations and local rotary clubs to maximise the potential stakeholder participation in the site. A successful partnership in action between a DOUNE The local authority should review its expenditure commitments and consider increased citizen participation and control as a potential community and a private landowner with power solution. A number of trial projects should be developed to test the potential for local community management or co-management. being equally shared. Community ownership models also require NW MULL Government agencies and local authorities to evaluate potential for increased community control. This could be undertaken through a effective partnerships with co-manging agencies series of workshop events, study tours or promotional events to consider viability and required steps. including, governmental bodies, NGOS and business in order to deal with the complexities of land management. 3. Mentoring: 217 The role and significance of mentoring bodies and NW MULL A neutral or independent group should be involved in making links between mentoring NGOS and the statutory authorities in the Aachen umbrella associations is key to providing support area. Where expertise is lacking, successful models from Scotland such as Community Land Scotland, the Community Woodland and best practice models to local groups. These Association, WIAT (Woods In and Around Towns initiative) and regional & local greenspace partnerships should be evaluated and their bodies can provide assistance in negotiations with replicability in Germany considered. statutory authorities, legal and financial advice and contact with similar initiatives. 4. Inclusion: The project has been good for its social inclusion DOUNE Links to groups involved with learning disabilities and mental health care should be actively promoted to recognise the cognitive health aspects which include creation of all abilities paths benefits that can arise from participation in greenspace and woodland activities. Where possible local citizens’ groups should work suitable for wheelchair users and for involvement closely alongside participants with learning disabilities. with Camphill School, a nearby centre for people with learning disabilities. Young people have also been involved through summer play schemes and events. 5. Delivery functions: The need for an effective management plan to DUNBAR Mentoring bodies should advise on the structure of a generic management plan that could be adapted to local circumstances. deliver maximum benefits, ensure effective monitoring and to lever resources from external funders. 6. Structure: Direct Community ownership can provide am NW MULL A pilot study could be run to assess the potential for direct community ownership within the Aachen City Region based upon the models effective alternative structure for the from Scotland. This could include the potential for a community to acquire former state or local authority land at a discounted rate, management of GI to more traditional forms of subject to development of a suitable plan from the community. The group objectives should be broad brush and inclusive rather than ownership. narrowly defined.

The importance of involving local activists in the DUNBAR Emerging new groups should be encouraged to affiliate to existing community structures where possible to facilitate good process to co-ordinate practical work whilst communication, networking and efficient organisation. The model based upon a Heimatverein as in the Eifel seems to be a suitable devolving statutory responsibilities and structure. administration to a parent organisation. Illustrates how a community owned company can DUNBAR Potential for developing case study examples in relation to planning gain and developer compensation. Is there potential to transfer land effectively manage assets for the benefit of local directly to local control and management. people, rather than through the local authority undertaking this work. 7. Legislative: Effective community ownership requires tailored NW MULL Take forward a feasibility study to evaluate potential for implementing community ownership mechanisms and legislation in NRW, with legislation and support structures to enable this to reference to policy and best practice in other European Regions including Scotland. take place. It needs to be integrated into governmental and agency policies through clearly communicated and tested procedures. Community buy outs such as Ulva would not be possible without the necessary legislation in place. The project shows how green infrastructure can be DUNBAR Potential for developing case study examples in relation to planning gain and developer compensation. Is there potential to transfer land effectively safeguarded and created through directly to local control and management. developer contributions and through use of the planning system with appropriate safeguards in place. 8. Funding: Effective leverage of resources through grants DOUNE When seeking funding for projects local citizens groups should show evidence of local fundraising initiatives, including support from local acquisition, corporate sponsorship and provision of businesses. help in kind. Good use of contact networks and

218 local support structures.

9.Communication: Use of the site for a wide range of themed DOUNE Mentoring and funding agencies should adopt an accreditation system for local projects based upon achievement of multiple UN community events including family fun days, Sustainable Development goals. Trained advisers could assist local communities directly in identifying and delivering more diverse orienteering, storytelling, bug hunts and wildlife outcomes. watching. The need to liaise closely with local residents and to DUNBAR Seedcorn funding should be made available within the Städteregion Aachen to pay for professional mentoring assistance with the ensure that disputes are effectively resolved. development of project proposals and local action plans which recognising the aspirations and needs of different stakeholders. The aim should be to reduce potential for conflicts. 10. Accreditation: Recognition of achievements through awards and DOUNE Mentoring organisations should encourage local citizen initiatives to compete in existing award and accreditation programmes. accreditation including through “Scotland’s Finest Consideration should be given as to the potential to integrate the various rural, urban and other thematic accreditation schemes. A Woods” awards 2017. special category for GI or woodland related initiatives should be considered. 11. Added Value: The project illustrates the social use of a NW MULL Statutory authorities to consider whether there is potential for adding greater social value to projects. greenspace as a potential hub for a wider community GI network. 12. Knowledge: N/A 13. Capacity building: There is untapped potential in terms of local NW MULL Regional training programmes and mentoring for local citizens’ groups through organised workshops, events and online toolkits. In knowledge and skills within the community which addition a hands on mentoring service should be made available to guide citizen’s groups. can be developed as a resource.

The processes of developing community ownership NW MULL Mentoring bodies and statutory authorities should work through an enabling approach which encourages local citizen’s groups to become develops capacity and self-confidence within the more autonomous and to take on greater control of projects at a local level. community to tackle larger and more complex projects thus developing social capital and capability. Use of the site for a wide range of themed DOUNE Statutory authorities should adopt a flexible approach when authorising types of activity which can occur on the various sites. Mentoring community events including family fun days, services and access to best practice examples should be promoted. orienteering, storytelling, bug hunts and wildlife watching. 14. Durability &Tenure: A good illustration of the power of community DOUNE Local authorities could evaluate the potential for innovative partnerships between local communities and private owners as a means of participation to manage a resource effectively reducing financial burdens whilst developing local capacity. following the withdrawal of management support from the local authority. Long term security of tenure by local people can NW MULL Local authorities, landowners and statutory authorities could assist citizens’ groups through offering more flexible and longer leasing help project sustainability through removing arrangements to established groups. There should be discounted costs available to community groups who deliver a range of UN uncertainty element. sustainable development indicators.

Local control of the resource can create a more NW MULL A pilot study could be run to assess the potential for direct community ownership within the Aachen City Region based upon the models business-like and entrepreneurial approach to GI from Scotland. This could include the potential for a community to acquire former state or local authority land at a discounted rate, management including the development of subject to development of a suitable plan from the community. integrated scenarios which deliver multifunctional social, environmental and economic outcomes.

219 Table 62. Key positive learning points, sorted according to topics with policy responses - Scotland

Scotland - Key negative learning points:

Topic Area: Key Learning Points: Case Study Appropriate Local Policy Response: Examples 1.Thematic diversity: N/A 2.Partnerships: N/A 3. Mentoring: N/A 4. Inclusion: Problems of neglect and vandalism have been an DUNBAR Need to involve youth workers and local police in community partnerships to ensure participation and effective deterrents. Local youth issue in the woodland should be encouraged proactively to participate in projects by local groups. Groups need to representative and have a broad NW MULL Funding and accreditation should only be offered by statutory agencies and mentoring bodies to broad partnerships which represent a community endorsement in order to stem criticism wide range of community interests. and to deliver a cross section of benefits. Narrow communities of interest or cliques will lead NW MULL Funding and accreditation should only be offered by statutory agencies and mentoring bodies to broad partnerships which represent a to perceptions of self-interest and will reduce wide range of community interests. potential benefits. 5. Delivery functions: N/A 6. Structure: Difficulties in mobilising volunteers as well as DUNBAR Active citizenship campaign to be promoted by the local authorities to increase the level of participation on community organised

220 getting people to join committees and steering committees and steering groups. An accreditation system recognising the achievements of active local participants could be developed groups. Encouraging active participation of with awards for “local champions”.

members at meetings and events can be a problem Communication difficulties between activists who DUNBAR Mentoring groups to develop best practice guidance for organisation of community groups including communication structures and are directly involved and those working at conflict resolution. committee level especially with regard to the parent organisation. Vested interest groups can prevent innovation and NW MULL Mentoring and support bodies should champion and lobby for local community interests at a political level. This should include maintain the status quo. responding to disinformation disseminated by existing vested interest groups (such as powerful landowning bodies) and to counter this through development of successful partnerships and the promotion of best practice case studies. Unrealistic or poorly defined objectives will lead to NW MULL Mentoring bodies to provide hands on assistance with development of strategies and detailed action plan formulation delivering a wide project failure with significant negative range of benefits. implications. Community interest alone is not a panacea – this NW MULL Mentoring bodies to provide hands on assistance with development of strategies and detailed action plan formulation delivering a wide needs to be backed up with sound cooperation, range of benefits. partnership working with co-managing agents and prudent financial decision making 7. Legislative: Community ownership is highly reliant on political NW MULL Feasibility study to be commissioned at State level to evaluate potential for community ownership and leasing models for GI in NRW. intervention and appropriate policies existing at high level 8. Funding and resources: The problems experienced in relying upon existing DOUNE As part of auditing procedure, local authorities should consider pre-emptive handover of management responsibility of GI assets to locally local authority support structures in a climate of constituted citizens’ groups. This could be undertaken for example in situations where funding shortages might result in the closure, diminishing public spending. abandonment or selling off of GI assets in the public domain.

9. Communication: Disputes have arisen over boundary issues, DUNBAR Mentoring agencies to ensure that local citizens’ groups are fully up to date with legal responsibilities as managers, including the provision particularly with regards to overhanging trees and of simple legal advice where required. Citizens’ groups to ensure that appropriate consultation with the wider community forms a part vegetation. of all management operations. 10. Accreditation: N/A 11. Added Value: N/A 12. Knowledge A lack of core skills or administrative expertise will NW MULL Mentoring bodies to provide best practice case studies, technical advice, points of contact and hands on assistance to community groups limit the success of any community ownership wishing to undertake local projects. initiatives. Communities lacking in this capacity will struggle to undertake the necessary administrative and technical management activity. 13. Capacity building: N/A 14. Durability & Tenure: Problems that can arise from deteriorating DOUNE An ongoing revenue funding strategy should be a requirement for all funding applications relating to GI. infrastructure if investment and site maintenance is not adequately maintained.

Table 63. Key negative learning points, sorted according to topics with policy responses - Scotland

221

7.4 Distilled and collated policy responses:

The following table combines the policy responses, positive and negative, for both the German and Scottish examples under the various Topic Area headings. The policy responses have then been distilled from these to prevent repetition, to ensure close match to topic headings and to produce a more streamlined and workable set of policy responses under each heading. Where required some policy responses have been moved into a more appropriate Topic Area for greater clarity of objectives:

Topic Area: Issues for mentoring bodies and statutory authorities : Distilled policy responses –all positive and negative collated

1. Thematic: Städteregion Aachen Mentoring and funding agencies should adopt an accreditation and assessment system based Positive upon multiple sustainable development indicators, potentially similar to that of the UDHZ 1.1. Mentoring and funding agencies should adopt an accreditation and assessment system based upon multiple (Unser Dorf Hat Zukunft) initiative. Potentially this could be extended to cover rural and peri- sustainable development indicators, potentially similar to that of the UDHZ (Unser Dorf Hat Zukunft) initiative. urban, areas drawing upon the experience of the UDHZ. Potentially this should be extended to cover urban and peri-urban, areas drawing upon the experience of the GI policy linkage within mentoring organisations and statutory authorities should be increased, UDHZ. recognising the potential for delivering multifunctional outcomes. GI outcomes should consequently be considered within diverse policy areas such as community development, 1.2. GI policy linkage within mentoring organisation s and statutory authorities should be increased, recognising the education, health and economic development. potential for delivering multifunctional outcomes. GI outcomes should consequently be considered within diverse Mentoring and funding agencies should adopt an accreditation system for local projects based policy areas such as community development, education, health and economic development. upon achievement of multiple UN Sustainable Development goals. Trained advisers could assist local communities directly in identifying and delivering more diverse outcomes. Integration of GI and greenspace related topics into the local school curriculum, including use 1.3. Potential for integrated approaches to management planning between statutory authorities and citizens’ 222 of the greenspaces to deliver a wide variety of themes beyond the usual environmental or groups should be considered on a landscape scape, where scope exists. e.g. the Wurmtal offers good potential as a natural science topics laboratory for integrated co-management involving community stakeholders and statutory authorities considering Policy linkage within statutory authorities and enhanced interdepartmental communication. nature conservation, access, social and economic themes. Broadening of the objectives of the UDHZ programme into urban and peri-urban areas, potentially through a new regional branding. e.g. “Our Community has a Future” 1.4. Integration of GI and greenspace related topics into the local school curriculum, including use of the greenspaces to deliver a wide variety of topics beyond the usual environmental or natural science topics Städteregion Aachen GI policy linkage within mentoring organisations and statutory authorities should be increased, Negative recognising the potential for delivering multifunctional outcomes. GI outcomes should 1.5. Production and showcasing of best practice examples of citizen led/ co-management of GI through consequently be considered within diverse policy areas such as community development, publications, web based materials and organisation of study tours and exchanges within the Städteregion Aachen education, health and economic development. and beyond. Mentoring organisations should favour diverse and robust local partnerships when allocating 1.6. Mentoring organisations should favour diverse and robust local partnerships when allocating funding provision. funding provision. To receive support there should be a requirement for groups to show broad based representation within the community. These could be affiliated around an existing To receive support there should be a requirement for groups to show broad based representation within the community body such as a local Heimatverein. community. These could be affiliated around an existing community body such as a local Heimatverein, though there should be no single defined structure. The statutory authorities should approach new and existing citizens’ initiatives with the aim of developing integrated management approaches to areas such as the Wurmtal which deliver on key green infrastructure topics and UN sustainable development indicators. Both incentives and statutory mechanism should be used to increase cooperation and partnership working. GI policy linkage within mentoring organisations and statutory authorities should be increased, recognising the potential for delivering multifunctional outcomes. Local authorities to produce a proforma describing potential GI deliverables and mechanisms for producing these.

Scotland Production and showcasing of best practice examples through publications, web based Positive materials and organisation of study tours and exchanges within the Städteregion Aachen and beyond.

2. Partnerships: Städteregion Aachen Mentoring organisations should favour diverse and robust local partnerships when allocating Positive funding provision. To receive support there should be a requirement for groups to show broad 2.1. Mentoring organisations should support diverse and robust local partnerships when allocating funding provision, based representation within the community. These could be affiliated around an existing technical advice or in-kind support. To receive support there should be a requirement for groups to show broad based community body such as a local Heimatverein. representation within the community, rather than representing a narrow clique or interest group. Projects should Promotion of a model based upon existing local structures and support mechanisms. deliver multiple social, environmental and economic outcomes – according to a coherent vision or management plan. Production of a toolkit indicating criteria for successful functioning of the citizens’ initiative – including volunteering, funding and administrative functions. 2.2. Citizen’s groups receiving financial or in kind support from state authorities must be required to be open and Series of central and local workshops to bring together the diversity of mentoring organisations transparent about their activities, including landholdings, assets and business activities. Board papers and AGM involved in natural resources and community development to identify and develop common information should be fully available to interested members of the public. ground. Development of a strategic level GI partnership for the Städteregion should be considered. This 2.3. A toolkit should be produced jointly between the Statutory authorities and third sector mentoring organisations. should involve both practitioners and those involved in policy making at senior level. Its purpose This should indicate criteria for successful functioning of the citizens’ initiative – including volunteering, funding and should be to co-ordinate policy, provide a structure for delivery and to deliver best practice. administrative functions. Mentors should provide tool kits setting out mechanisms for engagement, group structure and responsibilities. 2.4. A Series of central and local workshops should be organised by the statutory authorities in partnership with Third Seminars and events to raise awareness and encourage communication between funding and co- sector mentoring bodies to bring together the diversity of stakeholders involved in natural resources and community managing agents. development. These should aim to identify and develop common goals and approaches to GI, recognising the potential for citizen led action. Städteregion Aachen State authorities should provide specialist training to operational staff on working with local Negative citizens’ groups to deliver multifunctional outcomes. This should be accompanied by provision of 2.5. The development of a strategic level GI partnership for the Städteregion should be considered. This should a manual on appropriate methods and outcomes and examples of best practice. Third sector involve both practitioners and those involved in policy making at senior level. Its purpose should be to co-ordinate mentoring organisations could work as external consultants to provide support with the policy, provide a forum, and to deliver best practice examples on the ground. It should involve a greater number of development of these. organisations beyond those usually concerned with environment. This might include for example healthcare Statutory authorities should provide appropriate mentoring contacts to enable them to respond professionals and youth development organisations. It should aim to bridge the gap between policy makers,

223 appropriately to local community proposals. In addition training should be provided to other practitioners and civil society. frontline technical staff to enable them to develop a more enabling approach. Citizen’s groups in receiving financial or in kind support from state authorities must be required 2.6. The local authority should review its expenditure commitments and consider increased citizen participation and control as a potential solution. A number of trial projects should be developed to test the potential for local to be open and transparent about their activities, including landholdings, assets and business activities. Board papers and AGM information should be fully available to interested members of community management or co-management. the public. In addition funders should prioritise activities which deliver multiple social, environmental and economic outcomes – according to a clear management plan. 2.7. Local authorities should encourage their staff to take on a more enabling role and to encourage the activities of volunteer groups and the third sector, through provision of appropriate supervision and training for internal staff Local authorities should encourage their staff to take on a more enabling role and to encourage where necessary. State authorities should provide specialist training to operational staff on working with local the activities of volunteer groups and the third sector, through appropriate supervision and citizens’ groups to deliver multifunctional outcomes. In addition training should be provided to other frontline training as necessary. technical staff to enable them to support citizen participation approaches. When approached by local citizens’ groups, statutory authorities should aim to develop a more

coherent vision for areas. The aim should be to consider how citizens’ initiatives can add value in

the longer term.

Scotland There is a need to involve a greater number of organisations beyond those usually concerned Positive with environment. This might include for example healthcare professionals, youth development etc. The local authority should review its expenditure commitments and consider increased citizen participation and control as a potential solution. A number of trial projects should be developed to test the potential for local community management or co-management. Government agencies and local authorities to evaluate potential for increased community control. This could be undertaken through a series of workshop events, study tours or promotional events to consider viability and required steps.

3. Mentoring: Städteregion Aachen Local authorities and mentoring organisations could offer an advisory role directly to assist citizen Positive led actions. This role could also be undertaken through the development of a strategic GI 3.1. Local authorities and mentoring organisations could offer an advisory role directly to assist citizen led actions. partnership involving local authority, government and NGO stakeholders. Authorities should also This role could also be undertaken through the development of a strategic GI partnership involving local authority, maintain lists of external advisers who can assist groups with development of an initiative or government and NGO stakeholders. Authorities should also maintain lists of external advisers who can assist groups project. Financial assistance to provide this advice would be beneficial. with development of an initiative or project. Financial assistance to provide this advice would be beneficial. The concept of developing a strategic regional partnership should be investigated involving local authorities, government agencies and the Third sector. State funding should be provided as a 3.2. The concept of developing a strategic regional partnership should be investigated involving local authorities, seedcorn with the aim of levering additional funding. Organisations with a strong technical government agencies and the Third sector. State funding should be provided as a seedcorn with the aim of levering background such as the Aachen Biologische Station should be included. additional funding. Organisations with a strong technical background such as the Aachen Biologische Station should Scotland A neutral or independent group should be involved in making links between mentoring NGOS be included. Positive and the statutory authorities in the Aachen area. Where expertise is lacking, successful models from Scotland such as Community Land Scotland, the Community Woodland Association, WIAT 3.3. Successful models from Scotland such as Community Land Scotland, the Community Woodland Association, (Woods In and Around Towns initiative) and regional & local greenspace partnerships should be WIAT (Woods In and Around Towns initiative) and regional & local greenspace partnerships should be evaluated and evaluated and their replicability in Germany considered. their potential replicability in Germany considered. An audit could first be undertaken to evaluate which equivalent bodies exist in Germany.

4. Inclusion: Städteregion Aachen Local citizens’ groups should be encouraged to become practically involved through training and Positive provision of tools and materials by mentoring bodies and authorities. A regional core group of 4.1. Local citizens’ groups should be encouraged to become practically involved and motivated through training and volunteers could be trained up to provide additional hands on assistance to local groups where provision of tools and materials by mentoring bodies and statutory authorities. Training should cover key issues such needed. This could be part of a social programme to encourage physical activity for older people as health and safety awareness and liability insurance. (e.g. Green Gym model), or for skills /employability training The authorities should encourage the involvement and participation of youth groups and schools 4.2. A regional core group of volunteers could be trained up to provide additional hands on assistance to local groups within projects to provide additional social inclusion and educational benefits across the school where needed. This could be part of a social programme to encourage physical activity amongst older retired people

224 curriculum. The concept of the outdoor classroom should be promoted, particularly in urban (e.g. Green Gym model), or for skills /employability training. The scheme should aim to increase the capacity of those areas of high social deprivation. concerned through the acquisition of technical skills such as bridge building, path construction, habitat management,

Städteregion Aachen Before receiving financial or in-kind support, local groups should have to develop appropriate forestry skills etc. Negative inclusion and outreach policies to show that appropriate social return upon investment can be achieved. 4.3. The concept of the outdoor classroom should be promoted, particularly in urban areas of high social deprivation. Scotland Links to groups involved with learning disabilities and mental health care should be actively The authorities should encourage the involvement and participation of youth groups and schools within projects to Positive promoted to recognise the cognitive health benefits that can arise from participation in provide additional social inclusion and educational benefits across the school curriculum. greenspace and woodland activities. Where possible local citizens’ groups should work closely alongside participants with learning disabilities. 4.4. Links to groups involved with learning disabilities and mental health care should be actively promoted to Scotland Need to involve youth workers and local police in community partnerships to ensure recognise the cognitive health benefits that can arise from participation in greenspace and woodland activities. Negative participation and effective deterrents. Local youth should be encouraged proactively to Where possible local citizens’ groups should work closely alongside participants with learning disabilities. participate in projects by local groups. Funding and accreditation should only be offered by statutory agencies and mentoring bodies to 4.5. Before receiving financial or in-kind support, local groups should have to develop appropriate inclusion and broad partnerships which represent a wide range of community interests. - Partnerships outreach policies to show that appropriate social return upon investment can be achieved. Funding and accreditation should only be offered by statutory agencies and mentoring bodies to broad partnerships which represent a wide range of community interests. - Partnerships 4.6. Youth workers and where appropriate, local police should be involved in community partnerships to ensure participation and effective deterrents. Local youth should be encouraged proactively to participate in projects by local groups.

5. Delivery functions: Städteregion Aachen Statutory authorities, including the local authorities should make themselves more approachable Positive and accountable to local citizens groups. There should be clear points of contact for local citizens 5.1. There should be clear points of contact for local citizens with a GI interest. Statutory authorities, including the with a GI interest. This could potentially be through the creation of new partnership structures. local authorities should make themselves more approachable and accountable to local citizens groups. Städteregion Aachen The organisational structure of citizens’ initiatives should encourage inclusion and appropriate Negative consultation with private landowners to ensure appropriate added value within landscape scale 5.2. Mentoring bodies should advise on the structure of a generic management plan that could be adapted to local initiatives. Where appropriate statutory authorities should also try to influence this through circumstances. appropriate use of legislation and access to financial assistance. 5.3. The organisational structure of citizens’ initiatives should encourage inclusion and appropriate consultation with Scotland Mentoring bodies should advise on the structure of a generic management plan that could be private landowners to ensure appropriate added value within landscape scale initiatives. Where appropriate Positive adapted to local circumstances. statutory authorities should also try to influence this through appropriate use of legislation and access to financial assistance.

6. Structure: Städteregion Aachen The organisational structure of citizens’ initiatives should encourage inclusion and appropriate Negative consultation with private landowners to ensure appropriate added value within landscape scale 6.1. A pilot study should be run to assess the potential for direct community ownership within the Aachen City Region initiatives. based upon the models from Scotland. This could include the potential for a community to acquire former state or Scotland A pilot study could be run to assess the potential for direct community ownership within the local authority land at a discounted rate, subject to development of a suitable plan from the community. The group Positive Aachen City Region based upon the models from Scotland. This could include the potential for a objectives should be broad brush and inclusive rather than narrowly defined. community to acquire former state or local authority land at a discounted rate, subject to development of a suitable plan from the community. The group objectives should be broad brush 6.2. Emerging new groups should be encouraged to affiliate to existing community structures where possible to and inclusive rather than narrowly defined. facilitate good communication, networking and efficient organisation. The model based upon a Heimatverein as in Emerging new groups should be encouraged to affiliate to existing community structures where the Eifel seems to provide a suitable structure. It might be that different models are necessary for rural and urban possible to facilitate good communication, networking and efficient organisation. The model projects, however the potential for synergy should be investigated. based upon a Heimatverein as in the Eifel seems to be a suitable structure.

2 Potential for developing case study examples in relation to planning gain and developer 6.3. Case study examples in relation to planning gain and developer compensation should be investigated and 25 compensation. Is there potential to transfer land directly to local control and management. evaluated. This should include the potential to transfer land directly to local control and management.

Scotland Active citizenship campaign to be promoted by the local authorities to increase the level of Negative participation on community organised committees and steering groups. An accreditation system 6.4. The organisational structure of citizens’ initiatives should encourage inclusion and appropriate consultation with recognising the achievements of active local participants could be developed with awards for private landowners to ensure appropriate added value within landscape scale initiatives. Active partnerships with “local champions”. private landowners and local citizens’ groups should be encouraged. Mentoring groups to develop best practice guidance for organisation of community groups including communication structures and conflict resolution. 6.5. Active citizenship campaign to be promoted by the local authorities to increase the level of participation on Mentoring and support bodies should champion and lobby for local community interests at a community organised committees and steering groups. An accreditation system recognising the achievements of political level. This should include responding to disinformation disseminated by existing vested active local participants could be developed with awards for “local champions”. interest groups (such as powerful landowning bodies) and to counter this through development of successful partnerships and the promotion of best practice case studies. 6.6. Conflict resolution and organisational support should be provided to citizens groups through an appropriate Mentoring bodies to provide hands on assistance with development of strategies and detailed mentoring organisation. action plan formulation delivering a wide range of benefits - Thematic 6.7. Mentoring and support bodies should champion and lobby for local community interests at a political level. This Mentoring bodies to provide hands on assistance with development of strategies and detailed should include responding to disinformation disseminated by existing vested interest groups (such as powerful action plan formulation delivering a wide range of benefits - Thematic landowning bodies) and to counter this through development of successful partnerships and the promotion of best practice case studies.

7. Legislative: Städteregion Aachen Greater clarity needs to be provided by the statutory authorities on the purpose and functioning Negative of statutory designations. State authorities should develop community engagement guidelines 7.1. Take forward a feasibility study at State level to evaluate potential for implementing community ownership and for their organisations to ensure more productive partnerships with local communities. Changes leasing mechanisms, with reference to legislation in NRW. This should take into account policy and best practice in to legislation should be considered to grant local communities more autonomy to manage local other European Regions including Scotland. It should consider what is currently possible and whether legislative land management operations. changes would be required. Legislation relating to food storage and distribution needs to be evaluated within the context of community gardens and local foodbanks. Where appropriate, this should be revised as necessary. 7.2. Review and develop case study examples in relation to planning gain and developer compensation from within Scotland Take forward a feasibility study to evaluate potential for implementing community ownership NRW. This should consider the potential to transfer land directly to local control and management through innovative Positive mechanisms and legislation in NRW, with reference to policy and best practice in other European land swaps. Regions including Scotland. Potential for developing case study examples in relation to planning gain and developer 7.3. Greater clarity needs to be provided by the authorities on the purpose and functioning of statutory designations. compensation. Is there potential to transfer land directly to local control and management. State authorities should develop community engagement guidelines for their organisations to ensure more Scotland Feasibility study to be commissioned at State level to evaluate potential for community productive partnerships with local communities. Changes to legislation should be considered to grant local Negative ownership and leasing models for GI in NRW. communities more autonomy to manage local land management operations.

7.4. Legislation relating to food storage and distribution needs to be evaluated within the context of community gardens and local foodbanks. Where appropriate, this might require revision, through the help of national lobbying associations and mentoring groups.

8. Funding: Städteregion Aachen The availability of grants and funding support available within the Region needs to be promoted Positive through a central location such as a mentoring body, regional GI partnership or through the 8.1. The availability of grants and funding support available within the Region needs to be promoted through a central Städteregion. “In kind” contributions by local citizens’ groups, including volunteer labour should location such as a mentoring body, regional GI partnership or through the Städteregion. This should maintained and be factored in as leverage for financial support. updated regularly with information disseminated to community stakeholders via webpages, on line bulletins etc.

226 Mentoring organisations to provide best practice guidance on funding raising for projects, including innovative solutions and factoring in volunteer time contributions as potential for 8.2. Formal mechanisms should exist to allow “In kind” contributions of voluntary labour by local citizens’ groups, to

acquisition of matched funding. be factored in as leverage for further financial support. Mentoring organisations to provide best practice guidance Scotland When seeking funding for projects local citizens groups should show evidence of local fundraising on funding raising for projects, including innovative solutions and factoring in volunteer time for acquisition of Positive initiatives, including support from local businesses. matched funding. Scotland As part of auditing procedure, local authorities should consider pre-emptive handover of Negative management responsibility of GI assets to locally constituted citizens’ groups. This could be 8.3. When seeking state funding for projects, citizens’ groups should show evidence of local fundraising initiatives, undertaken for example in situations where funding shortages might result in the closure, including support from local businesses where applicable. abandonment or selling off of GI assets in the public domain. 8.4. As part of financial forecasting procedures, local authorities should consider pre-emptive handover of management responsibility of GI assets to locally constituted citizens’ groups. This could be undertaken for example in situations where funding shortages might result in the closure, abandonment or selling off of GI assets currently held in the public domain. Where citizen control might provide a functioning alternative, this should be considered as a first option before disposal or decommissioning of the assets.

9.Communication: Städteregion Aachen Environmental and greenspace staff need to keep elected Council members and officials advised Negative on current innovation and trends in greenspace management. Where possible senior 9.1. Local authority contact procedures and entry points should be clear and accountable with recognised places of management staff within authorities should also be co-opted to act as champions. The contact. These contacts should have the ability, level of influence and connections across local authority structures development of formalised partnerships involving elected members in governance roles would to ensure effective follow up to enquiries and requests from citizens’ groups. also help to reduce conflicts and to increase awareness. 9.2. Potential for conflicts should be reduced through effective communication between stakeholder interest groups. Seedcorn funding should be made available within the Städteregion Aachen to pay for professional assistance with Citizens’ groups should view involvement of statutory authorities as a positive, rather than as a mediation, conflict resolution and the development of project proposals which recognise the needs of the different negative influence. Local groups should target awareness and educational programmes much stakeholders. more at wider stakeholders, canvassing political support as necessary through events, launches and promotional activities. 9.3. The development of formalised partnerships involving elected officials in governance roles would also help to Scotland Local authority structures should be clear and accountable with recognised points of contact with reduce conflicts and to increase awareness of GI issues amongst elected members. Professional need to keep elected Positive influence and connections across local authority structures. Council members and officials advised on current innovation and trends in greenspace management. Mentoring and funding agencies should adopt an accreditation system for local projects based upon achievement of multiple UN Sustainable Development goals. Trained advisers could assist 9.4. Senior management staff within authorities should also be co-opted to act as GI champions, to assist in the wider local communities directly in identifying and delivering more diverse outcomes. - Thematic dissemination of GI information and best practice within their respective organisations. Seedcorn funding should be made available within the Städteregion Aachen to pay for professional mentoring assistance with the development of project proposals and local action 9.5. Through improved interaction and more customer service driven practices by statutory authorities, citizens’ plans which recognising the aspirations and needs of different stakeholders. The aim should be groups should come to view involvement of such authorities in a positive role, rather than as a negative influence. to reduce potential for conflicts. This requires better and more open communication practices on behalf of authorities. Scotland Mentoring agencies to ensure that local citizens’ groups are fully up to date with legal Negative responsibilities as managers, including the provision of simple legal advice where required. 9.6. Local groups should target awareness and educational programmes at wider stakeholders, canvassing political Citizens’ groups to ensure that appropriate consultation with the wider community forms a part support as necessary through events, launches and promotional activities. of all management operations.

227 9.7. Mentoring agencies should ensure that local citizens’ groups are fully up to date with legal responsibilities as managers, including the provision of simple legal advice where required.

9.8. Citizens’ groups to ensure that appropriate consultation with the wider community forms a part of all management operations to reduce potential for conflicts and misunderstanding occurring later on.

10. Accreditation:

Städteregion Aachen Mentoring organisations should encourage local citizen initiatives to compete in existing award Positive and accreditation programmes. Consideration should be given as to the potential to integrate 10.1. Mentoring organisations should encourage local citizen initiatives to compete in existing award and the various rural, urban and other thematic accreditation schemes. accreditation programmes. This will boost local recognition of projects, political support for these as well promoting The potential to extend the “Unser Dorf hat Zukunft” scheme to include urban community groups a broader thematic base to initiatives. should be considered. An audit should also be undertaken of the role of such initiatives in delivering a wider range of multifunctional outcomes. 10.2. Consideration should be given as to the potential to integrate the various rural, urban and other thematic Scotland Mentoring organisations should encourage local citizen initiatives to compete in existing award accreditation schemes. The potential to extend the “Unser Dorf hat Zukunft” scheme to include urban community Positive and accreditation programmes. Consideration should be given as to the potential to integrate groups should be considered as a possibility, with a pilot scheme undertaken within the Städteregion Aachen. the various rural, urban and other thematic accreditation schemes. A special category for GI or woodland related initiatives should be considered. 10.3. An audit should also be undertaken of the role of such accreditation initiatives in promoting a wider range of Scotland Mentoring organisations should encourage local citizen initiatives to compete in existing award multifunctional outcomes and how the various accreditation and award schemes complement (or could better Negative and accreditation programmes. Consideration should be given as to the potential to integrate compliment) each other. the various rural, urban and other thematic accreditation schemes. A special category for GI or woodland related initiatives should be considered. 10.4. A special category for GI or specific habitat related initiatives should be considered as part of accreditation schemes.

11. Added Value:

Städteregion Aachen When delivering funding, help in kind or advisory services, mentoring bodies should encourage Positive citizens’ groups to consider potential local economic benefits that might arise from project 11.1. When delivering funding, help in kind or advisory services, mentoring bodies should encourage citizens’ groups activities and to modify outputs, where appropriate to maximise these. to consider potential local economic benefits that might arise from project activities and to modify outputs, where Local authorities, as urban land managers, should encourage more diverse and multifunctional appropriate to maximise these. uses of urban greenspaces to create productive spaces, engage local communities and assist urban biodiversity. 11.2. Mentoring agencies and statutory authorities should encourage citizens’ groups to integrate additional social inclusion benefits into projects which are the recipients of funding, help in-kind or advisory services. Mentoring agencies and statutory authorities should encourage citizens’ groups to integrate a wider range of social inclusion benefits into projects which are the recipients of funding, help in 11.3. Local authorities, as urban land managers, should encourage more diverse and multifunctional uses of urban kind or advisory services. greenspaces to create productive spaces, engage local communities and assist urban biodiversity.

Local knowledge should be valued by mentoring bodies and statutory agencies and should be 11.4. For larger strategic projects such as long distance walking routes, the potential to maximise economic benefits incorporated into project planning along with the outputs of official surveys, data collection and to each local community close to the route should be evaluated, through detailed discussions with local communities management planning. and feasibility studies. Local knowledge should be valued by mentoring bodies and statutory agencies and should be incorporated into project planning along with the outputs of official surveys, data collection and 11.5. Citizen’s’ groups should be encourage to co-ordinate their work through the development of partnerships with management planning. the statutory authorities e.g. with regards to developing local path networks and interpretation around key nodes, Management agreements should be formalised where appropriate to allow skilled citizens’ which recognises the contribution of coordinated efforts. groups to undertake management works on behalf of statutory agents where a suitable level of competence is evident. Training programmes through official agents such as LANUV should aim 11.6. Management agreements should be formalised where appropriate to allow skilled citizens’ groups to undertake to bridge skills gaps and encourage higher competence levels. management works on behalf of statutory agents where a suitable level of competence is evident. Training Mentoring groups should encourage the development of networking and training events to pull programmes through official agents such as LANUV should aim to bridge skills gaps and encourage higher core knowledge and expertise. The development of structured approaches to management competence levels.

228 should also be promoted with a wide range of skills represented on management groups. Städteregion Aachen State and local authority incentives should be made available to undertake feasibility and 11.7. State and local authority incentives should be made available to undertake feasibility and marketing studies to Negative marketing studies to maximise niche products and additional benefits which might be derived maximise niche products (e.g. wood products, honey, apple juice) and additional benefits which might be derived from the GI resources. A database of appropriate consultants who are able to provide such marketing expertise from the GI resources. A database of appropriate consultants should be maintained by officers of the local authority. should be maintained by officers of the local authority.

External funders should consider potential added value when providing project resources and

seedcorn funding; there should be a checklist featuring potential social, environmental and economic benefits of every project. For larger strategic projects such as long distance walking routes, the potential to maximise economic benefits to each local community close to the route should be evaluated.

Greater added value should be achieved by local authorities working more closely with local citizen initiatives to develop an integrated approach to the development and management of GI assets within each community. Citizens’’ groups should be encourage to co-ordinate their work through the development of partnerships with the statutory authorities e.g. with regards to developing local path networks and interpretation around key nodes. Scotland Statutory authorities to consider whether there is potential for adding greater social value to Positive projects.

12. Knowledge Städteregion Aachen Local knowledge should be valued by mentoring bodies and statutory agencies and should be 12.1. State authorities and funding bodies should be more proactive about providing technical knowledge of site Positive incorporated into project planning along with the outputs of official surveys, data collection and management and biodiversity issues. Where necessary this could involve use of a third party mentoring body such management planning (from section 11. Added Value) as the Aachen Bio-station. Städteregion Aachen State authorities and funding bodies should be more proactive about providing technical Negative knowledge of site management and biodiversity issues. Where necessary this could involve use 12.2. Mentoring bodies to provide best practice case studies, technical advice, points of contact and hands on of a third party mentoring body such as the Aachen Bio-station. assistance to community groups wishing to undertake local projects. Scotland Mentoring bodies to provide best practice case studies, technical advice, points of contact and Negative hands on assistance to community groups wishing to undertake local projects. 12.3. Local knowledge should be valued by mentoring bodies and statutory agencies and should be incorporated into project planning along with the outputs of official surveys, data collection and management planning.

13.Capacity building: Scotland Regional training programmes and mentoring for local citizens’ groups through organised Positive workshops, events and online toolkits. In addition a hands on mentoring service should be made 13.1. Mentoring bodies in partnership with the statutory authorities should offer co-ordinated regional training available to guide citizen’s groups. programmes for local citizens’ groups through organised workshops, events and online toolkits. These should deal Mentoring bodies and statutory authorities should work through an enabling approach which with GI thematic topics as well as how to develop capacity amongst local citizens’ groups. encourages local citizens´ groups to become more autonomous and to take on greater control of projects at a local level. 13.2. An enabling approach should be adopted which encourages local citizens’ groups to become more autonomous Statutory authorities should adopt a flexible approach when authorising types of activity which and to take on greater control of projects at a local level, thus developing future capacity amongst community groups. can occur on the various sites. Mentoring services and access to best practice examples should be promoted. 13.3. Statutory authorities should adopt a flexible approach when authorising types of activity which can occur on the various sites.

14.Durability and Tenure:

229 Städteregion Aachen Local authorities to provide more receptive and welcoming structures with the aim of Positive encouraging self-help approaches. 14.1. Local authorities could evaluate the potential for innovative partnerships between local communities and

Städteregion Aachen Incentives and accreditation should be offered which recognises the contribution of younger private owners as a means of reducing financial burdens whilst developing local capacity. Negative people to projects. Youth workers should also be encouraged to contribute to the development and operation of local GI initiatives. 14.2. Local authorities, landowners and statutory authorities could assist citizens’ groups through offering more Incentives and accreditation should be offered which recognises the contribution of younger flexible and longer leasing arrangements to established groups. There should be discounted costs available to people to projects. Youth workers should also be encouraged to contribute to the development community groups who deliver a range of UN sustainable development indicators. and operation of local GI initiatives. Local authorities should consider offering more flexible leasing arrangements to community 14.3. Incentives and accreditation should be offered which recognises the contribution of younger people to projects. groups that ensure a greater security of tenure. Scotland Local authorities could evaluate the potential for innovative partnerships between local 14.4. An ongoing revenue funding strategy should be a requirement for all funding applications relating to GI. Positive communities and private owners as a means of reducing financial burdens whilst developing local capacity. 14.5. Community ownership Trial projects and exchanges. Local authorities, landowners and statutory authorities could assist citizens’ groups through offering more flexible and longer leasing arrangements to established groups. There should be discounted costs available to community groups who deliver a range of UN sustainable development indicators. Scotland An ongoing revenue funding strategy should be a requirement for all funding applications relating Negative to GI.

Table 64. Distilled and collated policy responses

Chapter 8. Identification of Instruments and measures for Regional, local authorities and mentoring bodies

This chapter considers proposed options for developing citizen participation in relation to GI in the Städteregion Aachen. It recommends potential measures and structures for regional and local authorities and mentoring bodies. The role, function and scope for development of GI partnership structures is also considered in some detail with a suggested model which has potential to operate at a regional level.

In summary the sections of this chapter are as follows:

8.1 Policy recommendations for regional, local authorities and mentoring bodies in the Städteregion Aachen

8.2 Potential GI partnership delivery structures in the Städteregion Aachen

8.3 Partnership structuring, hosting and resources

8.4 GI partnership structures and local citizen participation initiatives

230

8.1 Policy recommendations for regional, local authorities and mentoring bodies:

In the previous chapter, policy recommendations for regional, local authorities and mentoring bodies were identified and were developed in response to key learning points taken forward from the Comparison Framework and the subsequent SWOT analysis. These were classified according to 14 different topic areas which were identified during the evaluation process.

The list of Policy Actions is provided here on a more structured and formalised basis – these actions would be applied across the Städteregion Aachen as a whole, rather than just within the core transect area of this study. In addition to the points and policy responses, identified directly through the comparison process, some additional keystone policy recommendations, of a more strategic nature are added where this will benefit the overall effectiveness of delivery. These extra key policy recommendations are highlighted in the table that follows – see Table 65:

231

Table 65: Policy Recommendations for regional, local authorities and mentoring bodies:

Topic Area Heading Appropriate Policy Response:

1. Thematic Diversity Details 1.1 UN Sustainable Mentoring and funding agencies should adopt an accreditation and assessment system based upon UN Sustainable Development Development Indicators; potentially an expanded version or modified version of the model already used by the UDHZ, Indicators: Unser Dorf Hat Zukunft, initiative (Landwirtschaftskammer Nordrhein-Westfalen 2018).

1.2 UDHZ Expansion: The scope, ideology and concepts behind the UDHZ competition should be extended to cover urban and peri-urban communities – potentially with a rebranding to reflect the broader context. This should draw upon experience and knowledge gained so far from UDHZ, but with the addition of specific new GI related categories and appropriate tailoring for urban and peri-urban initiatives.

1.2 Corporate Policy GI policy linkage within mentoring organisations and statutory authorities should be increased at a corporate level, Linkage - recognising the potential for delivering multifunctional outcomes. GI outcomes should be considered across a diverse Municipalities: range of policy areas such as community development, education, health and economic development and with corresponding high level representation within statutory authorities. 232

1.3 Landscape Scale Where scope exists, potential for landscape scale integrated approaches to joint management planning between statutory Pilot Projects: authorities and citizens’ groups should be considered. As a case study, the Wurmtal offers potential as a laboratory for integrated co-management involving community stakeholders and statutory authorities to deliver co-ordinated activity across nature conservation, access, social and economic policy areas. This could expand upon strategic policy guidelines, case studies and projects already being developed by the Three Countries Park initiative (Lohrberg, Wirth et al. 2014) and the Hohes Venn – Eifel Nature Park (Naturpark Hohes Venn-Nordeifel 2020).

1.4 Educational An assessment should be made of the potential for integration of GI related topics into the local school curriculum, Integration: including use of the greenspaces to deliver a range of educational topics - beyond the usual environmental or natural science themes.

1.5 Best Practice Production and showcasing of best practice examples of citizen led/ co-management of GI should be undertaken through Dissemination: production of publications, web based materials and through the organisation of study tours and exchanges within Städteregion Aachen and beyond. These should be organised jointly between the Städteregion Aachen, relevant mentoring NGOs and the State Agencies such as LANUV.

1.6 Representation: When allocating funding provision to citizens’ groups, statutory authorities should prioritise representative local partnerships. To receive support there should be a requirement for groups to show broad based support and ownership within the community. These could, for example, be affiliated around an existing community body such as a local Heimatverein - though there should be no one single structure which is defined as being appropriate.

1.7 Keystone Measure: A comprehensive Green Infrastructure Strategy needs to be developed across the whole of the Aachen City Region. This should describe the network of green areas and other landscape features based around the principles of core areas and Green connectivity elements linking urban and rural areas and also link/synergise with a GI Strategy being developed for the Infrastructure Dreiländerpark (Lohrberg, Wirth et al. 2014). Specifically this should: Strategy and Policy  Define the existing GI resource within the Städteregion and key external linkages. Linkage:  Identify key GI thematic priorities within the region  Provide detailed spatial mapping for the targeting of grants and challenge funds.  Further identify mechanisms and partners, including citizen initiatives, to take forward implementation of the network.  Identify potential sources of funding e.g. LIFE+, ERDF (Interreg), EAFRD rural development measures, Natura 2000, Water Framework Directive etc. and potential new revenue streams. The GI Strategy should also link with other emerging strategies on Cultural Heritage and Outdoor Access, Complimentary

233 Biomass and Quality Production.

2. Partnerships 2.1 Partnerships – Projects should deliver multiple social, environmental and economic outcomes, according to a coherent vision or Delivery of Diverse management plan. To receive support there should be a requirement for groups to show broad based representation Outcomes: within the community, rather than representing a narrow clique or interest group – Guidelines should be produced as to the scope, format, composition and legal structures of citizen groups established for the management of GI.

2.2 Transparency and When seeking financial or in-kind support from state authorities through Challenge Funding, Citizen’s groups must be Accountability of required to be open, transparent and publicly accountable regarding all activities, including landholdings, assets and Local Initiatives: business transactions. Board papers and AGM information should be fully available to interested members of the public, ideally through web based formats.

2.3 Toolkit A toolkit and training resource should be produced jointly between the Städteregion Aachen, government agencies and Development: Third Sector mentoring organisations. This should indicate criteria for successful functioning of the citizens’ initiatives – including volunteering, funding and broader administrative functions (see also 2.1). Expertise for the development of this could come from existing sources such as the Eifelverein (Eifelverein 2019) and NUA (Natur und Umweltschutzakademie NRW - NUA 2020).

2.4 Workshop A series of central and local workshops should be organised by the Städteregion Aachen in partnership with Third Sector Programme: mentoring bodies to bring together the diversity of stakeholders involved in natural resources and community development across the Region. These should aim to identify and develop common goals and approaches to GI, which recognise the need for, and the added value of, citizen led action. Sharing expertise between rural and urban projects and across thematic areas should also be prioritised.

2.5 Keystone Measure: The development of a strategic level GI partnership for the Städteregion should be considered. This should involve both practitioners and those involved in policy making at senior level. Its purpose should include the following functions: Strategic GI  To develop and co-ordinate policy across organisations and provide a forum for debate between statutory Partnership authorities, Third Sector Groups, Citizens’ Groups and the Business Sector. Development:  To showcase best practice through co-ordinated delivery of projects on the ground.  To bring together diverse partners and organisations, beyond those usually concerned with environment and GI. It might include, for example, healthcare professionals and youth development organisations.  It should aim to bridge the gap between policy, practice and civil society.  Acting as a local conduit for funding, including the dispersal of locally targeted Challenge Funds and transnational funding bids. The Partnership should add value to existing organisations and initiatives rather than attempting to duplicate these – it

234 should be the mortar that binds the structural elements together. It should have a small permanent staff contingent, and a

degree of autonomy to ensure neutrality. A good existing model to use could potentially be the emerging Dreiländerpark partnership (Lohrberg, Wirth et al. 2014) or Regional GI partnerships from Scotland, particularly the CSGN (Central Scotland Green Network 2011).

2.6 Local Authority The Städteregion and local authorities should review their budgets and spending commitments and consider increased Cost Reduction and citizen participation as potential solution for the co-management of GI resources in a climate of austerity and declining Best Value: public expenditure. A number of trial projects should be developed to test the potential for local community management or co-management as alternatives, where this might prove cost effective in reducing use of public funding.

2.7 Retraining of staff Training should be provided to relevant Städteregion and local authority staff to encourage use of more participatory as Partnership approaches when responding to enquiries from volunteer groups and the Third sector. For example, state authorities Facilitators: could provide specialist training to frontline operational staff who respond to enquiries from the public, or who work with local citizens’ groups to promote delivery of multifunctional outcomes – this could include techniques such as participatory appraisal.

3. Mentoring 3.1 Developing Internal Local authorities and mentoring organisations to offer an advisory role directly to assist citizen led actions. This could also and External be undertaken externally through the development of a strategic GI partnership involving local authority, government and Advisory Capability: NGO stakeholders. Authorities should also maintain lists of external advisers who can assist groups with development of an initiative, project or funding application. Financial assistance from Central Government to provide such advice would be beneficial in developing organisational capacity.

3.2 Seedcorn Funding State funding should be provided as a seedcorn with the aim of levering additional funding. The concept of developing a Availability: strategic regional partnership should be investigated involving local authorities, government agencies and the Third sector - organisations with a strong technical background such as the Aachen Biologische Station (Biologische Station StädteRegion Aachen e. V. 2020b) should be considered as potential candidates for distribution of funding – However, objectives should stress multifunctionality and deliver social, economic and environmental outcomes.

3.3 Audit of mentoring An audit of mentoring bodies who are able to assist GI projects should be undertaken to evaluate which bodies exist in bodies and NRW and locally and the types of help that these are able to provide. This could ensure that the right help gets to the right functions: people.

235 3.4 Replicability of Successful models from Scotland such as Community Land Scotland (Community Land Scotland 2020), the Community

International Woodland Association (Community Woodlands Association 2020), WIAT -Woods In and Around Towns initiative (Scottish Approaches: Forestry 2020) and regional & local greenspace partnerships should be evaluated and their potential replicability in Germany considered.

4. Inclusion 4.1 Training and “in Local citizens’ groups should be encouraged to become fully engaged and practically involved through training and kind” Resources for provision of tools and materials by mentoring bodies and statutory authorities. Training should cover key issues such as Local Groups: health and safety awareness and public liability issues.

4.2 Core Volunteer A regional core group of volunteers could be trained up to provide additional hands on assistance to local groups where Team, Health and needed. This could deliver the following additional benefits: Skills Development:  As part of a social programme to encourage physical activity amongst older retired people e.g. UK Green Gym model, o  For skills /employability training of long term unemployed.  Developing capacity of those concerned through the acquisition of technical skills such as bridge building, path construction, habitat management, forestry skills etc.  Mental health and wellbeing e.g. Forestry Commission Scotland “Branching Out” model.

4.3 Outdoor Classroom The concept of the outdoor classroom should be promoted, particularly in urban areas of high social deprivation. The Development: authorities should encourage the involvement and participation of youth groups and schools within local projects to provide additional social inclusion and educational benefits across the school curriculum.

4.4 Physical and Links to groups involved with learning disabilities and mental health care should be actively promoted to recognise the Mental Health and cognitive health benefits that can arise from participation in greenspace and woodland activities. Where possible local GI: citizens’ groups should work closely alongside participants with learning disabilities.

4.5 Social Return on Before receiving financial or in-kind support, local groups should have appropriate inclusion and outreach policies in place Investment: to show that appropriate social return upon investment can be achieved.

4.6 Youth Involvement: Youth workers and where appropriate, local police should be involved in community partnerships to ensure participation and, where required, effective deterrents exist to combat vandalism or other antisocial behaviour. Local youth should be encouraged proactively to participate in projects undertaken by local citizens’ groups.

4.7 Greenspace Health Experimental health initiatives should be undertaken in key communities, in partnership with the health authorities to Laboratories: evaluate the potential for “green” prescriptions, involving the therapeutic uses of greenspaces and physical activity as an

236 alternative to conventional treatments.

5. Delivery Functions 5.1 Gateways and There should be clear points of contact within the local municipalities for local citizens with a GI interest. Statutory approachability: authorities, including the local authorities should make themselves more approachable and accountable to local citizens groups. The philosophy should be “We can help”.

5.2 Structured Mentoring bodies should advise on the structure of generic management plans for local citizens’ groups that can be management adapted as necessary to local circumstances. planning:

5.3 Landowner The organisational structure of citizens’ initiatives should encourage inclusion and appropriate consultation with private participation: landowners to ensure added value within landscape scale initiatives. Where appropriate statutory authorities should also try to influence this through appropriate use of legislation and access to financial incentives.

5.4 Keystone Measure: Local authorities should consider greater use of outsourcing to appropriate organisations including NGOs and Third Sector social enterprises when considering delivery of GI functions, and where internal capacity is limited. This could be Local Authority appropriate for example to situations particularly where greater social return on investment and additional added value Outsourcing: might be added by an external partner (e.g. through providing additional social inclusion, health or capacity building benefits).

6. Structure 6.1 Local Community A pilot study should be run to assess the potential for direct community ownership within the Aachen City Region based ownership/ leasing upon the models from Scotland (Community Land Scotland 2020, Community Woodlands Association 2020) – along with Evaluation: innovative examples from Germany such as the “Wald 2.0” forest co-operative model operating in Remscheid (Waldgenossenschaft Remscheid eG. 2020) . This could include the potential for a community to acquire former state or local authority land at a discounted rate, subject to development of a suitable plan from the community featuring delivery of Sustainable Development targets. The group objectives should be broad brush and inclusive rather than narrowly defined.

6.2 Local Affiliation: Emerging new groups should be encouraged to affiliate to existing community structures where possible to facilitate good communication, networking and efficient organisation. The aim should be to avoid duplication. The model based upon a

237 Heimatverein, as in the Eifel, seems to provide a suitable structure (Eifelverein 2019). It might be that different models are necessary for rural and urban projects, however the potential for synergy should be investigated.

6.3 Innovative Case study examples in relation to planning gain and developer compensation should be investigated and evaluated. This Compensation should include the potential to transfer land directly to local control and management by Citizens’ Groups where this Models: might private a more effective scenario and present added value.

6.4 Private Sector and The organisational structure of citizens’ initiatives should encourage inclusion and appropriate consultation with private Citizen Co- landowners to ensure appropriate added value within landscape scale initiatives. Active partnerships with private management: landowners and local citizens’ groups should be encouraged where possible.

6.5 Recognition and Active citizenship campaign to be promoted by the local authorities to increase the level of participation on community Promotion of “Local organised committees and steering groups. An accreditation system recognising the achievements of active local Champions”: participants could be developed with awards for “local champions”.

6.6 Conflict Resolution Conflict resolution and organisational support should be provided to citizens groups through an appropriate mentoring Resource: organisation and through Local Authority support.

6.7 Countering Mentoring and support bodies should champion and lobby for local community interests at a political level. This should Institutional Inertia include responding to disinformation disseminated by existing vested interest groups (such as powerful landowning and Vested coalitions or representation) and to counter this through development of successful partnerships at a local level and the Interests: promotion of best practice case studies.

7. Legislative 7.1 Legislative Review - Take forward a feasibility study at State level to evaluate potential for implementing community ownership and leasing Community mechanisms, with reference to existing and potential legislation in NRW. This should take into account policy and best Ownership and practice in other European Regions, including Scotland. It should consider what is currently possible and where legislative Leasing Models: changes would be required to create workable models.

7.2 Legislative Review – Review and develop case study examples in relation to planning gain and developer compensation from within NRW. This Land Swaps and should consider the potential to transfer land directly to local control and management through innovative land swaps. Compensation Schemes:

238

7.3 Statutory Greater clarity needs to be provided by the authorities on the purpose and functioning of statutory designations. State Designations and authorities should develop community engagement guidelines for their organisations to ensure more productive Citizen partnerships with local communities and greater delegation where appropriate. Changes to legislation should be Participation: considered to grant local communities more autonomy to manage local land management operations.

7.4 Food Banks Legislation relating to food storage and distribution to be evaluated within the context of community gardens and local Legislation – foodbanks. Where appropriate, this might require revision, through the help of national lobbying associations and Review Within mentoring groups to provide workable and adaptable solutions. Urban Gardening and Produce Context:

8. Funding 8.1 Keystone Measure: State agencies such as LANUV and NRW Wald und Holz should consider allocation of Central Government funding for the establishment of Challenge funding which could be made available to partnerships consisting of citizens’ groups, Third Development of Sector and local authorities. Seedcorn funds could be available for Initiatives in and around settlements, including a 3km Challenge Funding buffer, which could cover the following thematic elements: Initiative: i. Enhancing and developing the biotope/habitat network, including core areas and connectivity elements such as river corridors. ii. Path network development and interpretation – this should include strategic multifunctional path networks linking urban settlements and their hinterlands and should aim to promote active travel concepts. iii. Landscape enhancement, including cultural landscape features such as hedges, landmark /heritage trees, orchards/Streuobstwiesen, wetlands, ponds and species rich meadows. iv. Urban forestry initiatives including street tree planting /management and production/utilisation of sustainable forest products. v. Urban/ community gardening projects. vi. Environmental education. vii. Health and wellbeing projects relating to use of GI and urban forestry.

239 Challenge funds should deliver key UN sustainable development outcomes as indicators and should integrate where possible with existing funding schemes.

8.2 Existing Grants and The availability of existing additional grants and funding support available within the Region needs to be co-ordinated and Funding Sources - promoted through a central location such as a mentoring body, regional GI partnership or through the Städteregion itself. Database / This should maintained and updated regularly with information disseminated directly to community stakeholders via Resource: webpages, online bulletins etc. Where possible, gaps in existing funding provision should be identified and the potential for new income streams investigated e.g. from health, social and economic development sources.

8.3 Match Funding of Formal mechanisms should exist to allow “In kind” contributions of voluntary labour by local citizens’ groups, to be “in-kind” factored in as leverage for further financial support, including challenge funds. Contributions:

8.4 Local Funding When seeking state funding for projects, citizens’ groups should show prior evidence of local fundraising initiatives. This Stipulation / could, for example, include support from local businesses where applicable. There should be scope for using this as Business leverage to secure further match funding, along with in kind contributions. Sponsorship:

8.5 Pre-emptive As part of financial forecasting procedures, local authorities should consider pre-emptive handover of management Release of State responsibility of GI assets to locally constituted citizens’ groups. This could be undertaken for example in situations where Assets: funding shortages might result in the closure, abandonment or selling off of GI assets currently held in the public domain. Where citizen control might provide a functioning alternative, this should be considered as a first option before disposal or decommissioning of the assets, rather than to development interests.

8.6 Fund Raising Mentoring organisations to provide best practice guidance on funding raising for projects, including innovative solutions Guidance: and factoring in volunteer time for acquisition of matched funding.

8.7 Keystone Measure: The potential for directing funding for GI from a National Lottery based scheme and other external sources, including the potential for large-scale corporate partnerships, should be evaluated and discussed through networks. This should be External Funding taken forward at a State and Federal level. Evaluation:

8.8 Corporate Social Approaches should be made through existing or future partnership structures to involve local businesses in CSR Responsibility programmes relating to citizen led and strategic GI programmes. Corporate bodies could, for example, directly involve

240 Programmes: their staff in implementation projects, through working alongside local volunteers and through providing project materials, equipment and resources. CSR benefits to the businesses could also include team building, co-operation and skills

development. In this respect projects such as the UDHZ which are funded by Sparkasse Aachen could provide useful background.

9. Communication 9.1 Citizens’ Local authority contact procedures and entry points should be clear and accountable with recognised places of contact. “Gateways” – These contacts should have the ability, level of influence and connections across local authority structures to ensure Influential and effective follow up to enquiries and requests from citizens’ groups. Networked contact points should exist:

9.2 Mediation and Potential for conflicts should be reduced through effective communication between stakeholder interest groups. Seedcorn Conflict Resolution funding should be made available within the Städteregion Aachen to pay for professional assistance with mediation, Assistance: conflict resolution and the development of project proposals which recognise the needs of the different stakeholders.

9.3 Participation of The development of formalised partnerships involving elected officials in governance roles would also help to reduce Elected Council conflicts and to increase awareness of GI issues amongst elected members. Professionals need to keep elected Council Members: members and officials advised on current innovation and trends in greenspace management, to avoid institutional or political resistance to implementation of GI concepts.

9.4 Identification of “GI Senior management staff and elected members within authorities should also be co-opted to act as GI champions Champions” at /ambassadors, to assist in the wider dissemination of GI information and best practice within their respective Senior organisations. Management Level:

9.5 Customer Through improved interaction and more customer service driven practices by statutory authorities, citizens’ groups should Orientated Service come to view involvement of such authorities in a positive role, rather than as a potentially negative or controlling Delivery and influence. This requires better and more open communication practices on behalf of authorities. Communication:

9.6 Lobbying and Local groups should target awareness and educational programmes at wider stakeholders, canvassing political support as Awareness Raising: necessary through events, launches and promotional activities.

241

9.7 Wider Public Citizens’ groups to ensure that appropriate consultation with the wider community forms part of all management Consultation and operations. This should aim to reduce the potential for conflicts and misunderstandings to occur later on in the process, Information: for example through impacts of management operations.

9.8 Media / Press The Städteregion Aachen, in partnership with selected mentoring bodies should offer media training to citizens’ group Training: representatives – this could include basic communication skills, productions of press releases, use of social media and digital communication forums. The aim of this would be to build community capacity.

10. Accreditation. 10.1 Promotion of Mentoring organisations should encourage local citizen initiatives to compete in existing award and accreditation Existing programmes. This will boost local recognition of projects, engender political support for these as well promoting a broader Accreditation thematic base to existing and future initiatives. Schemes:

10.2 Developing Synergy Consideration should be given as to the potential to better synergise the various rural, urban and other thematic between accreditation schemes in existence. The potential to extend the “Unser Dorf hat Zukunft” scheme to include urban Accreditation community groups should also be considered as a possibility, with a pilot scheme undertaken within the Städteregion Schemes: Aachen, specifically targeting urban community groups. Higher levels of funding and incentives should be sought for the scheme.

10.3 Audit and An audit should also be undertaken on the role of such accreditation initiatives in promoting a wider range of evaluation of multifunctional outcomes and how the various accreditation and award schemes complement (or could better existing compliment) each other. accreditation initiatives:

10.4 Increasing the GI Special categories for GI or specific habitat related initiatives should be considered as part of existing accreditation Focus of Award schemes. These could recognise, for example citizen activities around settlements to manage green and blue spaces, to Schemes: develop path networks and interpretation and to undertake community growing or biomass projects.

11. Added value

242 11.1 Incorporation of When delivering funding, help in kind or advisory services, mentoring bodies should encourage citizens’ groups to consider

Economic potential local economic benefits that might arise from project activities and to modify outputs, where appropriate to Assessments: maximise these. These should be encouraged through accreditation, awards and targeted challenge funds.

11.2 Social Return on Mentoring agencies and statutory authorities should encourage citizens’ groups to integrate additional social inclusion Investment: benefits into projects which are the recipients of funding, in-kind help or advisory services. These should be encouraged through accreditation, awards and targeted challenge funds. Mechanisms to quantify these social returns and to use this as leverage for funding applications and further support programmes should be developed.

11.3 Diversification of Local authorities, as urban land managers, should encourage more diverse and multifunctional uses of urban greenspaces greenspace to create productive spaces, engage local communities and assist urban biodiversity. There should be a less sectorial functions: approach and the need to involve more local partners drawn from the community. The multi-functionality of the resource and the delivery of additional ecosystem services and benefits should be clarified, as in the Aachen City Open Space Strategy (Stadt Aachen 2019) and the CSGN Multifunctional GI Planning guidelines (Central Scotland Green Network 2015).

11.4 Strategic GI For larger strategic projects such as long distance walking and cycling routes, the potential to maximise economic benefits projects – to each local community close to the route should be evaluated, for example through benefiting local businesses such as community impact cafes, shops and pubs. This should be undertaken through detailed discussions with local communities and feasibility assessments studies. This should recognise also the potential for conflicts, for example, between cyclists, horse riders and pedestrians (positive/negative): and consider how such conflicts might be resolved. When required economic, social and environmental impact statements should be produced. 11.5 Co-management of Citizens’ groups should be encourage to co-ordinate their work through the development of partnerships with the local access statutory authorities e.g. with regards to developing local path networks and interpretation around key nodes, which infrastructure: recognises the contribution of coordinated efforts and local knowledge.

11.6 Promoting local Management agreements should be formalised where appropriate to allow skilled citizens’ groups to undertake autonomy and management works on behalf of statutory agents, where a suitable level of competence is evident. Training programmes capacity building: through official agents such as LANUV should aim to bridge skills gaps and encourage higher competence levels.

11.7 Marketing State and local authority incentives should be made available to undertake feasibility and marketing studies to maximise incentives for provision of niche products - e.g. wood products, honey, apple juice, and additional benefits which might be derived from added value: the GI resources.

243

11.8 Consultants A database of appropriate consultants who are able to provide such marketing expertise should be maintained by officers database: of the local authority. Financial assistance should be available to help with the development of such feasibility studies.

12. Knowledge 12.1 Technical State authorities and funding bodies should be more proactive about providing technical knowledge of site management mentoring: and biodiversity issues. Where necessary this could involve use of a third party mentoring body such as the Aachen Bio- station.

12.2 Best Practice Mentoring bodies to provide best practice case studies, technical advice, points of contact and hands on assistance to Resource Database: community groups wishing to undertake local projects.

12.3 Local knowledge Local knowledge should be valued by mentoring bodies and statutory agencies and should be incorporated into project Utilisation: planning along with the outputs of official surveys, data collection and management planning. A database of local case studies – created to an established format should also be developed with mechanisms for appropriate knowledge exchange between groups.

13. Capacity Building 13.1 GI Workshops and Mentoring bodies, in partnership with the statutory authorities, should offer co-ordinated regional training programmes Training for local citizens’ groups through organised workshops, events and online toolkits. These should deal with GI thematic Programmes: topics as well as how to develop capacity amongst local citizens’ groups.

13.2 Local Autonomy An enabling approach should be adopted which encourages local citizens’ groups to become more autonomous and to Approach: take on greater control of projects at a local level, thus developing future capacity amongst community groups.

13.3 Flexible Statutory authorities should adopt a flexible approach when authorising types of activity which can occur on the various Approaches: sites. 14. Durability and Tenure 14.1 Landowner and Local authorities could evaluate the potential for innovative partnerships between local communities and private owners Community as a means of reducing financial burdens whilst maintaining and developing local capacity. Partnerships:

14.2 Flexible Leasing Local authorities, landowners and statutory authorities could assist citizens’ groups through offering more flexible and

244 Arrangements: longer leasing arrangements to established groups. There should be discounted costs available to community groups who

deliver a range of UN sustainable development indicators. Innovative practices such as Community Cooperatives should be investigated and trialled.

14.3 Incentives for Incentives and accreditation should be offered which recognises the contribution of younger people to projects. Where Young People: possible this should be linked to school curriculums or other forms of vocational training.

14.4 Revenue Funding An ongoing revenue funding strategy should be a requirement for all funding applications relating to GI. Strategies:

14.5 Community Community ownership trial projects should be developed as pilots. Exchange projects should be developed to showcase Ownership lab: these.

14.6 Rural Urban Links between rural and urban projects should be developed for the purposes of developing twinning and knowledge Exchange: exchange. This could also include organisation of international study tours to exchange best practice ideas or more local day excursions and video conferencing arrangements.

Table 65. Policy Recommendations for statutory authorities and mentoring bodies

8.2 Potential GI Partnership Delivery Structures in the Städteregion Aachen

In addition to the numerous specific measures identified in Table 65 above, a number of more generic actions operating on a Regional level, or “keystone measures” were recommended, particularly with regards to Topic Heading 2.5 – Strategic GI Partnership Development. This also relates closely with a number of the other topic headings including: 1.7 – Green Infrastructure Strategy and Policy Linkage, 5.4 – Local Authority Outsourcing, 8.1 – Development of Challenge Funding Initiatives and 8.7 – External Funding Evaluation. The development of a Strategic Partnership is envisaged as one keystone measure, which would aim to create an underlying structure to help facilitate and implement the wider raft of proposals outlined for GI development and citizen participation across the Städteregion Aachen.

8.2.1 What should be the role of a Strategic GI Partnership ?

It is envisaged that the role of a proposed GI Partnership should be to provide a forum for debate at a regional level between statutory authorities, Third Sector organisations, citizens’ groups and wider civil society and should co-ordinate the delivery of identified outcomes thus resulting in a more holistic, systematic and structured approach to GI policy and delivery across the Region. It should aim to bring together diverse partners and organisations, including also those not normally associated directly with environmental and GI related topics. This might include, for example, healthcare professionals, educators and organisations with a social remit. It should bridge the gap between policy, practice and civil society actions.

The role, structure and functioning of strategic GI partnerships have been investigated in some detail by Whitehead et. al. (Whitehead I, Hansmann R et al. 2017) and Hansmann et. al. (Hansmann R, Whitehead I et al. 2016), based upon experiences gained from the Central Scotland Green Network, CSGN, area of Scotland through the COST FP1204 “Greeninurbs” project (COST 2017) and drawing also upon experience gained from other parts of Europe - see Fig 83. This provides a useful template which might potentially provide a model for the development of a GI network within the Städteregion Aachen.

245

Fig 83. Conceptual regional GI partnership functions (Whitehead I, Hansmann R et al. 2017)

More specifically, functions would include the following: i) Regional Strategy Development: To develop and co-ordinate policy relating to GI across the different organisations, agencies and sectors. This should include the development and incorporation of specific GI related components in strategic and local development planning along with regionally specific strategies such as for forestry, biodiversity and strategic path networks. In addition, this should involve the development and promotion of specific toolkits and resources such as GIS habitat network mapping tools and the development of GI spatial network plans. The development of a GI Strategy covering the area of the Three Countries Park has already been proposed as a key action the “Dreiländerpark” Landscape Strategy (Lohrberg, Wirth et al. 2014). This approach needs to be extended across the whole of the Städteregion Aachen. ii) Network Organisation: This would involve providing a secretariat role for coordinating the day to day administration of the partnership, its networking arrangements, meeting schedules and the coordination of outputs through its member organisations. The GI Partnership would therefore act as a focal point through providing advocacy and consensus building activities across the network. An additional role would involve securing ongoing funding for the development of the Partnership and funding for the purposes of facilitating best practice GI projects on the ground, thus illustrating the principles of GI network development being proposed. iii) Facilitating Best Practice: The GI Partnership should facilitate the delivery of best practice projects on the ground with external partner organisations. This should include the scoping and identification of potential projects and assisting the implementation of these through networks of local partners and delivery agents. A role of the Partnership would also be to

246

disseminate the outcomes and outputs of these best practice examples to the wider public and stakeholders across the Städteregion Aachen and beyond, through providing access to online databases, publications and resources.

Significantly, the Partnership should add value to existing organisations and initiatives rather than attempting to duplicate these; in this respect it should be considered as the cement, that binds together the structural elements of GI policy and practice. To manage the implementation of partnership objectives, there should be a small permanent staff contingent, and a degree of autonomy to ensure perceived political and organisational neutrality. A good existing model could potentially be the emerging Dreiländer Park partnership from the Aachen, Maastricht, Liege area bordering Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands (Lohrberg, Wirth et al. 2014) or that of Regional GI Partnerships from Scotland, such as the Central Scotland Green Network Partnership (Central Scotland Green Network 2011) or the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Green Network Partnership (Hislop, Scott et al. 2019).

In terms of general principles, it is recommended that a proposed GI Partnership for the Städteregion Aachen should: i) Represent an efficient use of resources. It should not attempt to duplicate or replace existing structures but should, instead, attempt to add value to these through achieving enhanced synergy and coordination of actions and initiatives of the various partner organisations – including existing or actions in progress. ii) Should be result orientated. The Partnership should not just be perceived as a talking shop but should set clearly defined goals, milestones and targets for delivery of its key aims and the development of GI across the Städteregion Aachen. These should be articulated through appropriate long term vision statements, detailed policies and rolling action programmes which would be updated annually. The timescale for the overall vision should be 50 years as a minimum – with subsequent revisions on a 5 to 10 year cycle. iii) Provide an effective bridge between the state sector, NGOS, local Civil Society Organisations and the business sector. In this respect the GI Partnership should be perceived as being politically neutral, non-partisan and accessible. iv) Should be managed by a steering group drawn from key partner organisations with day to day management responsibility effectively delegated to an Executive Officer and his/her team. v) Receive a core funding element from state sources to cover the costs of employing an Executive Officer and additional required administrative support. The Executive Office could initially be employed on a 3 year contractual basis. The funding of the post should also be accompanied by a small operational budget to act as leverage for implementation of best practice projects. In the longer term, the costs of funding the Executive Officer should come from a number of devolved sources, with bids made to access appropriate and diverse funding streams from European, State and NGO sources. vi) Should be geographically and administratively accessible to a wide range of different stakeholder groups. The partnership should embrace an open door policy which encourages contact and open communication with stakeholders and members of the public. Careful consideration would need to be given to where the Partnership should be specifically housed to allow access whilst retaining perceived neutrality.

247

vii) Should act in an enabling role through providing advice, resources and incentives to local community groups thereby promoting a sense of local ownership and enhanced community capacity building.

8.3 Partnership Structuring, hosting and Resources

8.3.1 A Strategic GI Partnership – Proposed Structure

A generic conceptual model for the hosting and structuring of a potential GI partnership, as shown in Fig 84, was proposed by Whitehead et. al., 2017 (Whitehead I, Hansmann R et al. 2017) as an outcome of the COST Action FP1204 – “Green in Urbs” Project (COST 2017). This provides a useful template that might be successfully adapted to the Städteregion Aachen.

A principle feature of the conceptual model is that it promotes the formation of key linkages between the strategic policy context, shown on the upper tier, and delivery functions for GI, as shown on the lower tier – see Fig 84. Strategic level aspects include European, Federal and State GI policies as well as other related policy areas which have an influence and impact upon GI at a regional and on a local level; these might include, for example, healthcare, economic development and social welfare policies.

The lower tier shown in the model focuses upon detailed delivery functions. Within the specific context of the Städteregion Aachen, delivery bodies might include key local actors such as the Biologische Station Aachen, local government departments and institutions, NGOs – in addition to local citizen led actions. Whilst some of these partners are likely to have a more significant direct role in the process, in reality, many projects will be co-managed by effective coalitions or partnerships of the aforementioned stakeholders; effectively representing a fusion of the different interest groups.

The middle tier of the conceptual model is concerned with the physical dynamics of partnership working and provides the vehicle for partners from the upper and lower tiers shown in the model to engage through effective dialogue and co-ordination activities to facilitate the effective co- management of the GI resource across the Städteregion. The purpose of this is to ensure synergy and clarity between key policy objectives and the delivery of GI actions on the ground. If anything this can be considered as the “engine room” of the GI partnership process where the necessary decisions, negotiations and, where necessary, compromises can be made to ensure that the process is driven forward to delivery stages.

Significantly, the conceptual model draws a distinction with traditional hierarchical approaches; in such hierarchical situations, power is centralised in the hands of experts and policy makers at the top and is then cascaded downwards to agents and practitioners at lower tiers who are charged with the responsibility for implementing such visions and policies. This distinction is clearly emphasised in the model through the use of double directional arrows which indicate two directional flows of information and communication occurring between the upper, middle and the lower tiers of the partnership process embedded within the structure. It this respect it embeds and synergises closely with the processes of mosaic governance described by Buijs et. al. discussed in Chapter 2 of this thesis (Buijs, Mattijssen et al. 2016).

In particular, the aim is very much that practical knowledge, ideas and experience from those working on project implementation from the “bottom up” should also be able to affect and influence the development of strategic policies through the establishment of appropriate feedback mechanisms. These feedback mechanisms are implicitly embedded in the model, the aim being that policy adapts

248

or is refined over time through the impact of feedback received, thus making policies, partnerships and delivery structures stronger, more robust and adaptable to the needs of local stakeholders, including civil society groups over the longer time.

Fig 84. Potential partnership hosting structures (Whitehead I, Hansmann R et al. 2017)

In terms of delivery functions and partners, the model shown in Fig 84 would also need to be adapted and fine-tuned to local circumstances. The model specifies 3 key delivery partner agencies who work alongside other civil society groups, local authority programmes and NGOs. However, when interpreting or applying the model, it is necessary to sound a note of caution and to consider it as an indicative rather than a rigidly prescriptive template. Clearly then there will need for local adaptation in terms of the following components: i) The actual number, nature and role of the delivery partners will vary according to local circumstances. There will also be differences in the power relationships between these groups and the extent of the influence of local community bodies and associations, local authorities and NGOs according to geographical and cultural influences. ii) The hosting organisation is shown in the model as being an NGO – however this need not necessarily be the case. In the case of Regional Partnerships within Central Scotland Green Network area for example this role is taken on by a range of hosting organisation types. These include, for example, local authorities and not-for-profit companies and NGOs with an environmental and social agenda. iii) The GI partnership itself might be a formally constituted body in its own right, or alternatively, could represent a looser affiliation which relies upon the hosting body for provision of administrative, IT, legal and financial support, thereby reducing overheads and the requirement to duplicate these functions. This will reflect local administrative regulations.

249

An adapted version of the model proposed by Whitehead et. al., specifically tailored to the Aachen City Region, is shown below in Fig 85. It is important to note that this model is intended to be indicative and would require endorsement and tailoring in response to feedback from key stakeholders represented in the model.

Fig 85. Potential partnership hosting structures Potential partnership hosting structures adapted for Städteregion Aachen (adapted from Whitehead et. al. (Whitehead I, Hansmann R et al. 2017))

From a general perspective, the hosting body should ideally have a high degree of political neutrality, rather than being perceived as being representative of a dominant or specific interest group. Consideration must also be given of the appropriateness including certain organisations as hosting bodies which provide both regulatory and mentoring functions, since there is clearly a risk of conflicts of interest occurring. These could potentially provide both legal complications and compromise the potential integrity of the Partnership function and structure.

When considering the potential success of GI partnership arrangements, Hansman et. al. (Hansmann R, Whitehead I et al. 2016) also summarised a number of identified factors, drawing upon the work of other authors. For example, according to Jones et. al., (Jones, Collins et al. 2005) these success factors included “complementarities of skills and other resources of the involved parties, a clear definition of aims, mutual benefits for the partners, efficiency, adaptability, formation of a distinct partnership identity, and good leadership”. Austin (Austin R 2016) suggested such leadership might be provided by an effective chair with good communication skills who can guide the direction of the partnership and motivate the various players to build and maintain momentum, and to mediate differences between partners.

Another crucial factor is mutual trust has also been identified as essential for effective partnership working in urban forestry (Walker and Hills 2012). This is most likely to arise through an established track record of past co-operation. Jones et. al. identify important personal factors including enthusiasm and creativity, competence and engagement. They suggest with respect to the degree of

250

formalisation of partnerships, legally binding contracts have been recommended for larger scale partnership projects (Jones, Collins et al. 2005). In terms of factors which might particularly limit the effectiveness of Partnerships, bureaucracy has been mentioned as a factor, particularly with regard to public organisations (Jones, Collins et al. 2005)

Hansmann et. al (Hansmann R, Whitehead I et al. 2016) also considered how GI Partnerships might be upscaled to function at an interregional level “to permit an efficient polycentric devolvement of government responsibility to the local level”, highlighting approaches developed between Regional Partnerships operating within the Central Scotland Green Network Area – See Fig 86. Using such approaches, there is considerable potential for upscaling of any partnership model developed within the Aachen City Region to allow effective harmonisation with GI co-ordination activities occurring within adjoining city regions such as Düren, Euskirken and Heinsberg. This could yield considerable advantages, recognising the fact that GI connectivity is not constrained or dictated by political or administrative boundaries. Arguably, however, when developing strategic approaches to GI, it would be worth synergising any such interregional co-operation efforts at an early stage within the developmental process to avoid the problem of piecemeal or uncoordinated activities occurring between the different regions. This would be a similar approach to that undertaken within the CSGN or Ruhrgebiet areas which have successfully integrated local regional GI initiatives within a larger interregional linked GI concept.

In addition to questions of scale and the potential inter-regional duplication of approaches, Hansmann et. al. also evaluated issues regarding the evolution and sustainability of GI partnerships. For the purposes of ensuring effective longevity, these are also important considerations for the creation of any proposed strategic GI partnership within Städteregion Aachen. To address such sustainability issues, Hansmann et. al. proposed a process of ongoing evaluation for the investigation of outputs, outcomes, and processes. This evaluation system incorporated feedback mechanisms for fine-tuning the ongoing processes of social learning, relationship building and the interactions of UF/GI partnerships (Hansmann R, Whitehead I et al. 2016) – see Fig 87. It also emphasised and differentiated between the interests of internal and external stakeholders, including civil society groups along with representatives from statutory authorities.

251

Fig 86. GI network partnership governance – interregional model (Hansmann R, Whitehead I et al. 2016)

252

Fig 87. Consideration for an evaluative framework for the investigation of outputs, outcomes, and processes (social learning, relationships, interactions) of UF/GI partnerships with reference to dimensions of sustainability (Hansmann R, Whitehead I et al. 2016)

253

8.3.2 Criteria for a hosting organisation for a GI Partnership:

With respect to the hosting of the partnership, it is recommended that the following criteria are considered. As a general rule, the hosting organisation should illustrate the following characteristics – see Table 66:

Hosting Organisation – Favourable Characteristics:

i) Located in a geographically central location, or otherwise one which is easily accessible from throughout the Region.

ii) Perceived as possessing a respected track record, being politically neutral and non-partisan.

iii) Provides an “open door” and creates an effective portal permitting access to influencers, politicians and senior officials.

iv) Has a friendly, approachable identity for the public, based around principles of trust, openness and facilitating good communication.

v) Ability to access the necessary support structures and core services – i.e. administrative, financial, technical etc.

vi) Possesses an established track record of project implementation and experience of external funding acquisition and management.

vii) Provides added value to the partnership and able to perceive tactical, financial and political benefits through acting in the role of a GI partnership hosting organisation.

viii) Has access to effective PR and marketing structures, taking advantage of latest social media, web-based communication and on-line marketing.

ix) Open to change, dynamic, forward-looking and opportunistic.

x) Able to adopt a holistic view, capitalising on the added value of sustainable development based approaches which can deliver multifunctional outcomes environmental, social and economic outcomes.

Table 66. Favourable characteristics of hosting organisations

254

In this respect some potential hosting organisations might be considered to be inappropriate. In particular problems and barriers are likely to be encountered if the hosting organisation illustrates a number of the following criteria – see Table 67:

Hosting Organisation – Unfavourable Characteristics:

i) A group solely representing a specific single interest agenda, such as and individual species or habitat focus, without wider anthropocentric perspectives on sustainable development.

ii) An individual local authority department with a partisan viewpoint or a specific, limited agenda which prevents the development of a cross sectoral approach.

iii) A lobbying or pressure group, with strong political perspectives, a perceived radical agenda or objectives.

iv) Private consultants with commercial interests who might wish to benefit financially through undertaking that role.

v) An organisation with a very marginal financial or administrative support base which might present risks of financial failure, resulting from cash flow issues or lack of financial underwriting.

vi) An organisation which does not permit the required autonomy for the Partnership to develop its own culture and ethos, or which tries to exert undue political, administrative pressure or control.

vii) An organisation with an overly authoritarian or regulatory style, thus restricting innovation and the effectiveness of the Executive to deliver creative solutions.

viii) Where legal or administrative conflicts of interest exist between regulatory and enabling functions.

Table 67. Unfavourable characteristics of hosting organisations

255

When considering the potential hosting arrangements for the proposed partnership, it is useful to undertake a brief analysis of the potential options to be able to make specific recommendations. As an initial compilation, the following organisations were considered worthy of consideration as potential candidates – see Table 68:

Städteregion Aachen - Potential GI Partnership Hosting bodies:

i) Städteregion Aachen – Umwelt Amt: Mobilität, Klimaschutz und Regionalentwicklung

ii) Städteregion Aachen – Umwelt Amt: Naturschutz, Landschaftspflege, Jagd und Fischerei

iii) Städteregion Aachen – Chief Executives or other appropriate strategic Department.

iv) Biologische Station Aachen

v) NABU Aachen

vi) Stadt Aachen - Umwelt Amt

vii) Local Municipality Offices e.g. Herzogenrath, Alsdorf, Simmerath

viii) Hohes Venn- Eifel Nature Park

ix) Three Countries Park – Expanded Structure

x) RWTH Institute for Landscape Architecture

Table 68. Potential GI partnership hosting bodies

An overall assessment is made as to the potential suitability of these, however in reality all offer possible advantages and disadvantages. These are shown in a tabular format below- see Table 69:

256

Table 69: Potential GI Partnership Hosting Bodies within the Städteregion Aachen - Advantages and Disadvantages:

Potential Location/ Advantages Disadvantages Overall Structure: Assessment

Städteregion Good established existing links with local communities across Städteregion Aachen. No specific GI mandate. Suitable but Aachen – Umwelt some Amt: Mobilität, limitations Klimaschutz und Already perceived positively by stakeholders. Potentially too closely aligned with core governmental functions. Regionalentwicklun g /UDHZ Existing established administrative and financial management infrastructure. Does not currently operate within the City of Aachen or some larger satellite towns. Promotes a sustainable development based approach, based upon multifunctional Local agent for a national initiative. This might reduce some potential for local outcomes. flexibility in delivery approach.

Likely to be centred closer to the “corridors of power” increasing the potential ability of the partnership to command influence.

Städteregion Considerable experience relating to biodiversity protection and natural heritage There are strong regulatory functions which could conflict with providing a Suitable but Aachen – Umwelt management. neutral or mentoring role. Potentially too closely aligned with core some

257 Amt: Naturschutz, governmental functions. limitations Landschaftspflege,

Jagd und Fischerei Good network of established contacts. There is an established organisational structure which might not offer the required flexibility or enabling approaches.

Existing established administrative and financial management infrastructure. Current focus is very much upon biodiversity conservation and providing a compliance role. Might be difficult to adapt to wider sustainable development goals.

Extensive project development and management experience.

Likely to be centred closer to the “corridors of power” increasing the potential ability of the partnership to command influence. Städteregion Good established existing links across Städteregion Aachen. No specific GI mandate or experience. Suitable - when Aachen – Chief administratively Executives (or other and politically strategic) feasible Department. Already perceived positively by stakeholders. Potentially too closely aligned with core governmental functions.

Existing established administrative and financial management infrastructure. Does not currently operate within the City of Aachen or some larger satellite towns.

Promotes a sustainable development based approach, based upon multifunctional Might be difficult to accord the partnership such a high political status within the outcomes. Lack of identification with a specific departmental delivery agenda could be Städteregion administration. It is most likely that it would be strategically beneficial. grouped with other environmental and land management functions.

Likely to be centred closer to the “corridors of power” increasing the potential ability of the partnership to command influence.

Biologische Station Considerable established expertise in the sphere of biodiversity and nature Current experience relates mainly to biodiversity aspects of GI delivery rather Suitable. Aachen conservation. than wider themes such as outdoor access, sustainable tourism, productive GI etc.

Perceived as being less partisan and seen by public as being at arm’s length from There could be some conflicts of interest due to the organisational focus in mainstream governmental structures. biodiversity. This could come into conflict with individual community interests.

Considerable experience of running events, campaigns and involving the wider public The Biologische station does not directly support projects within the City of in local initiatives and projects. Aachen at the present time – this is currently the responsibility of NABU.

Experience of managing complex funding packages and projects from EU and other The location is somewhat peripheral politically, though still geographically fairly funding sources. central. The partnership might lack some political influence from being located away from senior figures within the Städteregion Aachen.

258 Existing established administrative and financial management infrastructure.

Experience of working alongside citizens’ groups to deliver GI related projects such as the management of the Struffelt in Rott. Some experience of delivering wider project outcomes such as green tourism and environmental education.

NABU Aachen There is considerable established expertise in the sphere of biodiversity and nature The primary role of NABU is to promote biodiversity conservation and nature Suitable but conservation. protection. This could create conflicts of interest with other aspects of GI with some delivery such as development of path networks, cycleways or green tourism limitations. infrastructure.

NABU is perceived as being an independent organisation, which is independent of state The role of NABU currently focuses on the Aachen City area. There might control. therefore be limitations to co-ordinate actions across the Städteregion Aachen.

There is considerable experience of running events, campaigns and involving the wider Some local members might be opposed to the wider development of GI public. infrastructure because of a strong nature protection ethos within the organisation.

Experience of managing funding packages and projects from EU and other funding The office is currently staffed on a part time basis within Aachen. There might sources. be problems meeting the additional capacity required by hosting the partnership.

Existing established administrative and financial management infrastructure. The office is located fairly centrally within the Städteregion Aachen.

Experience of working alongside citizens’ groups to deliver GI related projects.

Stadt Aachen - Centrally located within the Städteregion Aachen and easily accessible for the public. The links between the City and the wider Städteregion might not receive the Suitable but Umwelt Amt necessary attention as the focus would primarily be upon the urban area. with limitations.

Considerable experience relating to local GI and greenspace management in urban and The Stadt Aachen authority lacks the strategic overview of the wider periurban areas. Städteregion, particularly with regards to biodiversity and habitat networks. This could mean that the focus is not widely distributed.

Existing established administrative and financial management infrastructure. Resources and office space might be somewhat limited due to local authority spending reductions and a lack of current additional capacity. The current location might not be conducive to creating an “open door” policy.

The City Authority have not fully developed an enabling approach to service delivery which openly encourages bottom up methodologies.

There is possibility that a partnership might be subject to political pressures or agendas operating within the City of Aachen authority, which might not assist

259 the smooth operating of the partnership.

Local Municipality Locally accessible for some members of the population who might be resident in that Limited strategic vision, more likely to be focused upon local area and tried and Unsuitable. Office e.g. area. tested local authority working approaches. It is likely that the operation of the Herzogenrath, partnership would be constrained by local political factors and limited overview. Alsdorf, Simmerath Unlikely to be able to offer significant financial or administrative backup to support GI development interests.

Geographically unlikely to be situated near the centre of the Städteregion Aachen, thereby potentially risking marginalisation for the GI partnership.

Restricted access to influencers and decision makers could severely limit the potential impact of the GI partnership at a political or strategic level.

North Eifel / The Nature Park administration is used to acting in a strategic manner which recognises The Offices of the Nature Park are located outside the Städteregion Aachen in Unsuitable. Hohes Venn Nature the social, environmental and economic aspects of landscape management. Nettersheim and are geographically unsuitable for a Städteregion based Park initiative.

There is a good established existing local network of contacts within the Nature Park The Nature Park only covers the Northern part of the Städteregion Aachen i.e. who represent a broad range of interests. the part that is included within the Eifel.

The Nature Park utilises an enabling approach and already encourages bottom up Focusing upon the Eifel Nature Park would not send a positive message to others project development approaches in partnership with others. living in the Northern part of the Städteregion. It would suggest that there is a bias towards existing semi-natural habitat areas. The Nature Park possesses strong expertise and access to local knowledge networks.

Existing established administrative and financial management infrastructure.

There is extensive experience of developing project funding packages in association with organisations such as LEADER and local tourism initiatives.

Three Countries The 3 Countries Park model already adopts a GI approach and has undertaken a The 3 Countries Park has a somewhat different geographical focus and so might Not suitable. Park – Expanded considerable degree of preparatory work such as preparation of GI mapping for the not address the core areas of connectivity e.g. between the Eifel Region and the Structure region and network development. more industrialised lowlands.

The approach is an enabling one which recognises the need to build upon existing The Administrative location of the 3 Countries Park in Eupen, is geographically structures. In this respect there is a close correlation of aims and objectives. unsuitable, as it is outside the area of the Städteregion Aachen.

There is already a well-established partnership in place involving key actors concerned The 3 countries park requires a more complex administrative and political with GI in the surrounding region. structure – given its international dimensions. A model for Städteregion Aachen should be simpler in its structure. 260 RWTH Institute for An established and dynamic team used to working on complex multidisciplinary Could be perceived as being overly academic and not sufficiently “hands on” in Suitable but

Landscape projects. its approach and contacts which could be off-putting to some. with some Architecture limitations. Good links with a wide variety of local stakeholders across the region and able to bridge Support structures, accommodation and administration might not be sufficient the gap between policy and practice. to provide for the needs of the GI Partnership and for visiting members of the public and other stakeholder groups.

Centrally located and accessible to the public. Might lack the necessary influence within the local administration through limited interaction with officials and elected members.

Table 69. Potential GI partnership hosting bodies within the Städteregion Aachen - Advantages and disadvantages

8.3.3 Early feedback on Partnership Structuring, hosting and Resources:

Following the assessment of the potential of creating and hosting a Strategic GI Partnership – see Tables 68/69, four representatives from the identified potential hosting organisations were contacted to provide some indicative feedback upon the feasibility of the recommendations and proposals outlined in this Chapter - particularly with regard to the creation of a strategic GI partnership. Those contacted included representatives of the Aachen Biologische Station, Stadt Aachen and officials representing community development, landscape and nature conservation interests within the Städteregion Aachen. Those invited to give feedback were somewhat reluctant to do so given a range of concerns which included: i) Concern that their views expressed might potentially be considered to represent an official organisational standpoint rather than a personal perspective. Those who responded to the process were encouraged to do so when it was made clear that comments would not be attributed to particular individuals and that views expressed were not considered, in any way, to be representative of official organisational perspectives or policies. ii) Respondents pointed to competing demands and a general lack of time to provide feedback on the proposals at the present time. At the time, the 2020 Coronavirus pandemic also put particular pressure upon staff resources, thereby limiting the potential to respond effectively. Respondents were also not fully up to speed with video conferencing technology and tended to choose not to make use of such technology when provided with the opportunity to do so. iii) Some respondents were not fully acquainted with GI topics, the basic principles of GI or the associated terminology. The interdisciplinary nature of GI and the proposals also helped to reinforce such viewpoints; GI principles of connectivity and multifunctionality were often contrary to a culture of rigid compartmentalisation characterising local government structures within Germany. iv) The use of an English language format also made the proposals less accessible for the respondents, despite the widespread use of graphics and tables contained in the Chapter. To improve recipient understanding, a copy of a PowerPoint presentation detailing the wider concepts of GI and the background to the study was also appended

Of the four respondents requested to provide feedback at this stage in the process, responses were received from the Aachen Biologische Station and from Stadt Aachen. One respondent from the Städteregion Aachen declined to comment citing the reasons provided above. The other respondent, also from the Städteregion Aachen, failed to respond to any communication on the topic, despite contributing during the earlier part of the study. The questions posed to the respondents and the answers provided were as follows – see Table 70:

261

Questions to the Respondents: Biologische Station Aachen Stadt Aachen Städteregion Städteregion Aachen - Aachen - Respondent 1. Respondent 2.

1. What do you think generally about the idea In principle this was felt to be a good idea to develop a It makes sense to coordinate this issue across Unwilling to No response of a strategic GI partnership ? – would it be a more integrated approach to GI policy and administrative boundaries. One of the decisive comment due to received. useful thing to create, or would implementation. However, because of the constraints factors for success would be that the required complex compartmentalised structures and thinking, that policy and delivery structures are currently highly human resources could be made available over a multidisciplinary make this unlikely to achieve ? compartmentalised, the timeframe for implementing longer period of time to ensure robust structures themes. Not such an approach would be a lengthy one - possibly up to and continuity. Many administrations are already at willing/ unable to 10 years. This would require a change in organisational the limits of their capacities when initiating and provide an culture across existing structures and new operating undertaking project delivery. This impacts upon overview parameters. projects such as Dreiländerpark and their outcomes response on accordingly. behalf of the Städteregion Aachen.

2. Would your organisation be interested in the In principle that there might be an interest, however this As shown in your analysis, the coordination of a GI Unwilling to No response potential for hosting a GI partnership, covering would depend upon specific criteria. Of greatest concern partnership would perhaps better be based within comment – see received. the Städteregion Aachen area, or possibly would be the issue of resourcing due to heavy existing the Städteregion, as there are more references to point 1 above. functioning on a wider inter-regional level staffing, financial and administrative commitments. If the the landscape areas and initiatives outside the city of ? Might you see some tactical benefits for your creation of such a Partnership might result in the Aachen. However, I think it makes sense for the City

262 organisation through becoming involved in availability of additional resources for the Biologische of Aachen to participate, as the elements of the GI

such a partnership, or would this be perceived Station from Central Government or other sources, then naturally extend beyond and across the as an additional administrative burden ? the response would be more likely to be a positive one. administrative boundaries.

3. Would it be realistically feasible to develop At present the Biologische Station is mainly concerned Yes, it is basically possible to organise such a Unwilling to No response such a partnership, along the broad principles with projects relating to biodiversity and nature partnership. It is important to also take the existing comment – see received. shown in Figs. 1,2 and 3 of Chapter 8 ? – given conservation. Undertaking a more integrated approach concepts and goals into account and to integrate points i and ii the need to co-ordinate/deliver a number of could lead to potential conflicts arising in relation to these into a more joined up approach which adds above. multi-functional environmental, social and some stakeholder groups and activities. However, in value to the existing structures and initiatives. This economic benefits in accordance with principle, there appears to be no significant legal or also includes incorporation of the formal planning European GI Policy. Would it create, for administrative barrier to such a divergence in role – that instruments such as the landscape plans. example conflicts of interest with regulatory however would be a decision for strategic management functions of your organisation or its basic remit to pursue. The recruitment of potential facilitators and ? staff for such a partnership role would present challenges, given the breadth of knowledge and skills required.

4. What would be the realistic costs for creating Funding a position in a professional co-ordinator role I can't predict that very easily, however I’d consider a Unwilling to No response such a post ? would cost approximately 60,000 Euros per year commitment of 70-100,000 € per year would be comment – see received. i) The basic salary costs and any required (including essential overheads) over a potential initial required over a longer timeframe. points i and ii additions such tax, admin overheads, essential duration period of 3 years. In addition it was suggested above. travel etc. (just as a rough estimate/ ballpark that a small operational budget would be required, figure). focused around publicity, promotion and communication. ii) A small operating budget for marketing, promotion, communication etc.

5. What about availability of office space and IT This might be difficult, however could be potentially As shown in your analysis, the coordination of a GI Unwilling to No response provision ? – Could this could be provided by achievable with some with some reorganisation. This partnership would perhaps better be based in the comment – see received. your organisation through in-kind support, or would however be a decision for strategic management Städteregion Aachen, as there are more references points i and ii as leverage for additional matched funding ? to make. There would be some potential in principle for to the landscape areas and initiatives outside the city above. providing in-kind support. of Aachen. The issue of space to accommodate the project would therefore not be considered as a practical theme for the City of Aachen to deal with.

6. Might any potential sources of “challenge Yes, there are intermittent funding calls. With regard to In general, “green” issues are gaining importance in Unwilling to No response funding” (seed corn funding) be available to act biodiversity, LIFE funding is an established funding source government funding programs. In that regard, I comment – see received. as the catalyst/ incentive for initiating projects however delivery of more diverse GI outcomes might would assume funds would be likely to be available points i and ii on the ground e.g. from State, EU or German provide new funding avenues which were previously in the future. above. Federal Government level. Could this include inaccessible. Recently, for example NRW announced 5

263 funding from alternative income streams million Euro stimulus fund for GI to be used by August

(rather than just from mainstream 2021 in accordance with MULNV Green Infrastructure environmental sources) such as health budgets Guidelines to satisfy a wide variety of GI outcomes at or funds for community regeneration / rates of up to 100% grant funding. In addition other economic development? funding sources might be available, however these are not ones which we have existing familiarity of.

Table 70. Feedback on potential partnership structuring, hosting and resources

Topic: Lessons for future follow up actions:

Points arising The proposals for creation of Strategic GI mechanisms were generally perceived positively following an initially from the lukewarm response. The transition to a more positive perception occurred after the concepts had been properly responses communicated and were generally better understood by respondents. Graphics, including concept diagrams are a useful way to promote understanding amongst the stakeholders of the functioning of a strategic GI partnership.

The benefits of more joined up approaches to working were also understood and accepted by the respondents.

It is was apparent within the Städteregion that a compartmentalised approach to GI, with responsibility split across different departments of the administration, creates internal communication challenges, thereby limiting the ability of the Städteregion to respond effectively on multifunctional GI topics. Despite this the external stakeholders groups, considered that the Städteregion might be an appropriate host for a strategic partnership, given the diversity of its thematic responsibilities, geographical extent and access to personnel and resources.

The stakeholders indicated that any strategic GI approach should take a long term approach to allow for the necessary structural changes and milestones to be achieved through effective translation of policy into action. It would therefore need to be supported over a longer duration to achieve significant progress.

Support for any strategic GI approach would be dependent upon securing additional resources from external sources. Resources within local authority programmes are currently overstretched, thereby limiting potential for participation.

Potential There is a need to develop further stakeholder engagement activities to promote and refine the concepts of the future measures and the strategic partnership – this should be seen as a separate follow up activity resulting from the actions research proposals. This could take the form of a series of targeted workshops and promotional activities including arising from development an interactive promotional website. These should be orientated towards stakeholders operating at a the strategic policy level and also to those involved in aspects of practical implementation and project management. responses: Workshop sessions should be facilitated by a fluent native German speaker, skilled in interactive processes. These should aim to facilitate open ended discussion, brainstorming and concept development. Outcomes should include fostering of higher levels of stakeholder engagement and co-ownership of the proposals.

The proposals should flag up a series of general options or pathways rather than detailed and prescriptive solutions. The role of the various stakeholders should be to fine tune the processes or to suggest practical alternatives where proposed models are deemed to be inappropriate.

An initial goal should be the development of a detailed feasibility study based upon responses received from the stakeholders. This should consider structural, administrative and financial aspects as well as the identification of longer term potential revenue funding.

Dissemination activities should focus at strategic level within organisations to encourage senior management buy-in. The process should also aim to promote and foster internal communication and co-operation within stakeholder organisations and to ensure that effective representation is achieved, if necessary through involving senior management at a corporate level.

In addition to the logistical and administrative aspects, consideration should be given to funding and resourcing issues and the identification of opportunities for external funding perhaps from Federal or State institutions.

Proposed boundaries for the creation of a strategic GI Partnership should be discussed. This would include the benefits of creating a partnership for the Städteregion Aachen alone or whether this approach should be scaled up to include adjoining City Regions such as Düren, Euskirken and Heinsberg.

Table 71. Points arising from the feedback

As a result of the early feedback generated from questions to the respondents, suggestions have made for future follow up actions. These are shown in Table 71 above.

264

8.3.4 What access to resources would the Partnership require and where would these resources come from:

In terms of the resourcing of the Partnership the following financial requirements should be considered: i) Funding of the Secretariat including an Executive Officer role:

As previously outlined, the Executive Office could initially be employed on a 3 year contractual basis. This would need to include provision for necessary salary, social insurance along with administrative and office provision costs – the latter however could be provided as “in-kind” contributions to help draw down additional leverage. It is suggested that the annual budget (including additional costs such as tax, social security and pension contributions) would be in the region of €60,000 - €70,000. ii) Potential “Challenge Funding” Initiative and a “Showcasing Best Practice” Resource:

The resourcing of the post should also be accompanied by a small operational budget to act as leverage for implementation of best practice projects. Challenge funding which could be made available to local initiatives consisting of citizens’ groups, Third Sector and local authorities. Seedcorn funds could be available for Initiatives in and around settlements, including a 2-3km buffer, which could cover the thematic elements relating to identified GI policy goals. Challenge funds should link to key UN Sustainable Development Goals - SDG outcomes, as indicators and should integrate where possible with existing funding schemes. iii) Outreach, Promotion and Publicity

This would require ring fenced resourcing to promote the wider aspirations, goals and ideology of the Partnership through targeted networking events, workshops, seminars, publications, press releases and web based media. It is suggested that a budget of €10,000 should be identified for communications purposes.

Similarly it is important to consider potential mechanisms whereby these commitments might be met. The following sources income offer potential: i) Core Funding Provision from State Sources: In terms of core funding, State agencies such as LANUV and NRW Wald und Holz could consider allocation of Central Government funding for the establishment of the Secretariat and its functions. This could initially be a time limited commitment – e.g. 3 years with a potential for review, or until such a time as the Partnership is able to identify new income streams. ii) Existing Grants and Funding Resources Database: The availability of existing additional grants and funding support available within the Region needs to be evaluated properly, co-ordinated and promoted. Where possible, gaps in existing funding provision should be identified and the potential for new income streams investigated e.g. from health, social and economic development sources. iii) Leverage through match funding - “in-kind” Contributions: Formal mechanisms should be established to allow “In kind” contributions of voluntary labour by local citizens’ groups, to be factored in as leverage for further financial support packages, including challenge funds. iv) Local Funding match funding stipulation - Business Sponsorship: When seeking state funding for projects, citizens’ groups should be encouraged to embark upon local fundraising initiatives. This could, for example, include support from local businesses where applicable.

265

v) Pre-emptive release of state land or assets: As part of financial forecasting procedures, local authorities should consider pre-emptive handover of management responsibility of GI assets to locally constituted citizens’ groups. This could be undertaken for example in situations where funding shortages might result in the closure, abandonment or selling off of GI assets currently held within the public domain. There is potential that these assets could be managed more cost effectively or through more enterprising, income generating approaches. vii) Lottery or largescale sponsorship deal: The potential for directing funding for GI from a National Lottery based scheme or similar sources, including the potential for large-scale corporate partnerships, should be evaluated and discussed through networks. This would require co-ordinated action at NRW or Federal level. viii) Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Programmes: Approaches should be made through existing or future partnership structures to involve local businesses in CSR programmes relating to citizen led and strategic GI programmes. Corporate bodies could, for example, directly involve their staff in implementation of projects, through working alongside local volunteers and through providing project materials, equipment and resources. CSR benefits to the businesses could also include team building, co-operation and skills development. Many companies are looking to become involved in projects which benefit their local communities and employees at the same time. ix) Fee paying consultancy work: There is also potential for the Partnership to generate some limited income through providing specialist consultancy services relating to GI. The potential markets for this and the income generating scope would however have to be evaluated. Over time, the Partnership could be encouraged to diversify its funding arrangements and to draw an increasing proportion of its expenditure from external sources. However experience gained from other locations suggests that it would to some extent require a degree of core funding from public sources to ensure the longer term sustainability and durability of the Partnership.

A number of relevant reports and strategic evaluations have been undertaken for the costs of undertaking the development of GI networks in other areas. However these need to be taken with a degree of caution, as situations will not necessarily be comparable. These evaluations have also overemphasise the role of large scale capital works which might not always be appropriate or relevant to situations where citizen engagement is considered to be an appropriate or effective mechanism. For example, the Central Scotland Green Network Partnership in conjunction with the Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Green Network Partnership produced a 2016 study entitled “Resourcing the CSGN”(Hislop 2016). This considered large capital projects rather than revenue components within the Scottish context. It identified 21 different readily-available funding sources which in total offered the potential to provide approximately £50.2m per year toward an annual target budget of £80.8m per year for the delivery of all CSGN capital cost components. This identified an annual shortfall of £30.7m per year - approximately 38% of the required annual target budget. Another 37% was from identified public sources, including E.U. and 22% from private sources. Whilst it is suggested that a target budget for a GI Partnership in the Städteregion Aachen would be considerably less than this, it does indicate there would be an ongoing requirement for public funding to cover core costs – these could then be matched through targeted grant bids.

266

Significantly, however, the emphasis here is very much upon large scale capital projects which are implemented on a top down basis, as opposed to smaller scale initiatives which might involve civil society stakeholders, create social equity and provide benefits to the poorest groups in society. In this respect, there are numerous examples of successful funding initiatives which have involved relatively modest figures but which have generated considerable leverage in terms of matched funding, volunteer contributions, health and social outcomes.

There is considerable evidence from Scotland of leverage and external funding being generated through this type of approach. For example, the Aberdeen Countryside Project, ACP, used landfill tax credits to offer incentives to community groups and landowners. Over a five year period, from 1998 – 2003, in response to grant awards of £411,000, ACP effectively levered in £346,000 from landowners with additional cash and in-kind contributions amounting to £946,000. Over this period the project generated 3300 volunteer days of activity equating to a financial value of over £176,000 and created paid employment opportunities for 1800 person days. The multiplier effect was substantial in the end with the ACP contribution of £411,000 levering a total project value of £1,870,000 (Aberdeen Countryside Project Ltd 2003).

More recently, evaluation was undertaken by Forest Research on Forestry Commission Scotland’s “Woods in and around Towns” – WIAT funding scheme, for improving and enhancing urban woodlands in Scotland. This evaluation estimated that an investment of £2.5 m per year from Challenge Funding, in fact realised recreation and additional health benefits equating to £14m per year - as a conservative estimate. Overall the number of visits to WIAT woodlands increased by 20-25% compared to the baseline during this period as a result of the initiative (Ambrose-Oji 2014).

8.4 GI Partnership Structures and Local Citizen Participation Initiatives

A Strategic GI Partnership for the Städteregion Aachen should operate an open door policy for citizen initiatives which aims to facilitate discussion and to encourage direct dialogue with local people and stakeholder interest groups from across the Städteregion Aachen. In order to do this successfully, the enabling approach must be fully embedded from inception stage, as a core principle of the Partnership. The message provided to stakeholders and members of the public should essentially therefore be that “we can help”; indicating that the Partnership is open and responsive to ideas.

A GI Partnership must therefore become established as an appropriate first point of contact for citizens’ groups who might wish to initiate a project related to managing, interpreting or developing GI. It must have an appropriate staff contingent who are able to deal competently with such requests, in a friendly and helpful manner. It must be able to provide effective mentoring support, technical guidance and hands on assistance whilst also retaining an overview of the bigger GI picture at a regional and interregional scale.

In this respect, the Partnership could assist such initiatives directly, through offering professional support, or could alternatively, direct groups to the most appropriate source of local mentoring assistance. The Partnership could then help groups through the process of initiating action by providing appropriate technical assistance and through “opening doors” and “oiling the wheels of bureaucracy” as necessary.

267

Provision of Incentives:

In addition to providing mentoring assistance, the GI Partnership could act as the dispersal agents, or co-ordinators for funding from State or other sources. In this respect, the GI Partnership, should be considered as potential local agents for dispersal of such funds which might be match funded from other sources.

Such resources could potentially be allocated through the establishment of a local “Community GI Challenge Fund”. This would be targeted specifically at promoting and facilitating bottom up community projects relating to GI e.g. woodland management, habitat management, restoration and maintenance of cultural landscape features such as orchards, hedges and landmark trees, ponds and wetlands, community growing and urban gardening initiatives, path networks and interpretation and green commuting and active travel. Challenge funding could be dispersed through an open competition based upon a set of suitability criteria. These might include for example: i) Definition of diverse, multifunctional and tangible GI outputs and secondary outcomes. ii) Development of a longer term vision or plan with detailed proposals for maintenance and longer term revenue funding. iii) Involvement of a diverse range of local partners and stakeholders iv) Delivery of additional social inclusion and capacity building benefits e.g. through involvement of marginalised groups, young people etc. v) Openness and accountability about assets owned and managed by the group. vi) Direct hands-on involvement and participation of local residents in citizen initiatives. vii) Innovative local partnerships, such as with local landowners, local authorities etc.

It is likely that such a proposed Challenge Fund would act as a catalyst for community led GI projects as has occurred in other locations, such as through the Project Development Fund and Community Projects funds both established within the CSGN area (Central Scotland Green Network 2020b). These prioritise specific types of GI activity such as woodland creation and management, community growing, strategic routes and active travel initiatives. These fund up to 75% of project costs, which in 2018 equated to a total funding of £335,000 spread across 14 different projects within the CSGN area (Central Scotland Green Network 2018).

Within the Städteregion Aachen, creating a series of funding eligibility criteria, would have the advantage of directing project activity towards initiatives which additionally promote wider strategic GI benefits, as well as ones of purely local significance.

The allocation of community project grants could also stress the need for attaining a certain amount of local funding as an additional eligibility criteria. However, it is suggested that a relatively high percentage of capital costs (e.g. up to 75% of costs to a maximum value of 10, 000 Euros) could be provided as a seedcorn funding incentive. This would of course be subject to satisfying certain conditions as described above e.g. the investment of funding or direct labour by the local community – with volunteer time input allocated a capital value which can be used directly for leverage of matched funding.

268

Provision of Accreditation:

In addition to provision of financial incentives to facilitate community action relating to GI, the activities of groups could be further promoted and encouraged through an awards and accreditation system, specifically targeting urban and rural GI projects across the Städteregion Aachen. The competition could take the form of an annual Community GI Competition and Award Scheme based upon satisfying a number of predefined eligibility categories. These might, for example, incorporate the following accessible headings as categories: i) Natural spaces – for wildlife and biodiversity enhancement. ii) Active spaces – which promote physical activity in greenspaces or which encourage active utilisation of green corridors e.g. for green commuting. iii) Productive spaces – for community growing, urban gardening, and the sustainable harvesting of natural resources e.g. biomass products including firewood, construction timber and non- timber forest products such as edible fungus or medicinal products. iv) Inclusive spaces – promoting social inclusion and participation in greenspaces e.g. intergenerational spaces, spaces for those with learning disabilities or for integration of minority groups. v) Learning spaces – for learning about the natural world, or exploring aspects of the educational curriculum within a green environment. This might include for example environmental arts projects, natural or social sciences.

Furthermore these headings could be related to individual UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), with the accreditation system favouring projects which incorporate the widest potential range of indicators and outcomes from the SDGs (United Nations 2020).

As discussed, from the brief assessment process shown above, it is suggested that an interdisciplinary department within the Städteregion Aachen or the Aachen Biologische Station might be most appropriate for providing the partnership with a hosting function. However, there are also other possibilities worthy of consideration, such as the RWTH Institute of Landscape Architecture, NABU Aachen or Stadt Aachen Umweltamt. Each of these options comes with its own set of limitations which have to be balanced against the potential advantages that each option might present.

269

9. Conclusions:

The purpose of this section is to summarise the conclusions of the study. In doing so it will consider how local citizens’ groups can best undertake projects to manage and enhance green infrastructure in the Städteregion Aachen and particularly how regional, local authorities and mentoring bodies can ensure that local citizen participation initiatives help to benefit the delivery of GI objectives through the adoption of appropriate measures and the provision of incentives.

In addition, this conclusions chapter will also consider the wider applicability of the results to other geographical regions, both within and beyond, NW and Central Europe. Finally it will make further recommendations for research and integration into practice.

The summary headings within the Chapter are then as follows:

9.1. What was achieved through the research in relation to the original main questions and primary research goals proposed at the beginning of the study ?

9.2. General observations and discussion on the results and outcomes of the research

9.3. To what extent do the results of the study have wider applicability to other regions and geographical contexts ?

9.4. What recommendations can be made from the study with reference to the requirement for further research and for the integration into best practice ?

270

9.1. What was achieved through the research in relation to the original main questions and primary research goals proposed at the beginning of the Study ?

This study aimed to answer and investigate two key research questions.

i. How can local citizens’ groups best undertake projects to manage and enhance green infrastructure in the Städteregion Aachen ? ii. How can the regional, local authorities and mentoring bodies ensure that local citizen participation initiatives help to benefit the delivery of GI objectives through the adoption of appropriate measures and the provision of incentives ?

These questions were investigated through the identification of four primary research goals or components which were as follows:

i. To identify examples of citizen participation in the management of GI within the Aachen City Region, occurring in rural, peri-urban and urban areas and to select case studies for detailed evaluation. ii. To determine what these case studies deliver, their motivations, their limitations and the barriers that they encounter. iii. To identify success factors for citizen participation. iv. To identify mechanisms and measures to enhance the capacity of citizen led initiatives to manage GI through developing the enabling potential of statutory authorities and mentoring organisations.

For the sake of clarity, the success in achieving each of these four goals will be reviewed individually:

Research Goal no. 1: To identify examples of citizen participation in the management of GI within the Aachen City Region, occurring in rural, peri-urban and urban areas and to select appropriate case studies for a more detailed evaluation and analysis:

A primary aim of the research goal was to identify locations where local citizens were active in the management, maintenance or development of GI within the Städteregion Aachen. This was done through using an anthropological approach, effectively utilising expert insider knowledge, primarily through access to officials based within the Städteregion Aachen and their associated contact networks. To this end, a number of scoping meetings and field visits were initially organised to start moving the process forward. Through this dialogue an initial trawl of 13 examples of Citizen Participation in GI from across the Städteregion Aachen were identified.

Each of these case study examples were then visited in the field to determine their suitability for inclusion as case studies for a second and more detailed phase of evaluation. Selection criteria included the thematic focus of the case studies, their geographical location, representativeness and the general willingness for citizens’ group members to participate in the study and contribute to its results. Conveniently, the final selected 5 case studies were broadly aligned along 2 broad transects, or wedges, radiating out from the city centre of Aachen. Together, these effectively encompassed the majority of the Städteregion’s key topographic features, bioclimatic zones and landscape character zones; from extensive semi-natural woodland and wet moorland habitats in the Eifel uplands to the South, through the undulating pastoral landscapes of the Voreifel, to highly urbanised centres and peri-urban, post-industrial landscapes of the lowlands and former mining areas located to the North of Aachen.

271

Significantly, for practical purposes, the sites included a selection of rural, peri-urban and urban GI sites, all of which, provided a good illustration of citizen participation in practice. The thematic diversity of primary activities was broad ranging across the sites and included: path network development, green tourism, habitat management, restoration of traditional cultural landscapes, urban community gardening, biodiversity conservation and management of outside community meeting places within greenspace. Secondary activities, i.e. not direct intended outcomes, included social inclusion, enhancing local pride, education and community capacity building. Across the whole range of case studies, many contributed to a diverse range of Sustainable Development Goals or SDGs.

Research Goal no. 2: To determine what these case studies deliver, what are their motivations, their limitations and what barriers they encounter.

Case studies were investigated using a variety of techniques including field and desk based research, mapping and detailed stakeholder interviews. This information was then evaluated and analysed through use of an adapted Comparison Framework – including both narrative and tabular formats, SWOT Analysis, stakeholder mapping and production of charts comparing the various outcomes and motivations across the different case studies.

The outcomes of the analysis and evaluation were used to compile a SWOT analysis and for the subsequent identification of positive and negative key learning points emerging from each of the 5 case studies. Bar charts and radar charts helped to illustrate the outcomes of the projects, as set against the objectives, with stakeholder mapping presenting additional information on group structure and stakeholder participation.

In addition to this, further comparison was undertaken through use of 3 case study examples from Scotland, which the author already had some familiarity. The Scottish context was considered particularly useful for purposes of comparison as historically there has been a well-established programme of citizen engagement in GI, woodland, outdoor access and natural heritage programmes (Hansmann R, Whitehead I et al. 2016, Whitehead I, Hansmann R et al. 2017). This is deeply embedded within policy and legislative structures and has been complimented, since the turn of the Millennium, through progressive targeted legislation, policy reform and structures encouraging the adoption of community ownership and leasing models of land formerly under private or state ownership (Scottish Land Commission 2020b). Comparison of the Scottish case studies involved using the same analysis and evaluation techniques as those applied to the German examples.

Research Goal no. 3: To identify success factors for citizen participation.

Through the process of comparison of the key learning points from both the primary case studies in Städteregion Aachen and those in Scotland, it has been possible to identify and propose common factors which contribute to the success of projects through the collation of positive learning points.

An abbreviated summary version showing key points of these are shown in Fig 88 and also in the table shown below - see Table 72:

272

Fig 88. Summarised success factors for citizen participation

(Photo credit: Edinburgh and Lothians Greenspace Trust)

273

Success Factor Success Factor Details Parameters

Funding / Local authorities and central government should provide seedcorn funding packages to help enable local GI projects on the ground. These should be developed in partnership incentives /collaboration with relevant state bodies and NGOS. Seedcorn funding could also be used as leverage during the preparation of bids from other external funding sources.

Funding A list of funding resources which are available locally and centrally should be complied and made available for new projects. It should be the role of specialist mentoring staff to Resources assist local people with the acquisition of these resources through co-ordinated funding bids and through their successful deployment. A Funding Resources Database should also database indicate which type of organisations and support structures are appropriate to which different types of projects i.e. geographical areas, thematic areas, types and scale of projects.

Awards to The “Unser Dorf hat Zukunft” approach or similar template should be adapted and extended to include urban community GI initiatives and to provide a tool kit for how grass roots recognise initiatives might be developed within an urban or a peri-urban setting. i.e. prizes and recognition to award achievement on the ground. This initiative and similar awards can be seen innovation as a mechanism for stimulating interest and adding value to community led GI initiatives.

Specialist Local authorities should appoint, or provide access to, specialist staff with training and experience to engage directly with local community groups and to provide advice, mentoring mentoring and support for emerging GI projects. Such posts should aim to work across existing departmental structures and also with key identified external partners; their role should also be staff/champions to act as an ambassador for GI projects and to build bridges between institutions, organisations and departments at the appropriate levels and on a cross sector basis. The appointed persons should have the depth and breadth of knowledge to advise local people on GI issues as well as improving understanding and cooperation at a corporate level.

Best practice Case A full database of case studies should be developed which can be utilised by local community members, mentoring bodies and statutory agencies. This should be structured in a

274 studies standard format using a proforma style approach. It should also include appropriate contact details of those involved in successful initiatives. The database should also include information on funding resources and sources of expertise that were made available for the implementation of these projects. A handbook /toolkit resource could also be made

available specifically and specifically targeted to bottom-up community groups.

Promotion and A promotional campaign should be developed to make people more aware of the multifunctional benefits of managing GI infrastructure including Social Return on Investment (SROI) awareness raising benefits. It could include a website with appropriate links, case studies and information resources. There should also be regular press coverage in local media to stimulate local interest and awareness. This could also include a programme of workshops, study tours and events organised at a regional level to share ideas and skills and also skill sharing across the rural/urban/periurban interface.

New ownership Encouragement should be given to support citizen led activity through the establishment of longer term leasing and community ownership models. This could be officially promoted and leasing through state led interventions and programmes which aim to provide community groups longer term access to state land on the basis of suitable evidence of proposed sustainable models. resources management. It could also be linked with availability of seedcorn funding from the public sector with possible grants from business or lottery sources.

Policy level The various policies relating to GI and community action should be synergized and cross referenced. This should aim to provide standard templates for the upscaling of successful integration and approaches, such as community led urban gardening, community woodland and GI initiatives into mainstream policy at District and City-Regional Level. This will help to streamline agreed templates. the process of such measures being implemented and adopted in future and should including the provision of guidelines for local authority planners, greenspace professionals, land managers and agency staff who might have to engage with local citizens groups.

Table 72. Summarised citizen participation - Success factors

Research Goal no. 4: To identify mechanisms and measures to enhance the capacity of citizen led initiatives to manage GI through developing the enabling potential of statutory authorities and mentoring organisations.

Through the results of the Comparison Framework, its subsequent analysis and the identification of key learning points, a series of around 80 separate measures, divided across 14 different topic areas, were proposed to develop the enabling potential of statutory authorities and mentoring organisations operating within the Städteregion Aachen. A full list of these suggested policy measures and their descriptions is incorporated within the previous chapter - see Chapter 8, Table 65.

In addition to this, appropriate mechanisms were proposed to help facilitate the adoption and implementation of the individual measures, primarily through the development of strategic GI partnership structures and networking methods. Conceptual models for the development of these were proposed – see Chapter 8, Figs 83, 84, 85 and 86, along with recommendations for their structure, hosting and potential resourcing arrangements.

In general, it was considered that the spread and diversity of projects considered was sufficient to illustrate the variety of issues encountered, particularly as the case study examples encompassed a variety of rural, peri-urban and urban locations. The inclusion of 3 additional Scottish case studies was deemed to be particularly useful in terms of highlighting different and innovative approaches considered to be outside the normal scope of GI practices and structures identified within the Städteregion Aachen. This was particularly the case when considering aspects such as the provision of mentoring support, policy reforms and the gauging of potential for the delivery of multifunctional outcomes across a wide range of different indicators.

In terms of identifying gaps or determining future opportunities, this strongly suggests that the study could be enriched yet further, through referring to, and evaluating a wider number of case studies from diverse regions of North West Europe and potentially beyond and through determining what lessons, approaches and practices these illustrate which might be applicable and replicable within the Städteregion Aachen. In this respect, the assumption is that, over time and with suitable nurturing, there is scope for innovate new ideas and concepts to be transferred from one region to another and to become established and embedded into mainstream practice, given the right conditions. At the same time, it must be recognised that not all approaches will be appropriate for application within different cultural, fiscal and environmental contexts. This is discussed further in the later section considering wider applicability and transferability.

9.2. General observations and discussion on the results and outcomes of the Research

A number of general points can be made regarding the outcomes of the research: i) From an external perspective, the examples of active citizen participation identified through the scoping process might have appeared to be lower than expected within the Städteregion Aachen. However, it is important to consider that there is a lack of comparative material from other regions in Germany; the real extent of citizen participation with relation to GI being undetermined at broader Regional, State and Federal level. It would therefore be interesting to have access to comparative data obtained through scoping in other regions of NRW, or more widely in Germany and neighbouring countries. This might provide a better understanding as to whether the situation in the Städteregion Aachen is representative of a more general trends within the Rhineland area, NRW, or indeed within Germany as a whole.

275

ii) When considering citizen engagement more widely across other sectors however, this picture becomes more contradictory, with more examples occurring in relation to other diverse activities and outcomes. These include, for example, social welfare activities, children’s play, sports, education, specialist interest groups e.g. railway/ heritage restoration, carnival societies or general social activities. These more widespread examples of citizen engagement within society suggest that there is indeed a strong underlying capability and potential for growth of community GI related activities and participation, given the availability of appropriate promotion, mentoring and incentives to facilitate the process. iii) It appears clear that the full potential for citizen participation in relation to GI within the Städteregion Aachen has not, as yet, been fully realised. This might be due to local cultural factors, or potentially a perception that the management of GI is the responsibility of the state or landowners rather than part of the mandate of civil society groups as a whole. In general, there has also not been significant consideration of the potential for greater citizen participation amongst statutory and governmental agencies and the multifunctional benefits that it can provide. Consequently, citizen participation in relation to GI has been accorded low political priority in previous decades. Exceptions to this do exist however, such as many of the broadly related environmental enhancement activities facilitated through local initiatives such as “Unser Dorf hat Zukunft”, LEADER and “Heimatvereine”; albeit contributing to and delivering a wider range of outputs and outcomes. iv) The overall concept of GI and the multifunctional benefits that it confers are not generally well understood, either by professionals working within statutory agencies and mentoring bodies, or indeed by members of the wider public. This may be partly due to the existence of a strongly sectorial, or silo based, approach which appears to operate generally within German governmental administration systems (Biodiversity Information System for Europe 2020).The adoption of more holistic and cross sectoral working practices within regional and local government administration structures might help to foster better awareness of the multifunctional benefits of GI, thereby increasing the likelihood of it being perceived and adopted as a useful mechanism for delivery of Sustainable Development Goals. Feedback from recommendations made in the previous chapter, for a strategic partnership based approach to GI within the Städteregion Aachen, suggests that an extensive programme of specifically targeted engagement would need to be undertaken though workshops, seminars and targeted promotional material in order to raise awareness of the benefits of such approaches and to gain more widespread stakeholder support for their adoption.

Statutory authorities within the Städteregion Aachen are not fully maximising the opportunities to promote citizen participation in GI at present, albeit with some limited exceptions. This might also partly be the result of a top down culture and an underlying lack of enabling potential and capacity building approaches within government departments. NGO mentoring bodies often also promote an overly prescriptive approach at present, appearing somewhat critical of governmental bodies, whilst at the same time not fully acknowledging their own lack of enabling capacity with respect to citizen led, bottom up GI initiatives. v) Considerable scope exists to improve enabling capability and hence, citizen participation in GI through the widespread adoption of specific policy measures and awareness-raising efforts by statutory authorities and mentoring organisations. These should be accompanied by the development of appropriate partnership structures to create cross sector communication between stakeholders and to develop effective alliances which can better synergise both top-down and bottom-up approaches to GI, thus adding value to existing capability.

276

vi) The process of moving from top down approaches to more citizen led approaches for the management and implementation of GI, needs to be considered as an evolutionary or developmental process and not one which will not occur over a short period of time. It involves complex interrelationships between local citizens’ groups, mentoring bodies, statutory authorities and additional external players - whereby the statutory authorities learn and acquire new expertise from the mentoring bodies, local citizens’ groups and external bodies with whom they work. This in turn helps to, directly and indirectly, influence the work of mentoring bodies and the citizens groups themselves – see Fig 89. With reference to the model shown in Fig 89, it is important to consider some key points regarding the role of the various categories of stakeholder groups and how these groups interrelate to each other effectively. These roles are observed as being as follows:

Governmental bodies: provide a legislative framework, formalised structures and mainstreaming of policies. Through provision of seedcorn funding, they can however also act in the role of facilitators and mentors depending upon their organisational policies and priorities.

Mentoring bodies: are key to bringing about the process of change - they can promote and disseminate best case practice including new ownership and leasing models and promote information on funding available and legal responsibilities. These bodies generally comprise of experts and enthusiasts in their field and can provide specialist mentoring staff to groups as well as through lobbying the statutory authorities and politicians for change.

Citizens groups: undertake practical actions within their localities and who have a good understanding of their area and the development of grassroots initiatives on the ground. They also help to influence and sometimes facilitate the mentoring organisations themselves, thus acquiring a stronger political voice and influence over time. Within the Scottish context many of the established mentoring organisations have been formed directly through local citizens´ groups collaborating together thereby creating synergies and feedback loops between the 2 types of organisation.

External Influences: In addition to this there are a number of external influences which do not fit neatly into the previous three other categories; these might for example include some charitable foundations or organisations which provide external funding or awards but which have no specific direct connection, representation or lobbying interests within the field of GI. Examples of this for example might include the Esmée Fairbairn Foundation in the UK (Esmée Fairbairn Foundation 2020).

The way in which these different type of stakeholder group interact, synergise and influence each other is a complex one, whereby no individual stakeholder type can be regarded to be driving the process forward on its own. However, the role of the mentoring bodies themselves, in tandem with the citizens groups has a key role to play in terms of facilitating change. The statutory authorities are thus influenced directly by the work of the mentoring organisations – for example through exposing them to best practice, bottom-up initiatives, including through ownership and leasing models. Over time, this appears to directly influence top down polices and state legalisation, thus encouraging more enabling approaches to occur. This has been very much the case with the development of the Scottish community land movement (Scottish Land Commission 2020b).

Funding and appropriate policies from state help to unlock the potential for external funding sources which are often matched and linked to this – for example lottery funding, private charitable sources, help in kind and volunteer action. Award and accreditation programmes often originate from private external sources, for example, through national or international foundations. These clearly influence both the statutory authorities who might gain political capital through positive association with accredited initiatives, as well as the local citizens groups themselves who are the recipients of these

277

awards. Sometimes the awards are assessed through partnership approaches involving charitable foundations, NGOs and local administrations.

Fig 89. Citizen participation mechanisms – the process of change

9.3. To what extent do the results of the Study have wider applicability to other regions and geographical contexts ?

It is important to recognise that as the result of diverse cultural, social, fiscal, administrative and economic conditions operating across different regions, concepts and measures cannot necessarily be neatly packaged and exported wholesale from one geographical region to another. In this respect there is no simple “one size fits all” solution as mentioned previously; however development of a generic set of approaches, which can be lifted from a more comprehensive overall menu - according to, and determined by, local circumstances, might be deemed to be beneficial.

Within NW Europe, it can also be argued that a reasonable degree of ecological, cultural and economic homogeneity exists; the region sharing broadly similar physical environmental characteristics, political and historical influences. In addition, EU policies and legislation have provided a strong unifying presence across the area, particularly in terms of defining environment and nature protection policies such as the Birds and Habitats Directives (European Commission 2019), the designation of Natura 2000 Sites and the EU Water Framework Directive (European Commission 2019b). EU funding programmes such as LIFE, INTEREG, H2020 and LEADER along with transnational knowledge exchange initiatives such as COST have all helped to create unified conditions and similar approaches across countries within the EU. Arguably, even with the longer term impact of Brexit, it is likely that the legacy of European nature protection policies such as Natura 2000 will continue to exert a strong influence over

278

UK conservation policy for the foreseeable future, although environmental groups have expressed concerns about possible UK Government attempts to see weakening of legislation over the longer term following the UK’s withdrawal from the EU (Friends of the Earth 2020).

The existence of networking forums and knowledge networks such as the European Forum for Urban Forestry (EFUF) and the emerging European Forum for Urban Agriculture (EFUA) has also helped in the transfer of methodologies and the development of common understanding as has participation in EU funded technical collaboration projects such as COST and H2020. It is therefore to be expected that ongoing knowledge exchange and scientific collaboration between Scotland and Europe will indeed continue beyond 2020 in some form or other. This was backed up by the conclusions of a conference on technical cooperation hosted by the European Policies Research Centre, at Strathclyde University in 2017, which identified that stakeholders and participants in Scotland wanted to remain involved in EU project based collaboration in the future (McMaster I 2017). Amongst several key recommendations was, the need “to maximise on-going involvement and engagement in (EU) programmes, collaborations, policy platforms and other networking opportunities” following Brexit. It has also been clarified that Scottish collaboration partners can continue to bid for and claim H2020 funding even if the planned outputs are programmed for after then end of the current Brexit transition period (Ryan A 2020). Such willingness has been clarified through a number of official statements from the Scottish Government.

The experience from Scotland is particularly useful in illustrating how state supported reform programmes can have a direct impact upon the development of citizen initiatives to manage land for GI and wider sustainable development purposes. As the Scottish experience shows, such reform programmes should support and incorporate appropriate legislation, policy guidance, mentoring support from the Third Sector and also access to targeted and diverse funding streams which should act as incentives for citizen participation.

The Scottish experience also highlights the significance of employing dedicated staff to work in mentoring roles, particularly in urban and socially deprived areas where the existing population might presently be less engaged, less aware and less empowered than in areas characterised by higher income groups. In this respect, a number of schemes targeted to urban and periurban areas, such as Forestry Commission Scotland’s WIAT programme, have clearly illustrated the potential for state investment to deliver multifunctional sustainable development benefits including social inclusion, physical activity, health and wellbeing benefits (Ambrose-Oji 2014).

It is also important not to underestimate the potential for rapid social change to occur, particularly through the increasing transfer of ideas and societal trends as a result of social media (Bakshy E, Rosenn I et al. 2012). New societal trends and approaches, both positive and negative, can therefore spread quickly across international borders, as for example, illustrated by the “Fridays’ for Future” movement (Berg K 2019) and Coronavirus lockdown protests (Wong J 2020). In addition to web based promulgation of citizen participation approaches, more traditional knowledge transfer mechanisms including publications, international forums, scientific exchanges and conferences have also undoubtedly a role to play; however, these are unlikely to have the same impact over large sections of society as social media.

Despite this, transfer of concepts and social trends to regions with very different climatic, cultural or administrative conditions operating might well be considered to be slower and more evolutionary process, thereby raising questions about the potential for such exchange processes to flourish in new environments. In this respect however, it is worthy of consideration that many of our established concepts of common natural resources management originally emerged from within very different

279

physical and cultural environments; for example, with respect to bottom-up community forestry approaches, in developing countries such as Nepal, India, Tanzania and other African nations during the 1970s, before later gaining traction in developed countries such as Scotland and Wales. (Gilmour D 2016)

On this basis, given the right conditions, there is therefore no reason to think that key elements and methodologies cannot be transferred to new geographical and cultural contexts. However, it is most likely that the process of such change will be more evolutionary rather than revolutionary in nature. When considering the potential for such wider applicability and exchange of principles, a number of criteria are proposed which will favour and promulgate the transfer and adoption of practices across political and cultural boundaries. The proposed criteria are as follows:

i. Within broadly, though not exclusively, similar environmental, cultural and economic contexts. ii. Where there is a strong political will and support for reforms within government and state institutions, perhaps due to the influence of a progressive political leadership, or as a result of the influence of external international policy goals, such as the UN sustainable development indicators, climate change targets or EU Green Infrastructure policy. iii. When external policymakers - e.g. EU or other transnational groupings - can influence changes to national or state policies through the provision of financial support packages or legislation which specifically promotes more bottom-up and/or more interdisciplinary approaches. iv. When individual leaders and influencers bring about reform within their own institutions - thus creating powerful knock-on effects through introducing innovative approaches to wider audiences e.g. through a major redistribution of funding or change in policy emphasis. v. When citizens at large are exposed over time to innovative practices as a result of networking events, literature and particularly through the impact of social media, thus creating a demand for change from the bottom up. vi. When there is generally a high degree of social capital resulting in engaged and active networks of citizens’ organisations and initiatives. vii. When there are resources to promote such approaches which are made directly accessible to citizens’ groups rather than through established hierarchies within administrations.

Conversely the following potential barriers to transference of citizen participation approaches could potentially be:

i. A lack of funding or funding mechanisms which might be incompatible with GI objectives, or irrelevant in certain instances. ii. The culture of volunteering and consequent lack of volunteer time input, might be less commonplace in some societies, dependent upon the local cultural context and the structure of the communities involved. iii. GI might be less developed or understood as a concept in certain regions of the World, or might be perceived as being less relevant e.g in some arid regions where greening programmes are not considered practical due to high costs or scarcity of water. iv. Under certain political regimes and ideologies with centralist approaches, the state might not recognise or encourage concepts favouring bottom-up citizen participation. Similarly, land tenure issues might favour private individuals or an institutionalised culture of traditional “landlordism”. v. Political or environmental instability might prevent citizen initiatives from becoming established or being sustained over time e.g. in regions prone to drought or conflict.

280

vi. There might be limited social capital in some very developed countries due to an increasing emphasis upon the interests of the individual over wider society. This can reduce community cohesion and create social alienation, particularly in more affluent areas. vii. There might generally be a lack of potential mentoring structures and incentives needed to support participation activities. viii. Due to high rates of urbanisation in some countries there might be a lack of engagement with GI and with environmental issues in general. In this respect, land based activities might have negative associations with rural poverty and backwardness. ix. Statutory authorities might have a very centralised and silo based approach, making it difficult to develop the necessary partnership or networking structures necessary to develop citizen participation potential.

9.4. What recommendations can be made from the Study with reference to the requirement for further research and for integration into best practice ?

Research:

i. There is a need to collect more case studies from other parts of Germany and Continental Europe and to gain a better understanding of the form, extent and potential of citizen participation in relation to GI. It would also be interesting to understand the extent to which in-country levels of citizen participation vary internally, for example between different German States or individual City Regions within NW Europe.

ii. It would also be helpful to understand why such spatial differences might occur. For example, might such differences arise as the result of state GI policies, planning regulations, the existence of supporting structures or through local cultural factors which might influence the extent of co-operation and partnership working.

iii. It would be useful to develop a list of cities within NRW or Germany as a whole which actually promote bottom up GI initiatives at present and which have specific policies or support structures in place to specifically promote this. This could for example be established through referring to membership of existing networks and forums e.g. green city networks, ICLEI, etc. However, it must be understood that these networks often have a wider remit than just GI itself.

iv. There is scope for creating learning laboratories featuring real life GI case studies to test the transfer and adoption of approaches between different regions and to actively encourage these through sympathetic administrative and support structures. These could focus particularly on developing innovation such as community ownership or leasing models or through the development of challenge funds or mentoring staff. The process could be monitored by researchers to further ascertain success factors and optimal conditions required for transferring methodologies and policy instruments.

281

Wider recommendations for practice:

i. There is potential to provide a more detailed toolkit for participative management of GI which is targeted towards practitioners and policy makers. This should highlight international case studies from different geographical regions but should also incorporate some locally specific guidelines. This should also consider the accompanying drivers and underlying support structures necessary to promote and deliver the process of change. These might include, for example, policy reforms, legal frameworks, partnership structures, support for the role of mentoring bodies and statutory authorities and developing funding mechanisms and accreditation systems.

ii. Mechanisms should be established for initiating dialogue and networking between different local initiatives, including skill sharing and knowledge transfer. A series of events and workshops should be initiated to bring practitioners together on the different levels both at State level and within individual local regions. This should include practical workshops and field visits to showcase existing projects. It might also involve exchange visits between urban and rural projects or indeed between different countries or regions to swap ideas.

iii. To build capacity and momentum there is also a need to transfer knowledge between initiatives with differing thematic emphasis where currently no common understanding currently exists – e.g. Exchanges between community gardening and woodland groups, biodiversity or access projects; urban with rural citizens’ initiatives etc. The aim of this would be to identify shared skills and transferable elements common across the range of projects. This might also help to increase a sense of common purpose of groups involved in GI delivery across diverse themes and geographical locations, thus consolidating the strength of networks.

iv. International exchanges for core staff involved in GI to encourage the dissemination of ideas and approaches would be beneficial to gain insights into how the GI process is delivered in different parts of Europe. This could help to bring about rapid transfer of ideas and could create a Europe wide network of advocates for citizen participation in GI management and planning. This process could also be made more accessible through the increasing use of digital media to increase the accessibility of the common knowledge base to wider audiences.

v. There is a need to specifically target local activists, policy makers and practitioners. Involving only the academic sector will significantly limit the success of any exchange activities occurring. Specialist forums involved in GI and related topics such as urban forestry should therefore aim to involve practitioners much more widely and should make the results of their research much more widely available and also presented in an understandable and accessible manner suitable for a wide range of audiences.

vi. The radicalism, dynamism and enthusiasm of the voluntary sector should be complimented, where possible, with the policy experience and fiscal expertise of the state sector. This will only occur through effective co-ordination and the development of dialogue and effective partnerships between the two. As with the Scottish examples, the statutory policymakers and officials should learn to cooperate with a diversity of different interest groups, thus bringing fresh new thinking and inspiration to the delivery and management of GI. This could also increasing help the state sector to deliver its own objectives in a less resource and time

282

intensive manner. Given a climate of diminishing resources this could help to ease the financial and administrative burdens being experienced by public authorities.

283

Reference Sources :

Aachener Nachrichten (2015). Lokales Nordkreis. Premiumradweg wird heftig kritisiert. Aachener Nachrichten Aachen.

Aachener Nachrichten. (2016). "AG Wurmtal: Das Naturschutzgebiet soll größer werden." Aachener Nachrichten Retrieved 01/04/2016, from https://www.aachener- nachrichten.de/lokales/nordkreis/ag-wurmtal-das-naturschutzgebiet-soll-groesser-werden_aid- 25268705.

Aalbers C and Pauleit S (2013). Powerful and large regional authorities are needed to preserve green open space for urban agglomerations. SPOOL 1: . 1: 501-518.

Aberdeen Countryside Project Ltd (2003). 5 Years of Acheivement. Aberdeen, Scotland., Aberdeen Countryside Project Ltd.

AG Wurmtal e.V. (2020). "AG Wurmtal." from http://www.ag-wurmtal.de/htm/ag.htm.

Agg-Net. (2016). "CEMEX support for Doune Ponds and Woodlands Group." Retrieved 24/04/2020, from https://www.agg-net.com/news/cemex-support-for-doune-ponds-and-woodlands-group.

Ambrose-Oji B, Buijs A, Gerőházi E, Mattijssen T, Száraz L, Van der Jagt A, Hansen R, Rall E, Andersson E, Kronenberg J and Rolf W (2017). Innovative Governance for Urban Green Infrastructure: A Guide for Practitioners, GREEN SURGE project Deliverable 6.3. University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen pp.5-10.

Ambrose-Oji, B., Saraev, V., Peace, A., Conolly, T., Stewart, A., Chetcuti, J, Edwards, D., (2014). An Evaluation of the WIAT Challenge Fund: Changing use patterns, the value of recreation and health benefits, and lessons learned. F. R. r. t. F. C. S. Roslin, Roslin, Forest Research report to Forestry Commission Scotland.

Andersson E, E. T., Tengö M, (2017). Stewardship in urban landscapes. In The Science and Practice of Landscape Stewardship. , Cambridge University Press

Arbeitskreis Heimatgeschichte Eicherscheid. (2020). "Eicherscheid Geschichte und Geschichten." Retrieved 29/03/2020, from https://www.geschichte-eicherscheid.de/index.php/de/geschichte.

Arbeitskreis Naturschutz e.V. (2020). "Arbeitskreis Naturschutz ".

Argyll and Bute Council (2011). Argyll and Bute Forestry Strategy.

Arnstein, S. R. (1969). "A Ladder Of Citizen Participation." Journal of the American Institute of Planners 35(4): 216-224.

Austin R, T. N., Garrod G , (2016). "Understanding the factors underlying partnership working: A case study of Northumberland National Park, England Centre. ." Land Use Policy (50): 115-124.

Bakshy E, Rosenn I, Marlow C and A. L (2012). The Role of Social Networks in Information Diffusion. ACM WWW Lyon, France.

284

Berg K. (2019). "Showing a presence on the street." Retrieved 23/05/2020, from https://www.deutschland.de/en/topic/politics/fridays-for-future-why-the-movement-is-successful.

Biodiversity Information System for Europe. (2020). "Green Infrastructure in Germany." Retrieved 03/03/20, 2020, from https://biodiversity.europa.eu/countries/gi/germany.

Biologische Station StädteRegion Aachen e. V. (2020a). "Heiden-Moore-Wiesen." Retrieved 19/03/2020, from https://www.bs-aachen.de/de/projekte/interreg-heiden-moore-wiesen/.

Biologische Station StädteRegion Aachen e. V. (2020b). "Das LEADER-Projekt "Dorf Bio Top"." from https://www.bs-aachen.de/de/dorf-bio-top/.

Bläser, K., R. Danielzyk, R. Fox-Kämper, L. Funke, M. Rawak and M. Sondermann (2012). Urbanes Grün in der integrierten Stadtentwicklung. Strategien, Projekte, Instrumente.

BMUB (2015). Grün in der Stadt − Für eine lebenswerte Zukunft. Grünbuch Stadtgrün: 12-16.

Buijs, A., T. Mattijssen, A. van der Jagt, B. Ambrose-Oji, E. Andersson, B. Elands and M. Møller (2016). "Active citizenship for urban green infrastructure: fostering the diversity and dynamics of citizen contributions through mosaic governance." Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 22: 1-6.

Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz e.V. (2018). Handbuch Biotopverbund.

Bundesamt für Naturschutz. (2020a). "Gebietsschutz / Großschutzgebiete. ." 10/03/20, from https://www.bfn.de/themen/gebietsschutz-grossschutzgebiete.html

Bundesamt für Naturschutz. (2020b). "The European Green Belt." Retrieved 05/03/20, from https://www.bfn.de/en/activities/protecting-habitats-and-landscapes/the-green-belt/europe.html.

Bundesamt für Naturschutz. (2020c). "Internationale Anknüpfungsstellen,." from https://www.bfn.de/themen/biotop-und-landschaftsschutz/biotopverbund/internationale- anknuepfung.html.

Bundesamt für Naturschutz. (2020d). "Biotopverbund." from https://www.bfn.de/themen/biotop- und-landschaftsschutz/biotopverbund.html.

Central Scotland Green Network (2011). The Vision. C. S. G. Network.

Central Scotland Green Network. (2015). "Visualising the CSGN - Transect." Retrieved 01/05/2020, from file:///C:/Users/Ian/Downloads/Visualising%20the%20CSGN%20transect.pdf.

Central Scotland Green Network. (2018). "News - CSGN Development Fund Provides Funding Boost of £355,000 to Central Scotland Green Projects." Retrieved 19/05/2020, from http://www.centralscotlandgreennetwork.org/news-and-events/news/1288-csgn-development- fund-provides-funding-boost-of-355-000-to-central-scotland-green-projects.

Central Scotland Green Network. (2020). "Integrated Habitat Networks." Retrieved 23/04/2020, from http://www.centralscotlandgreennetwork.org/delivering/our-themes/a-place-for- nature/integrated-habitat-networks.

285

Central Scotland Green Network. (2020b). "CSGN Development Fund." Retrieved 19/05/2020, from http://www.centralscotlandgreennetwork.org/resources/funding/csgn-development-fund.

Chorley J (2018). URBAN COMMUNITY LANDOWNERSHIP IN SCOTLAND IN 2018, Community Land Scotland,.

Community Land Scotland (2020). Community Land Scotland - Home Page.

Community Woodlands Association. (2020). "Community Woodlands Association - Home Page." Retrieved 21/04/2020, from https://www.communitywoods.org/.

Connop, S., P. Vandergert, B. Eisenberg, M. Collier, C. Nash, J. Clough and D. Newport (2016). "Renaturing cities using a regionally-focused biodiversity-led multifunctional benefits approach to urban green infrastructure." Environmental Science & Policy In Press.

CoProGrün. (2017). "CoProGrün - Co-produzierte Grünzüge als nachhaltige kommunale Infrastruktur." Retrieved 10/08/2020, from http://www.coprogruen.de/.

COST (2017). COST Action Final Achievement Report FP1204: Green Infrastructure approach: linking environmental with social aspects in studying and managing urban forests COST.

Cvejić R, Eler K, Pintar M, Železnikar S, Haase D, Kabisch N and S. M. (2015). Green Surge - A Typology of Urban Green Spaces, Ecosystem Provisioning Services and Demands. . U. o. Copenhagen: pp.18-28

Das Bergisches Städtedreieck (2018). Masterplan Grünes Städtedreieck – Region mit Weitsicht. Dempsey N, B. M. (2012). "Defining place-keeping: the long-term management of public spaces " Urban Forestry and Urban Greening (11): 11-20.

Dennis M, J. P. (2016). "User participation in urban green commons: exploring the links between access, voluntarism, biodiversity and well being" Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 15: 22-31. Doune Community Woodland Group. (2020). "Doune Community Woodland Group - Facebook Page." Retrieved 23/04/2020, from https://www.facebook.com/DouneCommunityWoodlandGroup/.

Doune.co. (2015). "Stretch your legs – it’s good for you!" Retrieved 23/04/2020, from https://doune.co/2015/07/22/stretch-your-legs-its-good-for-you/.

Doune.co. (2020). "Outdoor Activities." Retrieved 23/04/2020, from https://doune.co/outdoor- activities/.

Dunbar Community Woodland Group (2020). Lochend Woods - Home Page.

Dunbar Community Woodland Group (2020b). Tree Quest Trail.

Dunbar Community Woodland Group. (2020c). "Dunbar Community Woodland Group (Lochend Woods) - Facebook Page." from https://www.facebook.com/DunbarCWG/.

Ebbertz J and Häfner L (2016). Community Gardening Trift Community Organising – Chancen einer konzeptionellen Weiterentwicklung. Masterthesis zur Erlangung des Grades „Master of Arts“ Katholische Hochschule NRW

286

Eifel Tourismus GmbH. (2020). "Monschauer Heckenlandschaft und Vennhöfe." Retrieved 18/03/2020, from https://www.eifel.info/a-monschauer-heckenlandschaft-und-vennhoefe.

Eifel Tourismus GmbH (2020b). "Der Eifelsteig."

Eifelverein (2019). Die Organisation im Eifelverein.

Eschweiler Stadtverwaltung. (2020). " Industrie & Gewerbegebiete." Retrieved 10/03/2020, from https://www.eschweiler.de/wirtschaft-handel/wirtschaftsfoerderung/industrie-und- gewerbegebiete/.

Esmée Fairbairn Foundation. (2020). "Esmée Fairbairn Foundation - Home Page." Retrieved 07/09/2020, from https://www.esmeefairbairn.org.uk/.

Europarc Federation (2018). Periurban Parks: Building Green Infrastructure around Cities: Webimar https://www.europarc.org/tools-and-training/europarc-webinars/previous-webinars/webinar- building-green-infrastructure-around-cities/ European Commission (2013). Green Infrastructure (GI) (COM (2013) 249 final.

European Commission (2013b). Building a Green Infrastructure for Europe. E. Union.

European Commission. (2019). "Environment-Natura 2000" Retrieved 06/05/2020, from http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/index_en.htm European Commission. (2019b). "The EU Water Framework Directive - integrated river basin management for Europe." Retrieved 22/05/2020, from https://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/index_en.html.

Federal Ministry for the Environment, N. C. a. N. S., BMU (2020). "Act on Nature Conservation and Landscape Management (Federal Nature Conservation Act – BNatSchG) of 29 July 2009." from https://www.bmu.de/fileadmin/Daten_BMU/Download_PDF/Naturschutz/bnatschg_en_bf.pdf

Forest Research (2007). "A Forest Habitat Network for Edinburgh and the Lothians: the contribution of woodlands to promote sustainable development within the regional Structure Plan."

Forest Research. (2020). "Community woodland group Case Studies." Retrieved 21/04/2020, from https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/research/community-woodlands-and-forestry/community- woodland-group-case-studies/.

Forest Research. (2020b). "Argyll Islands forest habitat network." Retrieved 24/04/2020, from https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/research/habitat-networks/forest-habitat-network-in- scotland/argyll-islands-forest-habitat-network/.

Franklin A, M. T. (2015). "(Dis)connected communities and sustainable place-making." Local Environ 20(8): 940-956.

Freizeit und Erholungsverein Walheim e.V. (2020). "Freizeit und Erholungsverein Walheim e.V.", from https://www.fevw.de/#.

287

Friends of the Earth. (2020). "Post-Brexit: what's next for the environment?" Retrieved 22705/2020, from https://friendsoftheearth.uk/brexit/postbrexit-whats-next-environment.

Gemeinde Eicherscheid (2010). Europäische ARGE Landentwicklung und Dorferneuerung, Europäischer Dorferneuerungspreis 2010 - Teilnahmeformular Eicherscheid.

Gemeinde Eicherscheid (2020). "Unser Dorf hat Zukunft."

Gemeinde Eicherscheid. (2020b). "Flurheckenweg." Retrieved 30/03/2020, from http://www.eicherscheid.de/eicherscheid/flurheckenweg/.

Gemeinde Roetgen. (2020). "Wanderrouten." from https://www.roetgen.de/freizeit-und- tourismus/wanderrouten/.

Geschäftsstelle IMA GDI Nordrhein-Westfalen. (2020). "Geoportal.NRW." Retrieved 21/03/2020, from https://www.geoportal.nrw/.

Geschäftsstelle UN-Dekade Biologische Vielfalt. (2020). "Urbane Gemeinschaftsgärten Aachen." Retrieved 30/03/2020, from https://www.undekade-biologischevielfalt.de/projekte/aktuelle- projekte-beitraege/detail/projekt-details/show/Wettbewerb/2545/.

Gilmour D (2016). Forty years of community-based forestry. A review of its extent and effectiveness, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO),.

Glasgow & Clyde Valley (GCV) Green Network Partnership (2019). Planning for Green Infrastructure.

Glasmeier A, F. T. (2005). "Understanding community forestry: a qualitative meta‐study of the concept, the process, and its potential for poverty alleviation in the United States case." Geographical Journal 171(1): 56-69.

Haining R (1997). "Haining R. Spatial Data Analysis in the Social and Environmental Sciences. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge."

Hajer, M. (2011). The Energetic Society.

Hajer M, N. M., Raworth K, Bakker P, Berkhout F, de Boer Y, Rockström J, Ludwig K, Kok M, (2015). "Beyond cockpit-ism: four insights to enhance the transformative potential of the sustainable development goals." Sustainability 7: 1651-1660. Hansmann R, Whitehead I, Krajter Ostoić S, Zivojinović I, Stojanovska M, Jones N, Bernasconi A, Benamar S, Lelieveld C and Barstad J (2016). "Partnerships for Urban Forestry and Green Infrastructure Delivering Services to People and the Environment: A Review on What They Are and Aim to Achieve." Southeast European Forestry 7 (1).

Heimat- und Eifelvereins Rott e.V. (2006). 25 Jahre Heimat und Eifelverein Rott 1981 - 2006: 25-57. Heimat- und Eifelvereins Rott e.V. (2020). "Heimat- und Eifelvereins Rott e.V." Retrieved 29/03/2020, from http://www.hev-rott.de/.

Heimatverein Worm-Wildnis 1971 e.V. (2020). "Heimatverein Worm-Wildnis 1971 e.V.", from http://www.worm-wildnis.eu/.

288

Heinrichs A K, Kohler Y and Ullrich A (2010). "Implementing a Pan-Alpine Ecological Network: A Compilation of Major Approaches, Tools and Activities." BfN-Skripten 273.

Hislop, M. (2016). Resourcing the CSGN – Potential sources of funding for the capital costs of the CSGN, GCV Green Network Partnership for CSGNT,.

Hislop, M., A. Scott and A. Corbett (2019). "What Does Good Green Infrastructure Planning Policy Look Like? Developing and Testing a Policy Assessment Tool Within Central Scotland UK." Planning Theory & Practice: 1-23.

Huitema D, M. E., Egas W, Moellenkamp S, Pahl-Wostl C, Yalcin R, (2009). "Adaptive water governance: assessing the institutional prescriptions of adaptive (co-)management from a governance perspective and defining a research agenda." Ecology and Society, 14.

Hülsheger R, Theißen H and Krebs B (2016). "Die Heidelandschaft im Naturschutzgebiet „Struffelt“ Restitution einer historischen Kulturlandschaft,." Natur in NRW, 2/16: 32-37.

Ingenieurbüro H. Berg & Partner GmbH. (2017). Machbarkeitsstudie zum Radschnellweg Aachen – Herzogenrath/ Kerkrade/ Heerlen.

Isle of Ulva. (2020). "Isle of Ulva - Home Page." Retrieved 22/04/2020, from https://www.ulva.scot/.

John Muir's Birthplace Trust. (2020). "John Muir's Birthplace - Home." Retrieved 22/04/2020, from https://www.jmbt.org.uk/.

Jones, N., K. Collins, J. Vaughan, T. Benedikz and J. Brosnan (2005). The Role of Partnerships in Urban Forestry. Urban Forests and Trees: A Reference Book. C. Konijnendijk, K. Nilsson, T. Randrup and J. Schipperijn. Berlin, Heidelberg, Springer Berlin Heidelberg: 187-205.

Jongman, R. H. G., I. Bouwma, A. Griffioen, L. Jones-Walters and A. Doorn (2011). "The pan European ecological network: PEEN." Landscape Ecology 26: 311-326.

Landesamt für Natur Umwelt und Verbraucherschutz Nordrhein-Westfalen. (2020). "Naturschutz in NRW." Retrieved 06/03/2020, from https://www.lanuv.nrw.de/natur.

Landesamt für Natur Umwelt und Verbraucherschutz Nordrhein-Westfalen. (2020b). "Biotopschutz." from https://www.lanuv.nrw.de/natur/biotopschutz.

Landesamt für Natur Umwelt und Verbraucherschutz Nordrhein-Westfalen. (2020c). "Liste aller Naturschutzgebiete im Regierungsbezirk Köln." from http://nsg.naturschutzinformationen.nrw.de/nsg/de/fachinfo/gebiete/rp/koeln.

Landesamt für Natur Umwelt und Verbraucherschutz Nordrhein-Westfalen. (2020d). "Vertragsnaturschutz." Retrieved 01/04/2020, from https://www.lanuv.nrw.de/natur/vertragsnaturschutz.

Landesgemeinschaft Naturschutz und Umwelt (LNU) (2020). "Landesgemeinschaft Naturschutz und Umwelt NRW." from http://lnu-nrw.org/.

289

Landschaftsverband Rheinland (LVR) (2016). Fachbeitrag Kulturlandschaft zum Regionalplan Köln. Dr. Klaus-Dieter Kleefeld.

Landwirtschaftskammer Nordrhein-Westfalen. (2018). "Unser Dorf hat Zukunft - Landeswettbewerb Nordrhein-Westfalen." from https://www.landwirtschaftskammer.de/dorfwettbewerb/.

Lawrence, A. (2009). Community experiences of the National Forest Land Scheme. Forest Research.

Lawrence A and Ambrose-Oji B (2013). A framework for sharing experiences of community woodland groups”. Forestry Commission Research Note 15.

Lawrence A, A.-O. B. (2015). "Beauty, friends, power, money: navigating the impacts of community woodlands." Geographical Journal, 181: 268-279. Lawrence, A., R. De Vreese, M. Johnston, C. Konijnendijk van den Bosch and G. Sanesi (2013). "Urban forest governance: Towards a framework for comparing approaches." Urban Forestry & Urban Greening.

Leader Region Eifel (2016). Regionale Entwicklungsstrategie für die LEADER-Region Eifel 2014 - 2020: 14-22.

Loch lomand and the Trossachs National Park. (2020). "Loch lomand and the Trossachs National Park - Home Page." Retrieved 23/04/2020, from https://www.lochlomond-trossachs.org/.

Lohrberg, F., T. Wirth, A. Brüll, M. Nielsen, A. Coppens, M.-F. Godart, A. Kempenaar, M. Brinkhuijsen and F. Morris (2014). LP3LP Landscape Policy for the Three Countries Park - Final Report / Main Report.

Lothians and Fife Green Network Partnership (2012). Edinburgh and Lothians Forest and Woodland Strategy 2012 -17.

MacLeod, F. M., D; MacLeod, C, (2017). Feasibility Study of the Isle of Ulva for North West Mull Community Woodland Company Malloy D (2011). Wildlife at Work. The Economic Impact of White-Tailed Eagles on the Isle of Mull. The RSPB, Sandy. Marjoribanks K (2018). Individuals and groups are praised at Provost's Awards. Stirling Observer.

Mattijssen T, Buijs A, E. B and A. B (2017). "The ‘green’ and ‘self’ in green self-governance – a study of 264 green space initiatives by citizens." Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 20:1, : pp. 96- 113.

McMaster I, B. J., Stewart L, (2017). EU Cooperation and Innovation - Delivering Value from our European Partnerships, European Policies Research Centre, University of Strathclyde,: 25-25. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Ministerium für Klimaschutz, U., Landwirtschaft, Natur- und Verbraucherschutz des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen, (2017). Unser Dorf hat Zukunft - Ausschreibung des Landeswettbewerbs 2017/2018

290

Ministerium für Klimaschutz Umwelt Landwirtschaft Natur und Verbraucherschutz NRW (2016). Gemeinsam Gärtnern in der Stadt: 28.

Mull Eagle Watch. (2020). "Mull Eagle Watch - Home Page." Retrieved 24/04/2020, from https://mulleaglewatch.com/.

NABU Stadtverband Aachen eV. (2016). "Forum Natur Euregio Maas-Rhein." Retrieved 01/04/2020, from https://naturschutzstation-aachen.de/forum-natur-euregio-maas-rhein/.

NABU Stadtverband Aachen eV. (2020). "NABU Stadtverband Aachen." Retrieved 19/03/2020, from https://www.nabu-aachen.de/.

Nationalparkeifel. (2020). "Welcome to the Eifel National Park." Retrieved 13/03/20, from https://www.nationalpark-eifel.de/en/.

Natur Erleben NRW. (2020). "Vennhochfläche bei Mützenich." Retrieved 19/03/2020, from https://www.natur-erleben-nrw.de/natura-2000/regionen-und-gebiete-in- nrw/details/vennhochflaeche-bei-muetzenich/.

Natur und Umweltschutzakademie NRW - NUA. (2020). "Gemeinsam gärtnern." Retrieved 30/03/04, from https://www.nua.nrw.de/gemeinsam-gaertnern/.

Natural England (2009 ). Green Infrastructure Guidelines (NE176) Naturfreunde Herzogenrath-Merkstein. (2020). "Unser Projekt „WasserWeg Wurm“." Retrieved 28/03/2020, from http://www.naturfreunde-merkstein.de/projekt-wasserweg-wurm.

Naturpark Hohes Venn-Nordeifel (2020). Naturpark Hohes Venn-Nordeifel.

Nivelsteiner Sandwerke und Sandsteinbrüche GmbH. (2020). "Presse & Aktuelles." from http://nivelstein.de/web/presse/.

North West Mull Community Woodland Company. (2020a). "North West Mull Community Woodland Group - About." Retrieved 22/04/2020, from http://nwmullwoodland.co.uk/about/.

North West Mull Community Woodland Company. (2020b). "Ulva." from http://nwmullwoodland.co.uk/ulva/.

North West Mull Community Woodland Company (2020c). Isle of Ulva Social and Economic Development Masterplan.

NRW Stiftung. (2020). "Heckenweg in Höfen bei Monschau - Hecken, hoch wie Häuser." Retrieved 19/03/2020, from https://www.nrw-stiftung.de/projekte/projekt.php?pid=457.

Ostrom E (2010). "Beyond Markets and States: Polycentric Governance of Complex Economic Systems." American Economic Review, 100 (3): 641-672.

Planterose B (2019). Highlands and Islands Woodlands Handbook, Woodland Trust Scotland.

Project for Public Spaces. (2007). "What Is Placemaking? ." Retrieved 03/08/2020, from https://www.pps.org/article/what-is-placemaking.

291

Protected Planet. (2020). "Nsg Wurmtal Suedlich Herzogenrath, Einschliesslich Meisbach, Wuerselen in Germany." from https://www.protectedplanet.net/166378.

Putnam RD (2000). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York, Simon & Schuster.

Regionalverband Ruhr (2016). Grune Infrastruktur Ruhr

Regionalverband Ruhr (2020). Gemeinschaftsgärten- wer macht mit? Essen, Regionalverband Ruhr.

Rowbotham J (2016). Doune nature site pools the crowds. Stirling Observer.

Rowbotham J (2018). Pathways Milestone at Ponds. Stirling Observer,.

Rursee Touristik GmbH (2015). Der Flurheckenweg Eicherscheid.

Rursee Touristik GmbH. (2020). "29 Rundwege in der Gemeinde Simmerath." from https://www.rursee.de/aktiv/wandern/tagestouren/.

Ryan A. (2020). "January 2020 update – impact of Brexit on EU funded research under Horizon 2020 (H2020)." Retrieved 23/05/2020, from https://blogs.ed.ac.uk/research-office/2020/01/27/january- 2020-update-impact-of-brexit-on-eu-funded-research-under-horizon-2020-h2020/.

Rydin Y, P. M. (2000). "Public participation and local environmental planning: the collective action problem and the potential of social capital. ." Local Environment (5): 153-169.

Salbitano F, Borelli S, Conigliaro M and C. Y (2016). Guidelines on urban and peri-urban forestry - FAO Forestry Paper No. 178. FAO. Rome, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: pp. 13-14.

Scotland's Finest Woods Awards. (2020). "Scotland's Finest Woods - Home Page." Retrieved 22/04/2020, from http://www.sfwa.co.uk/.

Scott, A. (2017). Making Plans for Green Infrastructure in England: Review of National Planning and Environmental Policies and Project Partners’ Plans.

Scottish Forestry. (2020). "Woods in and Around Towns (WIAT)." Retrieved 22/04/2020, from https://forestry.gov.scot/forests-people/communities/woods-in-and-around-towns-wiat#delivery.

Scottish Government. (2017). "Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act: summary." Retrieved 21/04/2020, from https://www.gov.scot/publications/community-empowerment-scotland-act- summary/.

Scottish Government (2018). Part 3A of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003. Community Right to Buy Abandoned, Neglected or Detrimental Land. Guidance for Applications

Scottish Government (2018b). "Engaging communities in decisions relating to land: guidance."

Scottish Government. (2020). "Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2016." from http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2016/18/contents.

292

Scottish Government (2020b). Protecting Scotland's Future: the Government's Programme for Scotland 2019-2020.

Scottish Land and Estates. (2020). "Doune Ponds - Doune Community Woodland Group and Moray Estates." Retrieved 22/04/2020, from https://www.scottishlandandestates.co.uk/helping-it- happen/case-studies/doune-ponds-doune-community-woodland-group-and-moray-estates.

Scottish Land Commission. (2020). "Doune Ponds - Managing the Land in Partnership: Moray Estates and Doune Community Woodland Group." Retrieved 22/04/2020, from https://landcommission.gov.scot/our-work/good-practice/community-engagement/doune-ponds- managing-the-land-in-partnership-moray-estates-and-doune-community-woodland-group.

Scottish Land Commission. (2020b). "Community Engagement." Retrieved 23/04/2020, from https://landcommission.gov.scot/our-work/good-practice/community-engagement.

Scottish Natural Heritage (2013). Integrated Habitat Networks – New Tools for Development Planning. SNH Information Note.

Slee, R. (2007). "Social indicators of multifunctional rural land use: The case of forestry in the UK." Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 120: 31-40.

Stadt Aachen (2012). AACHEN*2030 Masterplan.

Stadt Aachen (2019). 'Grüne Krone' Freiraumkonzept für Aachen - Grundlagen und Perspektiven,.

Stadt Aachen. (2020a). "Flächennutzungsplan." from http://www.aachen.de/DE/stadt_buerger/planen_bauen/bauleitplanung/instrumente_plaene/fnp/i ndex.html.

Stadt Aachen. (2020b). "Landschaftsplan 2018/19." from http://www.aachen.de/DE/stadt_buerger/planen_bauen/bauleitplanung/landschaftsplan/index.htm l.

Stadt Aachen. (2020c). "Grünflächen-Patenschaften." Retrieved 12/03/2020, from http://www.aachen.de/DE/stadt_buerger/umwelt/landschaft_baumschutz/baum_gruen_patenscha ft/index.html.

Stadt Aachen. (2020d). "Suermondt-Park." Retrieved 12/03/20, from http://www.aachen.de/DE/stadt_buerger/umwelt/stadtgruen/suermondt_park/index.html.

Stadt Aachen. (2020e). "Kornelimünster / Walheim." from http://www.aachen.de/DE/stadt_buerger/politik_verwaltung/stadtbezirke/kornelimuenster_walhei m/index.html.

Stadt Herzogenrath. (2020). "Wald und Forstwirtschaft." from https://www.herzogenrath.de/icc/assisto/nav/1ac/1ac021de-4063-e517-9cd7- 683a35f7b8dd,9aaa0c2f-1894-31e3-84ec-c748168a88d7,,,aaaaaaaa-aaaa-aaaa-aaaa-000000000082.

Städteregion Aachen (2011). Herzogenrath Worm Wildnis – Bereisungsdokumentation 2011, Unser Dorf Hat Zukunft.

293

Städteregion Aachen (2016). Statistisches Jahrbuch Komplett 2016, 10-18.

Städteregion Aachen (2019). Unserer Dorf Hat Zukunft – Checklist.

Städteregion Aachen. (2020). "Landschaftsplanung." Retrieved 13/03/2020, from https://www.staedteregion-aachen.de/de/navigation/aemter/umweltamt-a-70/natur-und- landschaft/landschaftsplanung/.

Städteregion Aachen. (2020b). "Geographische Lage." Retrieved 26/05/2020, from https://www.staedteregion-aachen.de/de/navigation/staedteregion/wirtschaft/geographische- lage/.

Stirling Council (2019). Stirling and Clackmannanshire Forestry and Woodland Strategy.

The Guardian (2018). Mull campaigners secure public funds to buy isle of Ulva.

Timpe A (2017). Produktive Parks entwerfen -Geschichte und aktuelle Praxis biologischer Produktion in europäischen Parks. Doctor - Ing Phd, Rheinisch-Westfälischen Technischen Hochschule Aachen.

United Nations. (2020). "Sustainable Development Goals." Retrieved 05/03/20, from https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/.

Urbane Gemeinschaftsgärten Aachen e.V. (2020). "Essbares Aachen - Urbane Gemeinschaftsgärten in der Kaiserstadt." Retrieved 12/03/20, from https://essbaresaachen.wordpress.com/.

UrbaneOasen.de. (2020). "HirschGrün, Aachen." Retrieved 01/04/2020, from https://www.urbaneoasen.de/project/hirschgruen-aachen/.

Van der Jagt A (2014a). Community Woodland Group Case Study: CS30 Dunbar Community Woodland Group. Forest Research

Van der Jagt A (2014b). Community Woodland Group Case Study: CS24 North West Mull Community Woodland., Forest Research.

VIA Integration gGmbH. (2020). "VIA Integration gGmbH." from https://www.via-aachen.de/de/.

Waldgenossenschaft Remscheid eG. (2020). "Waldgenossenschaft Remscheid eG. - Home Page." Retrieved 13/05/2020, from https://www.waldgenossenschaft-remscheid.de/?page_id=88.

Walker, R. M. and P. Hills (2012). "Partnership Characteristics, Network Behavior, and Publicness: Evidence on the Performance of Sustainable Development Projects." International Public Management Journal 15(4): 479-499.

Whitehead I, Hansmann R, Lohrberg F, Živojinović I, Bernasconi A and Jones N (2017). The role of partnerships and the Third Sector in the development and delivery of urban forestry and green infrastructure. . The Urban Forest: Cultivating Green Infrastructure for People and the Environment, Springer International Publishing, . D. Pearlmutter, Calfapietra, C., Samson, R., O'Brien, L., Krajter Ostoić, S., Sanesi, G., Alonso del Amo, R. (Eds.), : pp.259-282.

Wong J (2020). Facebook bans some anti-lockdown protest pages. The Guardian.

294

Woodland Crofts Partnership. (2020). "Woodland Crofts - Home Page." Retrieved 24/04/2020, from http://www.woodlandcrofts.org/.

295

Green Infrastructure and Citizen Participation in NW Europe: the Case of Städteregion Aachen

List of Appendices:

Appendix no. Content AP.1 Assessment matrices and scoring AP.2 Stakeholder appraisals /questionnaires AP.3 Selected statutory and mentoring body questionnaires AP.4 GIS Shapefile Information AP.5 Meetings and correspondence

296

Appendix 1. Assessment Matrices and Scoring – Phase 1 Sites:

AP.1.1 Höfen: Assessment Matrix for Phase 1 locations:

Key Theme GI components or enhancements Presence/ Scoring - absence 1-20 1. Existing: 1.1 Overall significance of location in terms of its proximity to core habitats (Biotopekataster) and within the context of the habitat network (biotope Y 18 GI Network verbindung). features 1.2 Overall value in terms of providing a “stepping stone” within the biotope network which facilitates the movement and dispersal of species in response Y 15 to climate change and population demographics. 1.3 Overall contribution to landscape character and complexity Y 15 1.4 Overall value with regard to providing existing connectivity in terms of paths for walkers, cyclists and horse riders. Y 16 1.5 Overall existing value in terms of providing multifunctional greenspace to local people for events, health, wellbeing, informal recreation and play. Y 15 1.6 ES Provisioning Services: biomass energy products, wild foods, human water supply and low intensity organic agricultural production: Y 12 1.7 ES regulating services which might include C02 sequestration, absorption of atmospheric pollutants, surface water runoff, pollination services and Y 14 noise regulation. 1.8 ES cultural services including health & wellbeing, community cohesion, education, local distinctiveness, economic benefits and aesthetics. Y 16 Subtotal: 121/160

2. Actions: GI components or enhancements Presence/ Scoring - Habitat absence 1-10 297 management, 2.1 Maintaining, enhancing or creating habitat features or biotopes which increase the permeability of the landscape matrix through providing increased Y 8 enhancement and connectivity across the biotope network.

creation 2.2 Improving the general ecological condition of protected biotopes and areas within the biotope network generally through targeted management Y 5 interventions or enhancement works. 2.3 Management, enhancement or creation of “stepping stones” outside the biotope network which help to increase the permeability of the matrix Y 7 particularly in areas where there is little or no existing connectivity at present. 2.4 Activities which specifically target key indicator species within the biotope network therefore improving overall ecosystem health and function. Y 6 2.5 Biological surveying, record keeping and site monitoring N 3 Subtotal: 29/50

3. Actions: GI components or enhancements Presence/ Scoring - Landscape absence 1-10 character 3.1 Enhancing or maintaining distinctive cultural landscape features such as field boundary trees, heritage trees, orchards, hedgerows, ponds, meadows Y 9 or vernacular structures. 3.2 Mapping and recording of cultural landscape features such as field boundary trees, hedgerows or vernacular structures. Y 7 3.3 Enhancing, maintaining or restoring overall characteristic landscape types through management interventions such as maintaining open areas. Y 6 3.4 Increasing awareness of the overall significance of managing and protecting cultural landscapes as part of a wider green infrastructure through Y 8 campaigns, interpretation or publications. Subtotal: 30/40

4. Actions: GI components or enhancements Presence/ Scoring - Path networks, absence 1-10 signage and 4.1 Maintaining, enhancing or creating path networks which enable or improve connectivity for walkers, cyclists and horse riders (physical resource). Y 7 interpretation 4.2 Developing new interpretation through the creation of themed routes, signage, publications and web based information. Y 8 4.3 Promoting recreation, health and active travel benefits of path networks to develop the potential contribution of these networks to local Y 8 sustainability. 4.4 Mapping and recording activity of path networks. Y 7 4.5 Developing sustainable tourism through generating income and inward investment which benefits local business and service providers. Y 8 4.6 Undertaking organised events such as “guided walks” which promote greater awareness and use of the path network as a resource for recreation, Y 8 health and active travel. Subtotal: 46/60

5. Actions: GI components or enhancements Presence/ Scoring - Ecosystem Service absence 1-10 Function Delivery 5.1 Enhancing and sustainable management of ES provisioning services delivery which might include provision of biomass energy products, wild foods, Y 6 human water supply and low intensity organic agricultural production. 5.2 Enhancing and sustainable management of ES regulating services which might include C02 sequestration, absorption of atmospheric pollutants, Y 6 surface water runoff, pollination services and noise regulation. 5.3 Enhancing and sustainable management of ES cultural services including health & wellbeing, community cohesion, education, local distinctiveness, Y 8 economic benefits and aesthetics. Subtotal: 20/30

298 6. Actions: GI components or enhancements Presence/ Scoring - Community Asset absence 1-10 Value Delivery 6.1 Improving community cohesion through creating or enhancing the role of greenspaces as informal meeting places, arts and events spaces. Y 8 6.2 Improving, enhancing or actively managing greenspaces as a resource for outdoor “natural play” and informal environmental education. Y 8 6.3 Enhancing opportunities for greenspaces to contribute to the health and wellbeing of local populations though developing their potential to provide Y 7 physical activity and relaxation potential. 6.4 Enhancing and promoting opportunities for greenspaces to provide opportunities for education and local sustainability initiatives such as community Y 7 orchard development, organic food production, wild flower meadow creation or tree planting which involves the community working together collaboratively. 6.5 Undertaking actions which help to foster a greater sense of place and local pride through association with GI features or landscape elements such as Y 9 hedges, moors, water features or distinctive species. 6.6 Undertaking capacity building through providing new models of citizen led activity such as social enterprise development, partnership working or co- Y 7 governance. 6.7 Development of skills training, rehabilitation or employability initiatives for young people or disadvantaged groups such as those with learning Y 5 disabilities. 6.8 Formulating links with mentoring agencies, local authorities and key stakeholders Y 7 Subtotal: 58/80

7. General Criteria GI components or enhancements Presence/ Scoring - absence 1-20 7.1 Availability of supplementary information such as publications and web based sources Y 16 7.2 General location within (and relative to) the defined core area i.e. overall representativeness of one of the three main zones (rural/urban/peri-urban) Y 16 7.3 Suitability as a Phase II location based upon general level of co-operation, awareness and approachability Y 12 7.4 Ease of access / travel Y 15 Subtotal: 59/80

Total Score: Total 363/500

299

AP.1.2 Eicherscheid: Assessment Matrix for Phase 1 locations:

Key Theme GI components or enhancements Presence/ Scoring - absence 1-20 1. Existing: 1.1 Overall significance of location in terms of its proximity to core habitats (Biotopekataster) and within the context of the habitat network (biotope Y 18 GI Network verbindung). features 1.2 Overall value in terms of providing a “stepping stone” within the biotope network which facilitates the movement and dispersal of species in response Y 17 to climate change and population demographics. 1.3 Overall contribution to landscape character and complexity Y 18 1.4 Overall value with regard to providing existing connectivity in terms of paths for walkers, cyclists and horse riders. Y 16 1.5 Overall existing value in terms of providing multifunctional greenspace to local people for events, health, wellbeing, informal recreation and play. Y 15 1.6 ES Provisioning Services: biomass energy products, wild foods, human water supply and low intensity organic agricultural production: Y 16 1.7 ES regulating services which might include C02 sequestration, absorption of atmospheric pollutants, surface water runoff, pollination services and Y 15 noise regulation. 1.8 ES cultural services including health & wellbeing, community cohesion, education, local distinctiveness, economic benefits and aesthetics. Y 19 Subtotal: 134/160

2. Actions: GI components or enhancements Presence/ Scoring - Habitat absence 1-10 management, 2.1 Maintaining, enhancing or creating habitat features or biotopes which increase the permeability of the landscape matrix through providing increased Y 9 enhancement and connectivity across the biotope network.

300 creation 2.2 Improving the general ecological condition of protected biotopes and areas within the biotope network generally through targeted management Y 9 interventions or enhancement works. 2.3 Management, enhancement or creation of “stepping stones” outside the biotope network which help to increase the permeability of the matrix Y 7 particularly in areas where there is little or no existing connectivity at present. 2.4 Activities which specifically target key indicator species within the biotope network therefore improving overall ecosystem health and function. Y 5 2.5 Biological surveying, record keeping and site monitoring Y 5 Subtotal: 35/50

4. Actions: GI components or enhancements Presence/ Scoring - Path networks, absence 1-10 signage and 4.1 Maintaining, enhancing or creating path networks which enable or improve connectivity for walkers, cyclists and horse riders (physical resource). Y 6 interpretation 4.2 Developing new interpretation through the creation of themed routes, signage, publications and web based information. Y 9 4.3 Promoting recreation, health and active travel benefits of path networks to develop the potential contribution of these networks to local Y 9 sustainability. 4.4 Mapping and recording activity of path networks. Y 7 4.5 Developing sustainable tourism through generating income and inward investment which benefits local business and service providers. Y 9 4.6 Undertaking organised events such as “guided walks” which promote greater awareness and use of the path network as a resource for recreation, Y 9 health and active travel. Subtotal: 49/60

5. Actions: GI components or enhancements Presence/ Scoring - Ecosystem Service absence 1-10 Function Delivery 5.1 Enhancing and sustainable management of ES provisioning services delivery which might include provision of biomass energy products, wild foods, Y 8 human water supply and low intensity organic agricultural production. 5.2 Enhancing and sustainable management of ES regulating services which might include C02 sequestration, absorption of atmospheric pollutants, Y 8 surface water runoff, pollination services and noise regulation. 5.3 Enhancing and sustainable management of ES cultural services including health & wellbeing, community cohesion, education, local distinctiveness, Y 8 economic benefits and aesthetics. Subtotal: 24/30

301 6. Actions: GI components or enhancements Presence/ Scoring - Community Asset absence 1-10 Value Delivery 6.1 Improving community cohesion through creating or enhancing the role of greenspaces as informal meeting places, arts and events spaces. Y 6 6.2 Improving, enhancing or actively managing greenspaces as a resource for outdoor “natural play” and informal environmental education. Y 7 6.3 Enhancing opportunities for greenspaces to contribute to the health and wellbeing of local populations though developing their potential to provide Y 7 physical activity and relaxation potential. 6.4 Enhancing and promoting opportunities for greenspaces to provide opportunities for education and local sustainability initiatives such as community Y 8 orchard development, organic food production, wild flower meadow creation or tree planting which involves the community working together collaboratively. 6.5 Undertaking actions which help to foster a greater sense of place and local pride through association with GI features or landscape elements such as Y 9 hedges, moors, water features or distinctive species. 6.6 Undertaking capacity building through providing new models of citizen led activity such as social enterprise development, partnership working or co- Y 7 governance. 6.7 Development of skills training, rehabilitation or employability initiatives for young people or disadvantaged groups such as those with learning Y 5 disabilities. 6.8 Formulating links with mentoring agencies, local authorities and key stakeholders Y 9 Subtotal: 58/80

7. General Criteria GI components or enhancements Presence/ Scoring - absence 1-20 7.1 Availability of supplementary information such as publications and web based sources Y 16 7.2 General location within (and relative to) the defined core area i.e. overall representativeness of one of the three main zones (rural/urban/peri-urban) Y 18 7.3 Suitability as a Phase II location based upon general level of co-operation, awareness and approachability Y 15 7.4 Ease of access / travel Y 15 Subtotal: 64/80

Total Score: Total 394/500

302

AP.1.3 Rott: Assessment Matrix (V2) for Phase 1 locations:

Key Theme GI components or enhancements Presence/ Scoring - absence 1-20 1. Existing: 1.1 Overall significance of location in terms of its proximity to core habitats (Biotopekataster) and within the context of the habitat network (biotope Y 18 GI Network features verbindung). 1.2 Overall value in terms of providing a “stepping stone” within the biotope network which facilitates the movement and dispersal of species in Y 10 response to climate change and population demographics. 1.3 Overall contribution to landscape character and complexity Y 18 1.4 Overall value with regard to providing existing connectivity in terms of paths for walkers, cyclists and horse riders. Y 17 1.5 Overall existing value in terms of providing multifunctional greenspace to local people for events, health, wellbeing, informal recreation and play. Y 08 1.6 ES Provisioning Services: biomass energy products, wild foods, human water supply and low intensity organic agricultural production: Y 12 1.7 ES regulating services which might include C02 sequestration, absorption of atmospheric pollutants, surface water runoff, pollination services and Y 16 noise regulation. 1.8 ES cultural services including health & wellbeing, community cohesion, education, local distinctiveness, economic benefits and aesthetics. Y 13 Subtotal: 112/160

2. Actions: GI components or enhancements Presence/ Scoring - Habitat absence 1-10 management, 2.1 Maintaining, enhancing or creating habitat features or biotopes which increase the permeability of the landscape matrix through providing Yes 8 enhancement and increased connectivity across the biotope network.

303 creation 2.2 Improving the general ecological condition of protected biotopes and areas within the biotope network generally through targeted management Yes 9 interventions or enhancement works. 2.3 Management, enhancement or creation of “stepping stones” outside the biotope network which help to increase the permeability of the matrix Yes 8 particularly in areas where there is little or no existing connectivity at present. 2.4 Activities which specifically target key indicator species within the biotope network therefore improving overall ecosystem health and function. Yes 8 2.5 Biological surveying, record keeping and site monitoring Yes 9 Subtotal: 42/50

3. Actions: GI components or enhancements Presence/ Scoring - Landscape character absence 1-10 3.1 Enhancing or maintaining distinctive cultural landscape features such as field boundary trees, heritage trees, orchards, hedgerows, ponds, Yes 7 meadows or vernacular structures. 3.2 Mapping and recording of cultural landscape features such as field boundary trees, hedgerows or vernacular structures. Yes 7 3.3 Enhancing, maintaining or restoring overall characteristic landscape types through management interventions such as maintaining open areas. Yes 9 3.4 Increasing awareness of the overall significance of managing and protecting cultural landscapes as part of a wider green infrastructure through Yes 8 campaigns, interpretation or publications. Subtotal: 31/40

4. Actions: GI components or enhancements Presence/ Scoring - Path networks, absence 1-10 signage and 4.1 Maintaining, enhancing or creating path networks which enable or improve connectivity for walkers, cyclists and horse riders (physical resource). Yes 8 interpretation 4.2 Developing new interpretation through the creation of themed routes, signage, publications and web based information. Yes 8 4.3 Promoting recreation, health and active travel benefits of path networks to develop the potential contribution of these networks to local Yes 7 sustainability. 4.4 Mapping and recording activity of path networks. Yes 7 4.5 Developing sustainable tourism through generating income and inward investment which benefits local business and service providers. Yes 4 4.6 Undertaking organised events such as “guided walks” which promote greater awareness and use of the path network as a resource for recreation, Yes 7 health and active travel. Subtotal: 41/60

5. Actions: GI components or enhancements Presence/ Scoring - Ecosystem Service absence 1-10 Function Delivery 5.1 Enhancing and sustainable management of ES provisioning services delivery which might include provision of biomass energy products, wild foods, Yes 6 human water supply and low intensity organic agricultural production. 5.2 Enhancing and sustainable management of ES regulating services which might include C02 sequestration, absorption of atmospheric pollutants, Yes 8 surface water runoff, pollination services and noise regulation. 5.3 Enhancing and sustainable management of ES cultural services including health & wellbeing, community cohesion, education, local distinctiveness, Yes 8 economic benefits and aesthetics. Subtotal: 22/30

304 6. Actions: GI components or enhancements Presence/ Scoring - Community Asset absence 1-10 Value Delivery 6.1 Improving community cohesion through creating or enhancing the role of greenspaces as informal meeting places, arts and events spaces. Yes 9 6.2 Improving, enhancing or actively managing greenspaces as a resource for outdoor “natural play” and informal environmental education. Yes 8 6.3 Enhancing opportunities for greenspaces to contribute to the health and wellbeing of local populations though developing their potential to Yes 7 provide physical activity and relaxation potential. 6.4 Enhancing and promoting opportunities for greenspaces to provide opportunities for education and local sustainability initiatives such as Yes 8 community orchard development, organic food production, wild flower meadow creation or tree planting which involves the community working together collaboratively. 6.5 Undertaking actions which help to foster a greater sense of place and local pride through association with GI features or landscape elements such Yes 8 as hedges, moors, water features or distinctive species. 6.6 Undertaking capacity building through providing new models of citizen led activity such as social enterprise development, partnership working or Yes 7 co-governance. 6.7 Development of skills training, rehabilitation or employability initiatives for young people or disadvantaged groups such as those with learning Yes 5 disabilities. 6.8 Formulating links with mentoring agencies, local authorities and key stakeholders Yes 8 Subtotal: 60/80

7. General Criteria GI components or enhancements Presence/ Scoring - absence 1-20 7.1 Availability of supplementary information such as publications and web based sources Yes 14 7.2 General location within (and relative to) the defined core area i.e. overall representativeness of one of the three main zones (rural/urban/peri- Yes 18 urban) 7.3 Suitability as a Phase II location based upon general level of co-operation, awareness and approachability Yes 14 7.4 Ease of access / travel Yes 18 Subtotal: 64/80

Total Score: Total 372/500

305

AP.1.4 Walheim: Assessment Matrix for Phase 1 locations:

Key Theme GI components or enhancements Presence/ Scoring - absence 1-20 1. Existing: 1.1 Overall significance of location in terms of its proximity to core habitats (Biotopekataster) and within the context of the habitat network (biotope Y 18 GI Network features verbindung). 1.2 Overall value in terms of providing a “stepping stone” within the biotope network which facilitates the movement and dispersal of species in Y 10 response to climate change and population demographics. 1.3 Overall contribution to landscape character and complexity Y 15 1.4 Overall value with regard to providing existing connectivity in terms of paths for walkers, cyclists and horse riders. Y 19 1.5 Overall existing value in terms of providing multifunctional greenspace to local people for events, health, wellbeing, informal recreation and play. Y 18 1.6 ES Provisioning Services: biomass energy products, wild foods, human water supply and low intensity organic agricultural production: Y 10 1.7 ES regulating services which might include C02 sequestration, absorption of atmospheric pollutants, surface water runoff, pollination services and Y 14 noise regulation. 1.8 ES cultural services including health & wellbeing, community cohesion, education, local distinctiveness, economic benefits and aesthetics. Y 18 Subtotal: 122/160

2. Actions: GI components or enhancements Presence/ Scoring - Habitat absence 1-10 management, 2.1 Maintaining, enhancing or creating habitat features or biotopes which increase the permeability of the landscape matrix through providing Yes 3 enhancement and increased connectivity across the biotope network.

30 creation 2.2 Improving the general ecological condition of protected biotopes and areas within the biotope network generally through targeted management No 0

6 interventions or enhancement works. 2.3 Management, enhancement or creation of “stepping stones” outside the biotope network which help to increase the permeability of the matrix No 0 particularly in areas where there is little or no existing connectivity at present. 2.4 Activities which specifically target key indicator species within the biotope network therefore improving overall ecosystem health and function. No 0 2.5 Biological surveying, record keeping and site monitoring No 0 Subtotal: 03/50

3. Actions: GI components or enhancements Presence/ Scoring - Landscape character absence 1-10 3.1 Enhancing or maintaining distinctive cultural landscape features such as field boundary trees, heritage trees, orchards, hedgerows, ponds, No 0 meadows or vernacular structures. 3.2 Mapping and recording of cultural landscape features such as field boundary trees, hedgerows or vernacular structures. No 0 3.3 Enhancing, maintaining or restoring overall characteristic landscape types through management interventions such as maintaining open areas. Yes 5 3.4 Increasing awareness of the overall significance of managing and protecting cultural landscapes as part of a wider green infrastructure through No 0 campaigns, interpretation or publications. Subtotal: 05/40

4. Actions: GI components or enhancements Presence/ Scoring - Path networks, absence 1-10 signage and 4.1 Maintaining, enhancing or creating path networks which enable or improve connectivity for walkers, cyclists and horse riders (physical resource). Yes 5 interpretation 4.2 Developing new interpretation through the creation of themed routes, signage, publications and web based information. Yes 5 4.3 Promoting recreation, health and active travel benefits of path networks to develop the potential contribution of these networks to local Yes 7 sustainability. 4.4 Mapping and recording activity of path networks. No 0 4.5 Developing sustainable tourism through generating income and inward investment which benefits local business and service providers. No 0 4.6 Undertaking organised events such as “guided walks” which promote greater awareness and use of the path network as a resource for recreation, No 0 health and active travel. Subtotal: 17/60

5. Actions: GI components or enhancements Presence/ Scoring - Ecosystem Service absence 1-10 Function Delivery 5.1 Enhancing and sustainable management of ES provisioning services delivery which might include provision of biomass energy products, wild foods, No 0 human water supply and low intensity organic agricultural production. 5.2 Enhancing and sustainable management of ES regulating services which might include C02 sequestration, absorption of atmospheric pollutants, Yes 4 surface water runoff, pollination services and noise regulation. 5.3 Enhancing and sustainable management of ES cultural services including health & wellbeing, community cohesion, education, local distinctiveness, Yes 8 economic benefits and aesthetics. Subtotal: 12/30

307 6. Actions: GI components or enhancements Presence/ Scoring - Community Asset absence 1-10 Value Delivery 6.1 Improving community cohesion through creating or enhancing the role of greenspaces as informal meeting places, arts and events spaces. Yes 9 6.2 Improving, enhancing or actively managing greenspaces as a resource for outdoor “natural play” and informal environmental education. Yes 9 6.3 Enhancing opportunities for greenspaces to contribute to the health and wellbeing of local populations though developing their potential to Yes 9 provide physical activity and relaxation potential. 6.4 Enhancing and promoting opportunities for greenspaces to provide opportunities for education and local sustainability initiatives such as Yes 4 community orchard development, organic food production, wild flower meadow creation or tree planting which involves the community working together collaboratively. 6.5 Undertaking actions which help to foster a greater sense of place and local pride through association with GI features or landscape elements such Yes 3 as hedges, moors, water features or distinctive species. 6.6 Undertaking capacity building through providing new models of citizen led activity such as social enterprise development, partnership working or Yes 5 co-governance. 6.7 Development of skills training, rehabilitation or employability initiatives for young people or disadvantaged groups such as those with learning No 0 disabilities. 6.8 Formulating links with mentoring agencies, local authorities and key stakeholders Yes 5 Subtotal: 44/80

7. General Criteria GI components or enhancements Presence/ Scoring - absence 1-20 7.1 Availability of supplementary information such as publications and web based sources Yes 10 7.2 General location within (and relative to) the defined core area i.e. overall representativeness of one of the three main zones (rural/urban/peri- Yes 14 urban) 7.3 Suitability as a Phase II location based upon general level of co-operation, awareness and approachability Yes 12 7.4 Ease of access / travel Yes 19 Subtotal: 55/80

Total Score: Total 258/500

308

AP.1.5 Hebscheid: Assessment Matrix for Phase 1 locations:

Key Theme GI components or enhancements Presence/ Scoring - absence 1-20 1. Existing: 1.1 Overall significance of location in terms of its proximity to core habitats (Biotopekataster) and within the context of the habitat network (biotope Yes 18 GI Network features verbindung). 1.2 Overall value in terms of providing a “stepping stone” within the biotope network which facilitates the movement and dispersal of species in Yes 10 response to climate change and population demographics. 1.3 Overall contribution to landscape character and complexity Yes 17 1.4 Overall value with regard to providing existing connectivity in terms of paths for walkers, cyclists and horse riders. Yes 12 1.5 Overall existing value in terms of providing multifunctional greenspace to local people for events, health, wellbeing, informal recreation and play. Yes 12 1.6 ES Provisioning Services: biomass energy products, wild foods, human water supply and low intensity organic agricultural production: Yes 18 1.7 ES regulating services which might include C02 sequestration, absorption of atmospheric pollutants, surface water runoff, pollination services and noise regulation. Yes 17 1.8 ES cultural services including health & wellbeing, community cohesion, education, local distinctiveness, economic benefits and aesthetics. Yes 18 Subtotal: 122/160

309 2. Actions: GI components or enhancements Presence/ Scoring - Habitat absence 1-10 management, 2.1 Maintaining, enhancing or creating habitat features or biotopes which increase the permeability of the landscape matrix through providing Yes 5 enhancement and increased connectivity across the biotope network. creation 2.2 Improving the general ecological condition of protected biotopes and areas within the biotope network generally through targeted management Yes 5 interventions or enhancement works. 2.3 Management, enhancement or creation of “stepping stones” outside the biotope network which help to increase the permeability of the matrix No 0 particularly in areas where there is little or no existing connectivity at present. 2.4 Activities which specifically target key indicator species within the biotope network therefore improving overall ecosystem health and function. No 0 2.5 Biological surveying, record keeping and site monitoring No 0 Subtotal: 10/50

3. Actions: GI components or enhancements Presence/ Scoring - Landscape character absence 1-10 3.1 Enhancing or maintaining distinctive cultural landscape features such as field boundary trees, heritage trees, orchards, hedgerows, ponds, Yes 5 meadows or vernacular structures. 3.2 Mapping and recording of cultural landscape features such as field boundary trees, hedgerows or vernacular structures. No 0 3.3 Enhancing, maintaining or restoring overall characteristic landscape types through management interventions such as maintaining open areas. Yes 5 3.4 Increasing awareness of the overall significance of managing and protecting cultural landscapes as part of a wider green infrastructure through No 0 campaigns, interpretation or publications. Subtotal: 10/40

4. Actions: GI components or enhancements Presence/ Scoring - Path networks, absence 1-10 signage and 4.1 Maintaining, enhancing or creating path networks which enable or improve connectivity for walkers, cyclists and horse riders (physical resource). No 0 interpretation 4.2 Developing new interpretation through the creation of themed routes, signage, publications and web based information. No 2 4.3 Promoting recreation, health and active travel benefits of path networks to develop the potential contribution of these networks to local No 0 sustainability. 4.4 Mapping and recording activity of path networks. No 0 4.5 Developing sustainable tourism through generating income and inward investment which benefits local business and service providers. Yes 5 4.6 Undertaking organised events such as “guided walks” which promote greater awareness and use of the path network as a resource for recreation, No 5 health and active travel. Subtotal: 12/60

5. Actions: GI components or enhancements Presence/ Scoring - Ecosystem Service absence 1-10 Function Delivery 5.1 Enhancing and sustainable management of ES provisioning services delivery which might include provision of biomass energy products, wild foods, Yes 8 human water supply and low intensity organic agricultural production. 5.2 Enhancing and sustainable management of ES regulating services which might include C02 sequestration, absorption of atmospheric pollutants, Yes 7 surface water runoff, pollination services and noise regulation. 5.3 Enhancing and sustainable management of ES cultural services including health & wellbeing, community cohesion, education, local distinctiveness, Yes 7 economic benefits and aesthetics. Subtotal: 22/30

310 6. Actions: GI components or enhancements Presence/ Scoring - Community Asset absence 1-10 Value Delivery 6.1 Improving community cohesion through creating or enhancing the role of greenspaces as informal meeting places, arts and events spaces. Yes 6 6.2 Improving, enhancing or actively managing greenspaces as a resource for outdoor “natural play” and informal environmental education. Yes 4 6.3 Enhancing opportunities for greenspaces to contribute to the health and wellbeing of local populations though developing their potential to Yes 4 provide physical activity and relaxation potential. 6.4 Enhancing and promoting opportunities for greenspaces to provide opportunities for education and local sustainability initiatives such as Yes 7 community orchard development, organic food production, wild flower meadow creation or tree planting which involves the community working together collaboratively. 6.5 Undertaking actions which help to foster a greater sense of place and local pride through association with GI features or landscape elements such Yes 5 as hedges, moors, water features or distinctive species. 6.6 Undertaking capacity building through providing new models of citizen led activity such as social enterprise development, partnership working or Yes 10 co-governance. 6.7 Development of skills training, rehabilitation or employability initiatives for young people or disadvantaged groups such as those with learning Yes 10 disabilities. 6.8 Formulating links with mentoring agencies, local authorities and key stakeholders Yes 7 Subtotal: 53/80

7. General Criteria GI components or enhancements Presence/ Scoring - absence 1-20 7.1 Availability of supplementary information such as publications and web based sources Yes 14 7.2 General location within (and relative to) the defined core area i.e. overall representativeness of one of the three main zones (rural/urban/peri- Yes 10 urban) 7.3 Suitability as a Phase II location based upon general level of co-operation, awareness and approachability Yes 8 7.4 Ease of access / travel Yes 18 Subtotal: 50/80

Total Score: Total 279/500

311

AP.1.6 Vicht: Assessment Matrix for Phase 1 locations:

Key Theme GI components or enhancements Presence/ Scoring - absence 1-20 1. Existing: 1.1 Overall significance of location in terms of its proximity to core habitats (Biotopekataster) and within the context of the habitat network (biotope Y 19 GI Network verbindung). features 1.2 Overall value in terms of providing a “stepping stone” within the biotope network which facilitates the movement and dispersal of species in response Y 10 to climate change and population demographics. 1.3 Overall contribution to landscape character and complexity Y 18 1.4 Overall value with regard to providing existing connectivity in terms of paths for walkers, cyclists and horse riders. Y 18 1.5 Overall existing value in terms of providing multifunctional greenspace to local people for events, health, wellbeing, informal recreation and play. Y 13 1.6 ES Provisioning Services: biomass energy products, wild foods, human water supply and low intensity organic agricultural production: Y 14 1.7 ES regulating services which might include C02 sequestration, absorption of atmospheric pollutants, surface water runoff, pollination services and Y 16 noise regulation. 1.8 ES cultural services including health & wellbeing, community cohesion, education, local distinctiveness, economic benefits and aesthetics. Y 16 Subtotal: 124/160

2. Actions: GI components or enhancements Presence/ Scoring - Habitat absence 1-10

312 management, 2.1 Maintaining, enhancing or creating habitat features or biotopes which increase the permeability of the landscape matrix through providing increased N 0 enhancement and connectivity across the biotope network.

creation 2.2 Improving the general ecological condition of protected biotopes and areas within the biotope network generally through targeted management N 0 interventions or enhancement works. 2.3 Management, enhancement or creation of “stepping stones” outside the biotope network which help to increase the permeability of the matrix N 0 particularly in areas where there is little or no existing connectivity at present. 2.4 Activities which specifically target key indicator species within the biotope network therefore improving overall ecosystem health and function. N 0 2.5 Biological surveying, record keeping and site monitoring N 0

Subtotal: 0/50

3. Actions: GI components or enhancements Presence/ Scoring - Landscape absence 1-10 character 3.1 Enhancing or maintaining distinctive cultural landscape features such as field boundary trees, heritage trees, orchards, hedgerows, ponds, meadows y 4 or vernacular structures. 3.2 Mapping and recording of cultural landscape features such as field boundary trees, hedgerows or vernacular structures. Y 3 3.3 Enhancing, maintaining or restoring overall characteristic landscape types through management interventions such as maintaining open areas. Y 4 3.4 Increasing awareness of the overall significance of managing and protecting cultural landscapes as part of a wider green infrastructure through Y 6 campaigns, interpretation or publications. Subtotal: 17/40

4. Actions: GI components or enhancements Presence/ Scoring - Path networks, absence 1-10 signage and 4.1 Maintaining, enhancing or creating path networks which enable or improve connectivity for walkers, cyclists and horse riders (physical resource). Y 4 interpretation 4.2 Developing new interpretation through the creation of themed routes, signage, publications and web based information. Y 8 4.3 Promoting recreation, health and active travel benefits of path networks to develop the potential contribution of these networks to local Y 7 sustainability. 4.4 Mapping and recording activity of path networks. Y 4 4.5 Developing sustainable tourism through generating income and inward investment which benefits local business and service providers. Y 6 4.6 Undertaking organised events such as “guided walks” which promote greater awareness and use of the path network as a resource for recreation, Y 6 health and active travel. Subtotal: 35/60

5. Actions: GI components or enhancements Presence/ Scoring - Ecosystem Service absence 1-10 Function Delivery 5.1 Enhancing and sustainable management of ES provisioning services delivery which might include provision of biomass energy products, wild foods, N 0 human water supply and low intensity organic agricultural production. 5.2 Enhancing and sustainable management of ES regulating services which might include C02 sequestration, absorption of atmospheric pollutants, N 0 surface water runoff, pollination services and noise regulation. 5.3 Enhancing and sustainable management of ES cultural services including health & wellbeing, community cohesion, education, local distinctiveness, Y 8 economic benefits and aesthetics. Subtotal: 8/30

313 6. Actions: GI components or enhancements Presence/ Scoring - Community Asset absence 1-10 Value Delivery 6.1 Improving community cohesion through creating or enhancing the role of greenspaces as informal meeting places, arts and events spaces. Y 2 6.2 Improving, enhancing or actively managing greenspaces as a resource for outdoor “natural play” and informal environmental education. Y 4 6.3 Enhancing opportunities for greenspaces to contribute to the health and wellbeing of local populations though developing their potential to provide Y 6 physical activity and relaxation potential. 6.4 Enhancing and promoting opportunities for greenspaces to provide opportunities for education and local sustainability initiatives such as community Y 3 orchard development, organic food production, wild flower meadow creation or tree planting which involves the community working together collaboratively. 6.5 Undertaking actions which help to foster a greater sense of place and local pride through association with GI features or landscape elements such as Y 5 hedges, moors, water features or distinctive species. 6.6 Undertaking capacity building through providing new models of citizen led activity such as social enterprise development, partnership working or co- Y 5 governance. 6.7 Development of skills training, rehabilitation or employability initiatives for young people or disadvantaged groups such as those with learning N 0 disabilities. 6.8 Formulating links with mentoring agencies, local authorities and key stakeholders Y 7 Subtotal: 32/80

7. General Criteria GI components or enhancements Presence/ Scoring - absence 1-20 7.1 Availability of supplementary information such as publications and web based sources Y 15 7.2 General location within (and relative to) the defined core area i.e. overall representativeness of one of the three main zones (rural/urban/peri-urban) Y 13 7.3 Suitability as a Phase II location based upon general level of co-operation, awareness and approachability Y 11 7.4 Ease of access / travel Y 15 Subtotal: 54/80

Total Score: Total 270/500

314

AP.1.7 Soermondt Community Greenspace. Assessment Matrix for Phase 1 locations:

Key Theme GI components or enhancements Presence/ Scoring - absence 1-20 1. Existing: 1.1 Overall significance of location in terms of its proximity to core habitats (Biotopekataster) and within the context of the habitat network (biotope No 0 GI Network verbindung). features 1.2 Overall value in terms of providing a “stepping stone” within the biotope network which facilitates the movement and dispersal of species in response Yes 10 to climate change and population demographics. 1.3 Overall contribution to landscape character and complexity Yes 12 1.4 Overall value with regard to providing existing connectivity in terms of paths for walkers, cyclists and horse riders. Yes 8 1.5 Overall existing value in terms of providing multifunctional greenspace to local people for events, health, wellbeing, informal recreation and play. Yes 18 1.6 ES Provisioning Services: biomass energy products, wild foods, human water supply and low intensity organic agricultural production: Yes 16 1.7 ES regulating services which might include C02 sequestration, absorption of atmospheric pollutants, surface water runoff, pollination services and Yes 12 noise regulation. 1.8 ES cultural services including health & wellbeing, community cohesion, education, local distinctiveness, economic benefits and aesthetics. Yes 18 Subtotal: 94/160

2. Actions: GI components or enhancements Presence/ Scoring - Habitat absence 1-10 management, 2.1 Maintaining, enhancing or creating habitat features or biotopes which increase the permeability of the landscape matrix through providing increased No 0 enhancement and connectivity across the biotope network.

315 creation 2.2 Improving the general ecological condition of protected biotopes and areas within the biotope network generally through targeted management No 0 interventions or enhancement works. 2.3 Management, enhancement or creation of “stepping stones” outside the biotope network which help to increase the permeability of the matrix Yes 15 particularly in areas where there is little or no existing connectivity at present. 2.4 Activities which specifically target key indicator species within the biotope network therefore improving overall ecosystem health and function. No 0 2.5 Biological surveying, record keeping and site monitoring No 0 Subtotal: 15/50

3. Actions: GI components or enhancements Presence/ Scoring - Landscape absence 1-10 character 3.1 Enhancing or maintaining distinctive cultural landscape features such as field boundary trees, heritage trees, orchards, hedgerows, ponds, meadows No 0 or vernacular structures. 3.2 Mapping and recording of cultural landscape features such as field boundary trees, hedgerows or vernacular structures. No 0 3.3 Enhancing, maintaining or restoring overall characteristic landscape types through management interventions such as maintaining open areas. No 0 3.4 Increasing awareness of the overall significance of managing and protecting cultural landscapes as part of a wider green infrastructure through No 0 campaigns, interpretation or publications. Subtotal: 0/40

4. Actions: GI components or enhancements Presence/ Scoring - Path networks, absence 1-10 signage and 4.1 Maintaining, enhancing or creating path networks which enable or improve connectivity for walkers, cyclists and horse riders (physical resource). Yes 2 interpretation 4.2 Developing new interpretation through the creation of themed routes, signage, publications and web based information. No 0 4.3 Promoting recreation, health and active travel benefits of path networks to develop the potential contribution of these networks to local No 0 sustainability. 4.4 Mapping and recording activity of path networks. No 0 4.5 Developing sustainable tourism through generating income and inward investment which benefits local business and service providers. No 0 4.6 Undertaking organised events such as “guided walks” which promote greater awareness and use of the path network as a resource for recreation, No 0 health and active travel. Subtotal: 2/60

5. Actions: GI components or enhancements Presence/ Scoring - Ecosystem Service absence 1-10 Function Delivery 5.1 Enhancing and sustainable management of ES provisioning services delivery which might include provision of biomass energy products, wild foods, Yes 8 human water supply and low intensity organic agricultural production. 5.2 Enhancing and sustainable management of ES regulating services which might include C02 sequestration, absorption of atmospheric pollutants, Yes 6 surface water runoff, pollination services and noise regulation. 5.3 Enhancing and sustainable management of ES cultural services including health & wellbeing, community cohesion, education, local distinctiveness, Yes 9 economic benefits and aesthetics. Subtotal: 23/30

316 6. Actions: GI components or enhancements Presence/ Scoring - Community Asset absence 1-10 Value Delivery 6.1 Improving community cohesion through creating or enhancing the role of greenspaces as informal meeting places, arts and events spaces. Yes 9 6.2 Improving, enhancing or actively managing greenspaces as a resource for outdoor “natural play” and informal environmental education. Yes 7 6.3 Enhancing opportunities for greenspaces to contribute to the health and wellbeing of local populations though developing their potential to provide Yes 7 physical activity and relaxation potential. 6.4 Enhancing and promoting opportunities for greenspaces to provide opportunities for education and local sustainability initiatives such as community Yes 9 orchard development, organic food production, wild flower meadow creation or tree planting which involves the community working together collaboratively. 6.5 Undertaking actions which help to foster a greater sense of place and local pride through association with GI features or landscape elements such as No 0 hedges, moors, water features or distinctive species. 6.6 Undertaking capacity building through providing new models of citizen led activity such as social enterprise development, partnership working or co- Yes 8 governance. 6.7 Development of skills training, rehabilitation or employability initiatives for young people or disadvantaged groups such as those with learning Yes 5 disabilities. 6.8 Formulating links with mentoring agencies, local authorities and key stakeholders Yes 6 Subtotal: 51/80

7. General Criteria GI components or enhancements Presence/ Scoring - absence 1-20 7.1 Availability of supplementary information such as publications and web based sources Yes 12 7.2 General location within (and relative to) the defined core area i.e. overall representativeness of one of the three main zones (rural/urban/peri-urban) Yes 20 7.3 Suitability as a Phase II location based upon general level of co-operation, awareness and approachability Yes 12 7.4 Ease of access / travel Yes 18 Subtotal: 62/80

Total Score: Total 247/500

317

AP.1.8 Busch: Assessment Matrix for Phase 1 locations:

Key Theme GI components or enhancements Presence/ Scoring - absence 1-20 1. Existing: 1.1 Overall significance of location in terms of its proximity to core habitats (Biotopekataster) and within the context of the habitat network (biotope Y 15 GI Network verbindung). features 1.2 Overall value in terms of providing a “stepping stone” within the biotope network which facilitates the movement and dispersal of species in response Y 12 to climate change and population demographics. 1.3 Overall contribution to landscape character and complexity y 12 1.4 Overall value with regard to providing existing connectivity in terms of paths for walkers, cyclists and horse riders. Y 12 1.5 Overall existing value in terms of providing multifunctional greenspace to local people for events, health, wellbeing, informal recreation and play. y 11 1.6 ES Provisioning Services: biomass energy products, wild foods, human water supply and low intensity organic agricultural production: y 9 1.7 ES regulating services which might include C02 sequestration, absorption of atmospheric pollutants, surface water runoff, pollination services and Y 10 noise regulation. 1.8 ES cultural services including health & wellbeing, community cohesion, education, local distinctiveness, economic benefits and aesthetics. y 15 Subtotal: 96/160

2. Actions: GI components or enhancements Presence/ Scoring - Habitat absence 1-10 management, 2.1 Maintaining, enhancing or creating habitat features or biotopes which increase the permeability of the landscape matrix through providing increased N 0 enhancement and connectivity across the biotope network.

318 creation 2.2 Improving the general ecological condition of protected biotopes and areas within the biotope network generally through targeted management N 0 interventions or enhancement works. 2.3 Management, enhancement or creation of “stepping stones” outside the biotope network which help to increase the permeability of the matrix Y 3 particularly in areas where there is little or no existing connectivity at present. 2.4 Activities which specifically target key indicator species within the biotope network therefore improving overall ecosystem health and function. N 0 2.5 Biological surveying, record keeping and site monitoring

Subtotal: 3/50

3. Actions: GI components or enhancements Presence/ Scoring - Landscape absence 1-10 character 3.1 Enhancing or maintaining distinctive cultural landscape features such as field boundary trees, heritage trees, orchards, hedgerows, ponds, meadows N 0 or vernacular structures. 3.2 Mapping and recording of cultural landscape features such as field boundary trees, hedgerows or vernacular structures. N 0 3.3 Enhancing, maintaining or restoring overall characteristic landscape types through management interventions such as maintaining open areas. N 0 3.4 Increasing awareness of the overall significance of managing and protecting cultural landscapes as part of a wider green infrastructure through Y 5 campaigns, interpretation or publications. Subtotal: 5/40

4. Actions: GI components or enhancements Presence/ Scoring - Path networks, absence 1-10 signage and 4.1 Maintaining, enhancing or creating path networks which enable or improve connectivity for walkers, cyclists and horse riders (physical resource). N 0 interpretation 4.2 Developing new interpretation through the creation of themed routes, signage, publications and web based information. N 0 4.3 Promoting recreation, health and active travel benefits of path networks to develop the potential contribution of these networks to local N 0 sustainability. 4.4 Mapping and recording activity of path networks. N 0 4.5 Developing sustainable tourism through generating income and inward investment which benefits local business and service providers. N 0 4.6 Undertaking organised events such as “guided walks” which promote greater awareness and use of the path network as a resource for recreation, N 0 health and active travel. Subtotal: 0/60

5. Actions: GI components or enhancements Presence/ Scoring - Ecosystem Service absence 1-10 Function Delivery 5.1 Enhancing and sustainable management of ES provisioning services delivery which might include provision of biomass energy products, wild foods, N 0 human water supply and low intensity organic agricultural production. 5.2 Enhancing and sustainable management of ES regulating services which might include C02 sequestration, absorption of atmospheric pollutants, N 0 surface water runoff, pollination services and noise regulation. 5.3 Enhancing and sustainable management of ES cultural services including health & wellbeing, community cohesion, education, local distinctiveness, N 0 economic benefits and aesthetics. Subtotal: 0/30

319 6. Actions: GI components or enhancements Presence/ Scoring - Community Asset absence 1-10 Value Delivery 6.1 Improving community cohesion through creating or enhancing the role of greenspaces as informal meeting places, arts and events spaces. Y 3 6.2 Improving, enhancing or actively managing greenspaces as a resource for outdoor “natural play” and informal environmental education. N 0 6.3 Enhancing opportunities for greenspaces to contribute to the health and wellbeing of local populations though developing their potential to provide N 0 physical activity and relaxation potential. 6.4 Enhancing and promoting opportunities for greenspaces to provide opportunities for education and local sustainability initiatives such as community N 0 orchard development, organic food production, wild flower meadow creation or tree planting which involves the community working together collaboratively. 6.5 Undertaking actions which help to foster a greater sense of place and local pride through association with GI features or landscape elements such as Y 3 hedges, moors, water features or distinctive species. 6.6 Undertaking capacity building through providing new models of citizen led activity such as social enterprise development, partnership working or co- Y 3 governance. 6.7 Development of skills training, rehabilitation or employability initiatives for young people or disadvantaged groups such as those with learning N 0 disabilities. 6.8 Formulating links with mentoring agencies, local authorities and key stakeholders Y 6 Subtotal: 15/80

7. General Criteria GI components or enhancements Presence/ Scoring - absence 1-20 7.1 Availability of supplementary information such as publications and web based sources N 0 7.2 General location within (and relative to) the defined core area i.e. overall representativeness of one of the three main zones (rural/urban/peri-urban) Y 7 7.3 Suitability as a Phase II location based upon general level of co-operation, awareness and approachability N 0 7.4 Ease of access / travel Y 12 Subtotal: 19/80

Total Score: Total 138/500

320

AP.1.9 Unteres Briochbachtal - Assessment Matrix for Phase 1 locations:

Key Theme GI components or enhancements Presence/ Scoring - absence 1-20 1. Existing: 1.1 Overall significance of location in terms of its proximity to core habitats (Biotopekataster) and within the context of the habitat network (biotope Yes 19 GI Network verbindung). features 1.2 Overall value in terms of providing a “stepping stone” within the biotope network which facilitates the movement and dispersal of species in response Yes 10 to climate change and population demographics. 1.3 Overall contribution to landscape character and complexity Yes 19 1.4 Overall value with regard to providing existing connectivity in terms of paths for walkers, cyclists and horse riders. Yes 19 1.5 Overall existing value in terms of providing multifunctional greenspace to local people for events, health, wellbeing, informal recreation and play. Yes 18 1.6 ES Provisioning Services: biomass energy products, wild foods, human water supply and low intensity organic agricultural production: Yes 10 1.7 ES regulating services which might include C02 sequestration, absorption of atmospheric pollutants, surface water runoff, pollination services and Yes 18 noise regulation. 1.8 ES cultural services including health & wellbeing, community cohesion, education, local distinctiveness, economic benefits and aesthetics. Yes 18 Subtotal: 131/160

2. Actions: GI components or enhancements Presence/ Scoring - Habitat absence 1-10 management, 2.1 Maintaining, enhancing or creating habitat features or biotopes which increase the permeability of the landscape matrix through providing increased Yes 2 enhancement and connectivity across the biotope network.

321 creation 2.2 Improving the general ecological condition of protected biotopes and areas within the biotope network generally through targeted management Yes 2 interventions or enhancement works. 2.3 Management, enhancement or creation of “stepping stones” outside the biotope network which help to increase the permeability of the matrix No 0 particularly in areas where there is little or no existing connectivity at present. 2.4 Activities which specifically target key indicator species within the biotope network therefore improving overall ecosystem health and function. No 0 2.5 Biological surveying, record keeping and site monitoring No 0 Subtotal: 4/50

3. Actions: GI components or enhancements Presence/ Scoring - Landscape absence 1-10 character 3.1 Enhancing or maintaining distinctive cultural landscape features such as field boundary trees, heritage trees, orchards, hedgerows, ponds, meadows Yes 6 or vernacular structures. 3.2 Mapping and recording of cultural landscape features such as field boundary trees, hedgerows or vernacular structures. Yes 2 3.3 Enhancing, maintaining or restoring overall characteristic landscape types through management interventions such as maintaining open areas. Yes 2 3.4 Increasing awareness of the overall significance of managing and protecting cultural landscapes as part of a wider green infrastructure through Yes 2 campaigns, interpretation or publications. Subtotal: 12/40

4.3 Promoting recreation, health and active travel benefits of path networks to develop the potential contribution of these networks to local No 0 sustainability. 4.4 Mapping and recording activity of path networks. No 0 4.5 Developing sustainable tourism through generating income and inward investment which benefits local business and service providers. Yes 2 4.6 Undertaking organised events such as “guided walks” which promote greater awareness and use of the path network as a resource for recreation, Yes 2 health and active travel. Subtotal: 10/60

5. Actions: GI components or enhancements Presence/ Scoring - Ecosystem Service absence 1-10 Function Delivery 5.1 Enhancing and sustainable management of ES provisioning services delivery which might include provision of biomass energy products, wild foods, No 0 human water supply and low intensity organic agricultural production. 5.2 Enhancing and sustainable management of ES regulating services which might include C02 sequestration, absorption of atmospheric pollutants, No 0 surface water runoff, pollination services and noise regulation. 5.3 Enhancing and sustainable management of ES cultural services including health & wellbeing, community cohesion, education, local distinctiveness, Yes 7 economic benefits and aesthetics. Subtotal: 7/30

6. Actions: GI components or enhancements Presence/ Scoring -

322 Community Asset absence 1-10 Value Delivery 6.1 Improving community cohesion through creating or enhancing the role of greenspaces as informal meeting places, arts and events spaces. Yes 6 6.2 Improving, enhancing or actively managing greenspaces as a resource for outdoor “natural play” and informal environmental education. Yes 5 6.3 Enhancing opportunities for greenspaces to contribute to the health and wellbeing of local populations though developing their potential to provide Yes 6 physical activity and relaxation potential. 6.4 Enhancing and promoting opportunities for greenspaces to provide opportunities for education and local sustainability initiatives such as community Yes 2 orchard development, organic food production, wild flower meadow creation or tree planting which involves the community working together collaboratively. 6.5 Undertaking actions which help to foster a greater sense of place and local pride through association with GI features or landscape elements such as Yes 2 hedges, moors, water features or distinctive species. 6.6 Undertaking capacity building through providing new models of citizen led activity such as social enterprise development, partnership working or co- Yes 2 governance. 6.7 Development of skills training, rehabilitation or employability initiatives for young people or disadvantaged groups such as those with learning No 0 disabilities. 6.8 Formulating links with mentoring agencies, local authorities and key stakeholders Yes 4 Subtotal: 27/80

7. General Criteria GI components or enhancements Presence/ Scoring - absence 1-20 7.1 Availability of supplementary information such as publications and web based sources Yes 12 7.2 General location within (and relative to) the defined core area i.e. overall representativeness of one of the three main zones (rural/urban/peri-urban) Yes 15 7.3 Suitability as a Phase II location based upon general level of co-operation, awareness and approachability Yes 12 7.4 Ease of access / travel Yes 16

Subtotal: 55/80

Total Score: Total 246/500

323

AP.1.10 Worm-Wildnis: Assessment Matrix for Phase 1 locations.

Key Theme GI components or enhancements Presence/ Scoring - absence 1-20 1. Existing: 1.1 Overall significance of location in terms of its proximity to core habitats (Biotopekataster) and within the context of the habitat network (biotope Y 17 GI Network verbindung). features 1.2 Overall value in terms of providing a “stepping stone” within the biotope network which facilitates the movement and dispersal of species in response Y 10 to climate change and population demographics. 1.3 Overall contribution to landscape character and complexity Y 16 1.4 Overall value with regard to providing existing connectivity in terms of paths for walkers, cyclists and horse riders. Y 15 1.5 Overall existing value in terms of providing multifunctional greenspace to local people for events, health, wellbeing, informal recreation and play. Y 18 1.6 ES Provisioning Services: biomass energy products, wild foods, human water supply and low intensity organic agricultural production: Y 8 1.7 ES regulating services which might include C02 sequestration, absorption of atmospheric pollutants, surface water runoff, pollination services and Y 16 noise regulation. 1.8 ES cultural services including health & wellbeing, community cohesion, education, local distinctiveness, economic benefits and aesthetics. Y 18 Subtotal: 118/160

2. Actions: GI components or enhancements Presence/ Scoring - Habitat absence 1-10 management, 2.1 Maintaining, enhancing or creating habitat features or biotopes which increase the permeability of the landscape matrix through providing increased Y 4 enhancement and connectivity across the biotope network.

324 creation 2.2 Improving the general ecological condition of protected biotopes and areas within the biotope network generally through targeted management Y 4 interventions or enhancement works. 2.3 Management, enhancement or creation of “stepping stones” outside the biotope network which help to increase the permeability of the matrix Y 2 particularly in areas where there is little or no existing connectivity at present. 2.4 Activities which specifically target key indicator species within the biotope network therefore improving overall ecosystem health and function. N 0 2.5 Biological surveying, record keeping and site monitoring N 0

Subtotal: 10/50

3. Actions: GI components or enhancements Presence/ Scoring - Landscape absence 1-10 character 3.1 Enhancing or maintaining distinctive cultural landscape features such as field boundary trees, heritage trees, orchards, hedgerows, ponds, meadows Y 4 or vernacular structures. 3.2 Mapping and recording of cultural landscape features such as field boundary trees, hedgerows or vernacular structures. N 0 3.3 Enhancing, maintaining or restoring overall characteristic landscape types through management interventions such as maintaining open areas. Y 3 3.4 Increasing awareness of the overall significance of managing and protecting cultural landscapes as part of a wider green infrastructure through Y 6 campaigns, interpretation or publications. Subtotal: 13/40

4. Actions: GI components or enhancements Presence/ Scoring - Path networks, absence 1-10 signage and 4.1 Maintaining, enhancing or creating path networks which enable or improve connectivity for walkers, cyclists and horse riders (physical resource). Y 6 interpretation 4.2 Developing new interpretation through the creation of themed routes, signage, publications and web based information. Y 5 4.3 Promoting recreation, health and active travel benefits of path networks to develop the potential contribution of these networks to local Y 5 sustainability. 4.4 Mapping and recording activity of path networks. Y 5 4.5 Developing sustainable tourism through generating income and inward investment which benefits local business and service providers. N 0 4.6 Undertaking organised events such as “guided walks” which promote greater awareness and use of the path network as a resource for recreation, Y 4 health and active travel. Subtotal: 25/60

5. Actions: GI components or enhancements Presence/ Scoring - Ecosystem Service absence 1-10 Function Delivery 5.1 Enhancing and sustainable management of ES provisioning services delivery which might include provision of biomass energy products, wild foods, Y 2 human water supply and low intensity organic agricultural production. 5.2 Enhancing and sustainable management of ES regulating services which might include C02 sequestration, absorption of atmospheric pollutants, Y 4 surface water runoff, pollination services and noise regulation. 5.3 Enhancing and sustainable management of ES cultural services including health & wellbeing, community cohesion, education, local distinctiveness, Y 8 economic benefits and aesthetics. Subtotal: 14/30

325 6. Actions: GI components or enhancements Presence/ Scoring - Community Asset absence 1-10 Value Delivery 6.1 Improving community cohesion through creating or enhancing the role of greenspaces as informal meeting places, arts and events spaces. Y 9 6.2 Improving, enhancing or actively managing greenspaces as a resource for outdoor “natural play” and informal environmental education. Y 8 6.3 Enhancing opportunities for greenspaces to contribute to the health and wellbeing of local populations though developing their potential to provide Y 7 physical activity and relaxation potential. 6.4 Enhancing and promoting opportunities for greenspaces to provide opportunities for education and local sustainability initiatives such as community Y 6 orchard development, organic food production, wild flower meadow creation or tree planting which involves the community working together collaboratively. 6.5 Undertaking actions which help to foster a greater sense of place and local pride through association with GI features or landscape elements such as Y 7 hedges, moors, water features or distinctive species. 6.6 Undertaking capacity building through providing new models of citizen led activity such as social enterprise development, partnership working or co- Y 5 governance. 6.7 Development of skills training, rehabilitation or employability initiatives for young people or disadvantaged groups such as those with learning Y 3 disabilities. 6.8 Formulating links with mentoring agencies, local authorities and key stakeholders Y 7 Subtotal: 52/80

7. General Criteria GI components or enhancements Presence/ Scoring - absence 1-20 7.1 Availability of supplementary information such as publications and web based sources Y 12 7.2 General location within (and relative to) the defined core area i.e. overall representativeness of one of the three main zones (rural/urban/peri-urban) Y 12 7.3 Suitability as a Phase II location based upon general level of co-operation, awareness and approachability Y 16 7.4 Ease of access / travel Y 12 Subtotal: 52/80

Total Score: Total 284/500

326

AP.1.11 Merkstein, Herzogenrath - Assessment Matrix for Phase 1 locations:

Key Theme GI components or enhancements Presence/ Scoring - absence 1-20 1. Existing: 1.1 Overall significance of location in terms of its proximity to core habitats (Biotopekataster) and within the context of the habitat network (biotope Y 17 GI Network verbindung). features 1.2 Overall value in terms of providing a “stepping stone” within the biotope network which facilitates the movement and dispersal of species in response Y 12 to climate change and population demographics. 1.3 Overall contribution to landscape character and complexity Y 18 1.4 Overall value with regard to providing existing connectivity in terms of paths for walkers, cyclists and horse riders. Y 16 1.5 Overall existing value in terms of providing multifunctional greenspace to local people for events, health, wellbeing, informal recreation and play. Y 16 1.6 ES Provisioning Services: biomass energy products, wild foods, human water supply and low intensity organic agricultural production: Y 12 1.7 ES regulating services which might include C02 sequestration, absorption of atmospheric pollutants, surface water runoff, pollination services and Y 14 noise regulation. 1.8 ES cultural services including health & wellbeing, community cohesion, education, local distinctiveness, economic benefits and aesthetics. Y 15 Subtotal: 120/160

2. Actions: GI components or enhancements Presence/ Scoring - Habitat absence 1-10 management, 2.1 Maintaining, enhancing or creating habitat features or biotopes which increase the permeability of the landscape matrix through providing increased N 10 enhancement and connectivity across the biotope network.

327 creation 2.2 Improving the general ecological condition of protected biotopes and areas within the biotope network generally through targeted management N 0 interventions or enhancement works. 2.3 Management, enhancement or creation of “stepping stones” outside the biotope network which help to increase the permeability of the matrix N 0 particularly in areas where there is little or no existing connectivity at present. 2.4 Activities which specifically target key indicator species within the biotope network therefore improving overall ecosystem health and function. N 0 2.5 Biological surveying, record keeping and site monitoring N 0

Subtotal: 10/50

3. Actions: GI components or enhancements Presence/ Scoring - Landscape absence 1-10 character 3.1 Enhancing or maintaining distinctive cultural landscape features such as field boundary trees, heritage trees, orchards, hedgerows, ponds, meadows N 0 or vernacular structures. 3.2 Mapping and recording of cultural landscape features such as field boundary trees, hedgerows or vernacular structures. N 0 3.3 Enhancing, maintaining or restoring overall characteristic landscape types through management interventions such as maintaining open areas. N 0 3.4 Increasing awareness of the overall significance of managing and protecting cultural landscapes as part of a wider green infrastructure through Y 2 campaigns, interpretation or publications. Subtotal: 2/40

4. Actions: GI components or enhancements Presence/ Scoring - Path networks, absence 1-10 signage and 4.1 Maintaining, enhancing or creating path networks which enable or improve connectivity for walkers, cyclists and horse riders (physical resource). N 0 interpretation 4.2 Developing new interpretation through the creation of themed routes, signage, publications and web based information. N 0 4.3 Promoting recreation, health and active travel benefits of path networks to develop the potential contribution of these networks to local N 0 sustainability. 4.4 Mapping and recording activity of path networks. N 0 4.5 Developing sustainable tourism through generating income and inward investment which benefits local business and service providers. N 0 4.6 Undertaking organised events such as “guided walks” which promote greater awareness and use of the path network as a resource for recreation, Y 6 health and active travel. Subtotal: 6/60

5. Actions: GI components or enhancements Presence/ Scoring - Ecosystem Service absence 1-10 Function Delivery 5.1 Enhancing and sustainable management of ES provisioning services delivery which might include provision of biomass energy products, wild foods, N 0 human water supply and low intensity organic agricultural production. 5.2 Enhancing and sustainable management of ES regulating services which might include C02 sequestration, absorption of atmospheric pollutants, N 0 surface water runoff, pollination services and noise regulation. 5.3 Enhancing and sustainable management of ES cultural services including health & wellbeing, community cohesion, education, local distinctiveness, Y 6 economic benefits and aesthetics. Subtotal: 6/30

328 6. Actions: GI components or enhancements Presence/ Scoring - Community Asset absence 1-10 Value Delivery 6.1 Improving community cohesion through creating or enhancing the role of greenspaces as informal meeting places, arts and events spaces. Y 7 6.2 Improving, enhancing or actively managing greenspaces as a resource for outdoor “natural play” and informal environmental education. N 0 6.3 Enhancing opportunities for greenspaces to contribute to the health and wellbeing of local populations though developing their potential to provide N 0 physical activity and relaxation potential. 6.4 Enhancing and promoting opportunities for greenspaces to provide opportunities for education and local sustainability initiatives such as community Y 2 orchard development, organic food production, wild flower meadow creation or tree planting which involves the community working together collaboratively. 6.5 Undertaking actions which help to foster a greater sense of place and local pride through association with GI features or landscape elements such as Y 2 hedges, moors, water features or distinctive species. 6.6 Undertaking capacity building through providing new models of citizen led activity such as social enterprise development, partnership working or co- N 0 governance. 6.7 Development of skills training, rehabilitation or employability initiatives for young people or disadvantaged groups such as those with learning N 0 disabilities. 6.8 Formulating links with mentoring agencies, local authorities and key stakeholders N 0 Subtotal: 11/80

7. General Criteria GI components or enhancements Presence/ Scoring - absence 1-20 7.1 Availability of supplementary information such as publications and web based sources Y 10 7.2 General location within (and relative to) the defined core area i.e. overall representativeness of one of the three main zones (rural/urban/peri-urban) Y 18 7.3 Suitability as a Phase II location based upon general level of co-operation, awareness and approachability Y 14 7.4 Ease of access / travel Y 12 Subtotal: 54/80

Total Score: Total 209/500

329

AP.1.12 Wurmtal - Assessment Matrix for Phase 1 locations:

Key Theme GI components or enhancements Presence/ Scoring - absence 1-20 1. Existing: 1.1 Overall significance of location in terms of its proximity to core habitats (Biotopekataster) and within the context of the habitat network (biotope Y 19 GI Network verbindung). features 1.2 Overall value in terms of providing a “stepping stone” within the biotope network which facilitates the movement and dispersal of species in response Y 15 to climate change and population demographics. 1.3 Overall contribution to landscape character and complexity Y 18 1.4 Overall value with regard to providing existing connectivity in terms of paths for walkers, cyclists and horse riders. Y 18 1.5 Overall existing value in terms of providing multifunctional greenspace to local people for events, health, wellbeing, informal recreation and play. Y 16 1.6 ES Provisioning Services: biomass energy products, wild foods, human water supply and low intensity organic agricultural production: Y 12 1.7 ES regulating services which might include C02 sequestration, absorption of atmospheric pollutants, surface water runoff, pollination services and Y 18 noise regulation. 1.8 ES cultural services including health & wellbeing, community cohesion, education, local distinctiveness, economic benefits and aesthetics. Y 18 Subtotal: 134/160

2. Actions: GI components or enhancements Presence/ Scoring - Habitat absence 1-10 management, 2.1 Maintaining, enhancing or creating habitat features or biotopes which increase the permeability of the landscape matrix through providing increased Y 6 enhancement and connectivity across the biotope network.

330 creation 2.2 Improving the general ecological condition of protected biotopes and areas within the biotope network generally through targeted management Y 6 interventions or enhancement works. 2.3 Management, enhancement or creation of “stepping stones” outside the biotope network which help to increase the permeability of the matrix Y 5 particularly in areas where there is little or no existing connectivity at present. 2.4 Activities which specifically target key indicator species within the biotope network therefore improving overall ecosystem health and function. Y 7 2.5 Biological surveying, record keeping and site monitoring Y 8

Subtotal: 32/50

3. Actions: GI components or enhancements Presence/ Scoring - Landscape absence 1-10 character 3.1 Enhancing or maintaining distinctive cultural landscape features such as field boundary trees, heritage trees, orchards, hedgerows, ponds, meadows Y 7 or vernacular structures. 3.2 Mapping and recording of cultural landscape features such as field boundary trees, hedgerows or vernacular structures. Y 5 3.3 Enhancing, maintaining or restoring overall characteristic landscape types through management interventions such as maintaining open areas. Y 6 3.4 Increasing awareness of the overall significance of managing and protecting cultural landscapes as part of a wider green infrastructure through Y 6 campaigns, interpretation or publications. Subtotal: 24/40

4. Actions: GI components or enhancements Presence/ Scoring - Path networks, absence 1-10 signage and 4.1 Maintaining, enhancing or creating path networks which enable or improve connectivity for walkers, cyclists and horse riders (physical resource). Y 7 interpretation 4.2 Developing new interpretation through the creation of themed routes, signage, publications and web based information. Y 6 4.3 Promoting recreation, health and active travel benefits of path networks to develop the potential contribution of these networks to local Y 5 sustainability. 4.4 Mapping and recording activity of path networks. Y 4 4.5 Developing sustainable tourism through generating income and inward investment which benefits local business and service providers. Y 5 4.6 Undertaking organised events such as “guided walks” which promote greater awareness and use of the path network as a resource for recreation, Y 6 health and active travel. Subtotal: 33/60

5. Actions: GI components or enhancements Presence/ Scoring - Ecosystem Service absence 1-10 Function Delivery 5.1 Enhancing and sustainable management of ES provisioning services delivery which might include provision of biomass energy products, wild foods, Y 4 human water supply and low intensity organic agricultural production. 5.2 Enhancing and sustainable management of ES regulating services which might include C02 sequestration, absorption of atmospheric pollutants, Y 6 surface water runoff, pollination services and noise regulation. 5.3 Enhancing and sustainable management of ES cultural services including health & wellbeing, community cohesion, education, local distinctiveness, Y 6 economic benefits and aesthetics. Subtotal: 16/30

331 6. Actions: GI components or enhancements Presence/ Scoring - Community Asset absence 1-10 Value Delivery 6.1 Improving community cohesion through creating or enhancing the role of greenspaces as informal meeting places, arts and events spaces. Y 3 6.2 Improving, enhancing or actively managing greenspaces as a resource for outdoor “natural play” and informal environmental education. Y 3 6.3 Enhancing opportunities for greenspaces to contribute to the health and wellbeing of local populations though developing their potential to provide Y 4 physical activity and relaxation potential. 6.4 Enhancing and promoting opportunities for greenspaces to provide opportunities for education and local sustainability initiatives such as community Y 3 orchard development, organic food production, wild flower meadow creation or tree planting which involves the community working together collaboratively. 6.5 Undertaking actions which help to foster a greater sense of place and local pride through association with GI features or landscape elements such as N 0 hedges, moors, water features or distinctive species. 6.6 Undertaking capacity building through providing new models of citizen led activity such as social enterprise development, partnership working or co- N 0 governance. 6.7 Development of skills training, rehabilitation or employability initiatives for young people or disadvantaged groups such as those with learning N 0 disabilities. 6.8 Formulating links with mentoring agencies, local authorities and key stakeholders Y 4 Subtotal: 17/80

7. General Criteria GI components or enhancements Presence/ Scoring - absence 1-20 7.1 Availability of supplementary information such as publications and web based sources Y 14 7.2 General location within (and relative to) the defined core area i.e. overall representativeness of one of the three main zones (rural/urban/peri-urban) Y 18 7.3 Suitability as a Phase II location based upon general level of co-operation, awareness and approachability N 10 7.4 Ease of access / travel Y 13 Subtotal: 55/80

Total Score: Total 311/500

332

AP.1.13 Stolberg: Assessment Matrix for Phase 1 locations:

This site was not formally assessed: relationship to specific site and locality not sufficiently focused to be considered for Phase II. The location was also outwith the proposed Phase II transect/study area.

333

AP.1 Phase I Assessment Matrix – Summary Results Table:

Site name and Type of Key GI characteristics illustrated GI Actions General Total Comments and overall suitability for Phase II location settlement (/160) (/260) (/80) (/500)

Höfen, Rural Maintaining landscape-scale biodiversity 121 183 59 363 Professional and integrated approach. Good rural case Monshau Rural development and green tourism study. Non responsive to initial contact – however could Local sustainability make a good substitute Phase II Study (South transect /rural) for Eichersheid / Rott. Outcome: Not selected

Eichersheid, Rural Maintaining landscape-scale biodiversity 134 196 64 394 Competition winner “Unser Dorf hat Zukunft”. Simmerath Rural development and green tourism Approachable, responsive and multifaceted sustaible Local sustainability development approach involving the wider community. Ecosystem Service Delivery Suitable Phase II case study (South transect /rural). Outcome: Selected for Phase II

Rott, Roetgen Rural Wetland/ heathland habitat restoration 112 196 64 372 Excellent example of community resource management Community Development in action focusing around restoration of an NSG and Local path networks wider GI network. Approachable and responsive. Effective partnership working with mentoring Suitable case study for Phase II inclusion (South agencies transect/ rural).

334 Outcome: Selected for Phase II

Walheim, Peri-urban/rural Community Greenspace 122 81 55 258 Focus is on play space and events. Little focus on wider Aachen Events area GI benefits – however the proximity of the adjoining Green play and physical activity NSG area makes the Site a potential Phase II substitute Community (e.V) management location (South transect /peri-urban-rural). Outcome: Not selected

Gut Hebscheid, Peri-urban/rural Social Enterprise model 122 107 50 279 Social Enterprise model. Aachen Sustainable growing Not sufficiently community focused however provides a Social inclusion and skills training good model of a Third Sector Enterprise in action (South Circular economy transect /peri-urban-rural). Outcome: Not selected

Site name and Type of Key GI characteristics illustrated GI Actions General Total Comments and overall suitability for Phase II location settlement (/160) (/260) (/80) (/500)

Vicht, Stolberg Peri-urban/rural Local path networks 124 92 54 270 Useful illustration however does not deliver the scale, Local pride and distinctiveness ambition and multifunctionality of other comparable projects such as Rott / Eicherscheid in the South. Changes in group composition also created resourcing issues. Outwith selected Phase II transect. Outcome: Not selected

Soermondt Urban Urban greening 94 91 62 247 A good example of an urban citizen led project. In GI Park, Aachen Sustainable growing network terms provides a “stepping stone” rather than a Multifunctional urban greenspace core network connectivity element. However suitable as Urban communities an urban Phase II case study on the basis of high community involvement and unique insights into governance, urban greening and rural / urban skill sharing (South transect/urban) Outcome: Selected for Phase II

Stolberg, Peri-urban Local volunteering Not assessed - - - Interesting example of a local community e.V. who work Stolberg Multi-site approach in partnership with other stakeholders to manage sites Partnership working of natural heritage significance. However relationship to

335 specific site and locality not sufficiently focused to be

considered for Phase II. Outwith transect area. Outcome: Not selected

Wurmtal, Peri-urban Landscape scale habitat management 134 122 55 311 High score due to management actions – Good example Würselen Key Sites of where a strategic partnership approach can function, however, initially considered not specifically citizen participation orientated for inclusion in Phase II. Following further research contact with a local group has been made and so it is decided now to include this example. Outcome: Selected for Phase II

Busch, Alsdorf Peri-urban Local pride and distinctiveness 96 23 19 138 No clear GI elements within immediate community. Post industrial Focus is more upon local heritage elements and deemed inappropriate. Community non responsive. Outcome: Not selected

Site name and Type of Key GI characteristics illustrated GI Actions General Total Comments and overall suitability for Phase II location settlement (/160) (/260) (/80) (/500)

Briochbachtal, Peri-urban Peri-urban communities 131 60 55 246 Good example of a multifunctional green corridor with Herzogenrath Riparian habitats connectivity some community involvement. Strategic peri-urban Local pride and distinctiveness location. Suitable case study (North Transect/ peri- Path networks and recreation urban). Community initially non responsive and a second Post-industrial landscapes approach was tried. However the community group were not responsive. The local authority also declined to provide support. Outcome: Not selected

Merkstein, Peri-urban Post-industrial landscapes 120 35 54 209 Interesting example illustrating post-industrial landscape Herzogenrath Peri-urban communities reclamation. Active local groups concerned with

336 Education and Environmental awareness environmental education and heritage however

Land reclamation potential remains untapped. Suitable location for focusing on undeveloped potential. However continued attempts have not resulted in responses. The local authority also declined to participate. Outcome: Not selected /deselected

Appendix 2. Stakeholder Appraisals/Questionnaires

AP.2.1 Eicherscheid:

1. General background: Responses: Name of Group? Ortsteil Eicherscheid Date and reason for formation? 2005 to improve the local environment and promote it for tourism Geographical extent of the group? Eicherscheid Main aims and objectives of the group? (e. g. wildlife/landscape enhancement, green The objectives of the group are to; tourism, local sustainability/agenda 21, social inclusion, capacity building, Protect and enhance the landscape, particularly the unique “Heckenlandschaft” education/training ?) To promote the unique qualities of the Heckenlandschaft for tourism and day visitors To promote local sustainability initiatives Expand based on background paper In addition there are many additional social outcomes though these are indirect rather than primary objectives.

2. Structure and organisation of Group: How is the group structured; e.g. community association, social enterprise, informally, The group is structured as a partnership of 10-12 existing local organisations and clubs who co-operate for the benefit or as a sub group of a larger organisation? Is the group a formally constituted of the community. The partnership does not have a formal status though most member groups are constituted e.Vs. organisation? How many members are there? Of these, approximately what percentage are active? N/A as the group functions as a partnership of other organisations. What is the rough social / age/ gender composition of the membership? (e. g. mainly Most active members tend to be in the age group 40 - 60. 337 retired, younger people, working families etc. ?)

How often do the group meet and what form do these meetings take? The partnership meet 3 times a year to develop their projects. Do the group meet to undertake practical activities or only for coordination purposes? Generally the role of the group is a co-ordination one. However members of the various associations do undertake practical tasks such as planting flowers. How are decisions made by the group and who makes them? The decisions are made by the group through discussion or through the use of a moderator. When there is a disagreement, how is this resolved? Through discussion and through the use of external facilitators. Facilitators have included representatives of RWTH (urban planning institute) and the FHS in Aachen. Freelance facilitators have also been used. Generally disagreements are minimal, however the role of the moderator is useful in terms of focusing the discussing and developing tangible Are outside experts, advisors or those with external interests encouraged to participate outcomes. in the group? Yes, very much so. The group recognise the need for specialist skills. “Green Surge” Typology match (with justification): Incorporates elements of both Green hubs and to a lesser extent, co-governance; From: “Green Surge: Innovative governance of urban green spaces WP6, P5” Green hubs: “Experimental, creative coalitions connecting various networks and knowledges to develop community based solutions” – many community organisations are working in partnership to deliver sustainable local development solutions. Co-governance: “Partnerships between municipality and citizens or grassroots with power being between across actors” – the local authorities are involved in governance but do not take on a leading role; power appears to be maintained within the community. 3. Planning and delivery of objectives: Is there a longer term plan or vision for the activities to be undertaken? An overall concept was developed in response to a competition organised by the European Association for Rural Development and Village Renewal. Following success in the German Federal competition in 2007, Eicherscheid has gone on to win awards at European level. The competitions have been the catalyst for sustainability action in the community. http://www.eicherscheid.de/dorfleben/unser-dorf-hat-zukunft/

If so, how has this plan been developed and by whom? The plans were developed using the expertise of around 40 local people with professional moderators from RWTH Aachen and FH Aachen helping to develop the concept. Seedcorn funding was provided by the Städteregion Aachen.

Are copies of this plan available to the wider public and other interested groups? Yes the information is freely available. Is the plan regularly updated and revised? The information is revised and updated as required; the process is facilitated by regular applications for European, Federal and NRW Rural Development and Village Renewal competitions which require a systematic and structured approach. What tangible outputs are provided by the group? Tangible outputs include;  Creation of the Flurheckenweg and the Village Circular to promote the historical and cultural landscape to visitors.  Promotion of green projects for children including fruit tree planting and a “green classroom”  Alternative energy projects including promotion of woodfuel (60% of residents using woodfuel), solar power and electric vehicles.  Celebration of festivals, events and local culture  Many awards at NRW, Federal and European level for sustainable village development. Are these outputs delivered indirectly (through a co-ordination role) or directly through (other projects ?) “hands on” volunteering? The role of the partnership is to act as a co-ordination body for activities though occasionally there are individual hands on activities How is the work funded? The funding comes from varied sources. Some seedcorn funding for moderation has come from the Städteregion Aachen. In addition contributions have come from member groups themselves, from LEADER (Eifel),

338 Simmerath local community. Who is responsible for accessing this funding? This is specific to each individual initiative – a variety of local associations take forward the various actions.

Responsibility is shared. Are local people encouraged to provide help with fundraising or to provide donations Yes local people are involved directly in fundraising through events, festivals and through their own associations. directly? What other types of assistance are provided “in kind” to the group by local people or Most of the local landowners have machinery which is used for managing the hedges. Each landowner is responsible businesses e.g. use of machinery or professional expertise? for managing their own area. What does the group do most successfully? The group has been instrumental in raising awareness of social/ cultural issues and of mobilising a large number of local stakeholder groups to work collectively and collaboratively for the wider benefit of the community. What has the group not achieved so effectively to date? There is always an issue finding sufficient volunteers and support workers to assist with public events such as festivals. Does the group undertake any commercial activity to assist with income generation? Not currently though the group has been evaluating the feasibility of developing an energy plant which utilises (eg. training provision, sale of forest products, equipment rental etc.) biomass material from management operations on the hedges and small woodlands. 4. Promotion of activities: Does the group carry out any educational or awareness raising activities to promote its Yes, the group has a website and has produced a number of promotional guides to local walks including the objectives to specific audiences? If so, to which audiences? (e.g. local people, tourists, Flurheckenweg and the Dorfrundgang Eicherscheid. There are also a number of on-site interpretation boards aimed at schools and kitas?) What form do these take e.g. leaflets, website, workshops or visitors which describe historical, cultural and environmental aspects of the Heckenlandschaft. In addition information events? on the walks and other interesting local themes is available in a downloadable format. There is information specifically for children which features cartoon insect characters who introduce kids to biodiversity and nature themes. In addition there is an outdoor space which is promoted as a “green classroom”. The partnership actively tries to work alongside local kitas and schools in the various projects. Does the group encourage the wider participation of the general public? If so how is Yes, the group encourages wider participation through extensive publicity and through harnessing the support of its this encouraged? member groups. To what extent does the group make use of information technology and the internet to Yes, the activities are promoted through a dedicated website and also through local tourism websites. promote its activities?

5. Partnership working and added value: To what extent does the group work in partnership with other organisations? If so, with Partnership is very much at the heart of the approach as the group represents a partnership of existing organisations which organisations and what is the reason for involving these stakeholders? and associations within the community. Externally the group also works with a number of key stakeholders. These include; Städteregion Aachen, Gemeinde Simmerath, LEADER (Eifel), RWTH/FH Aachen, Association of Rural Development and Village Renewal. Stakeholders are involved for statutory purposes, financial support and for providing professional and technical support. Does the group work across any local, regional or national administrative boundaries? N/A If so, is this proving to be a straightforward process? N/A What added social return on investment SROI does the group provide? (explain the There is considerable SROI. Community capacity and social capital are increased through working jointly on a range of meaning of the term) variety projects. Participants also have learned considerably about sustainability such as green energy provision, low Which of the following SROI benefits are included; community capacity building, impact tourism and natural heritage. Work with schools and kitas and the celebration of festivals have helped to bring training, social cohesion, young people, vulnerable adults? the generations closer together. Are there any areas of conflict? (eg. between reconciling nature conservation, There has been a suggestion from the Städteregion that the Heckenlandschaft area is designated as an NSG landscape or tourism objectives and wider sustainable development interests ?) (Naturshutzgebiete). However the local community feel that the current LSG designation is sufficient and that this affords adequate protection at the current time. It is considered locally that NSG designation would be too onerous and restrictive in management terms, despite the fact that this would provide further financial resources. 6. Strategic context in relation to GI Are you aware of the concept of Green Infrastructure (GI)? (explain concept if required) The group are acting in the local interest and are unaware of the terminology or the wider concepts of developing What does GI mean to you? green infrastructure. What activities relevant to GI does the group undertake? The work undertaken is of high significance for GI, through the management of linear habitat features, low intensity

339 meadows and traditional orchards which provide linkages and stepping stones between significant areas of riparian woodland which are designated as Natura 2000 habitats. This helps the movement and dispersal of species. In

addition to this the development of path networks helps to encourage local people and visitors to access the area on foot. To the best of your knowledge, to what extent does the group deliver local/ regional / Yes, the group clearly delivers EU policy objectives including; national /EU policy objectives relevant to GI e.g. Natura site management, ecological Ecological connectivity, enhancement of Natura sites, preserving and enhancing low intensity cultural landscapes, connectivity, designated landscapes? increasing biodiversity and delivering ecosystem services.

Was delivering strategic GI outcomes a consideration in the development of the project No Strategic GI considerations were not taken into account as the emphasis is local. However many aspects of GI are or was it intended purely to satisfy a local need? nevertheless delivered as a result. How knowledgeable are the groups generally about wider GI concepts including Knowledge about the European context of GI is low and as stated this does not appear to be a direct priority. European policy objectives? 7. Future Activities and Support Structures How does the group see its role developing in the future? Will the focus remain the The group wishes to consolidate its work, to maintain high standards of outputs and to improve the quality of life and same or will it evolve? sustainability of Eicherscheid. Priorities will continue to be;  Bringing together diverse partner organisations  Protecting the natural/cultural landscape features  Developing new projects around orchards, biodiversity  Sustainable energy production including solar, wind, biomass and alternative transportation.  Working with schools, kindergartens and young people. What opportunities exist for the group? Energy projects, local sustainability and young people seem to be key themes where there is an interest in developing the work of the group.

Are there any threats to the continuation of the group? The group appear to be in a fairly healthy state and the fact that they represent a diverse cross section of the community provides additional robustness. What types of assistance, if any, are most needed by the group? e.g technical advice, The group seem to be well aware of where to access funding, administrative and technical support. They have already fundraising support, administrative support, training provision? benefitted considerably from using impartial, professional facilitators and by the fact that that they are well connected politically and institutionally. Is such support available? If so, where can it come from? Yes, ongoing support is available from existing networks. Are current support structures / organisations adequate at present? Is there a need to Current support structures appear to be adequate. In particular the European Association of Rural Development and develop new structures? Village Renewal has provided a useful platform for developing the work of the Partnership Are there sufficient opportunities available to network with other similar groups? Yes, particularly through the European Association of Rural Development and Village Renewal which organises study tours internationally to look at rural sustainability best practice examples. Would it be useful to have a national or regional forum to provide advice and It appears that there are currently adequate forums available through the local and international contacts of the disseminate best practice? group. If so, what should the role of this forum be? N/A

340

AP.2.2 Rott Heimatverein

1. General background: Responses: Name of Group? Heimat und Eifelverein Rott Date and reason for formation? 1981 – the group was founded in 1981 to promote awareness and action for the community, local culture and care for nature and the landscape

Geographical extent of the group? The group covers the community of Rott which is part of Roetgen Main aims and objectives of the group? (e. g. wildlife/landscape enhancement, green Preservation of local cultural heritage and landscape features, tourism, local sustainability/agenda 21, social inclusion, capacity building, Strengthening of the local community and social structure, education/training ?) Providing opportunities for young people. Specific activities include nature and landscape conservation projects, developing and maintaining community paths, organising excursions and presentations, young peoples’ activities 2. Structure and organisation of Group: How is the group structured; e.g. community association, social enterprise, informally, The group is structured as an e.V. and is affiliated to the Eifelverein, which is an umbrella association comprising many or as a sub group of a larger organisation? Is the group a formally constituted local member groups established across the Eifel. The local group embodies many of the principles of the Eifelverein organisation? itself How many members are there? Of these, approximately what percentage are active? There are around 264 members - about 10 % are active What is the rough social / age/ gender composition of the membership? (e. g. mainly The active members of the group appear to be mainly older people. However they appear to successfully engage with retired, younger people, working families etc. ?) the wider community and to promote activities for younger people including social events, festivals and concerts. How often do the group meet and what form do these meetings take? There is a yearly program with 16 events when there is the chance to meet

341 Do the group meet to undertake practical activities or only for coordination purposes? The group are involved very much in practical actions, including the co-ordination of local volunteer projects. They also work in partnership with other local authority and statutory bodies to coordinate the delivery of other projects where there is less direct action. How are decisions made by the group and who makes them? Decisions are made through regular formal meetings and through discussion with other partners. Formal minutes of the meetings are produced. The meetings are held once or twice a year. Sometimes decisions are additionally made When there is a disagreement, how is this resolved? via E-Mail forums. Are outside experts, advisors or those with external interests encouraged to participate Through discussion and dialogue between the group members and with external partners. in the group? Yes, ongoing advisory assistance on ecological issues is provided by the Biologische Station der Städteregion Aachen, which is based in Stolberg, the forest administration - Wald und Holz NRW - and the “Untere Landschaftsbehörde of the Städteregion Aachen”. Other experts are involved in the project as required. “Green Surge” Typology match (with justification): Shows elements of both “grass roots initiatives”: “Relatively small scale initiatives located on public land, started and From: “Green Surge: Innovative governance of urban green spaces WP6, P5” maintained quite autonomously by local residents” – The initiative was stated very much by local enthusiasts And “co-governance”: Partnerships between municipality and citizens or grassroots with power being between across actors – representatives from the municipalities and other agencies are involved in decision making. 3. Planning and delivery of objectives: Is there a longer term plan or vision for the activities to be undertaken? Yes, there is a long term management plan for the “Struffelt” which is a 118ha NSG characterised by regenerating wet heathland. The plan includes the removal of non-native conifers and invasive plants, the rewetting of the moor through blocking of drains and the re-establishment of a semi natural flora of moorland, bog and wet heathland If so, how has this plan been developed and by whom? species. Are copies of this plan available to the wider public and other interested groups? The plan has been developed by the group in partnership with other key stakeholders as named above. Is the plan regularly updated and revised? Yes, the plan is yearly advised and updated.

What tangible outputs are provided by the group? The group have produced substantial outputs. These include;  Restoration of approximately 50% of the 118ha Struffelt nature reserve with wet heathland vegetation and removal of non-native conifers.  The creation of a village circular route around the community of Rott  Annual awareness raising days to distribute native beech seedlings and fruit trees to other local communities and private individuals.  A busy programme of excursions, presentations and social activities targeted at all members of the community.  The restoration of local, cultural and historic features including old village wells, boundary markers and crosses. Are these outputs delivered indirectly (through a co-ordination role) or directly through  The creation of a walkers refuge hut and interpretation “hands on” volunteering? Yes, much of this work is undertaken directly by the group through “hands on activity”. In some cases the group provides a financial contribution to other partners such as NRW Wald und Holz for work such as repair of boardwalks. Some of the work is also co-ordinated by the Biologische Station of the Städteregion Aachen that is able to lever additional funding from the Land NRW and European funding resources respectively. How is the work funded? The group provides a proportion of funding themselves which they raise from activities which include social events and the sale of beech seedlings and fruit trees. There are also contributions in kind, for example, tree felling which is Who is responsible for accessing this funding? undertaken by NRW Wald und Holtz. Formal funding applications for the restoration European cultural landscapes have also been made by the Biologische Station of the Städteregion Aachen to the EU on behalf of the Heimatverein. These have been successful and have been responsible for example for the restoration of grazing upon the site to Are local people encouraged to provide help with fundraising or to provide donations control and reduce bracken.Local people pay a membership fee and are also encouraged to participate in fundraising

342 directly? activities which include the annual fruit tree and beech sales events. What other types of assistance are provided “in kind” to the group by local people or It is understood that sometimes the use of machinery such as mini-diggers is provided as in kind support to the project

businesses e.g. use of machinery or professional expertise? by the regional fresh water provider. What does the group do most successfully? The group has successfully restored over 50ha of wet heathland. Working in partnership with local authorities and statutory agencies to deliver results on the ground. What has the group not achieved so effectively to date? It is constant work and a struggle to maintain the momentum. Does the group undertake any commercial activity to assist with income generation? Yes the group has 2 annual sales of tree seedlings for native beech and fruit trees. These are bought in from (eg. training provision, sale of forest products, equipment rental etc.) commercial tree nurseries and are then sold on at a profit. Fund raising activities such as musical evenings also help to raise income. 4. Promotion of activities: Does the group carry out any educational or awareness raising activities to promote its Yes, there is an extensive programme of activities, talks, tours and festivals which aim to promote the activities of the objectives to specific audiences? If so, to which audiences? (e.g. local people, tourists, group. Interpretation panels have been produced covering aspects of natural history, geology and cultural heritage. schools and kitas?) What form do these take e.g. leaflets, website, workshops or There is also a website with extensive information about the activities of the group and a number of more technical events? papers and articles have appeared in specialist publications. Does the group encourage the wider participation of the general public? If so how is Yes, very much so through volunteer days, public events, presentations and festivals. this encouraged? To what extent does the group make use of information technology and the internet to The Heimatverein has a good website; http://www.hev-rott.de/ promote its activities? 5. Partnership working and added value: To what extent does the group work in partnership with other organisations? If so, with Because of the ownership of the Struffelt NSG – nature reserve - (which is owned and partly managed by NRW Wald which organisations and what is the reason for involving these stakeholders? und Holz) there is a need to work closely in partnership. Other key partners include the Roetgen District Authority and the Städteregion Aachen. In addition the Biologische Station of the Städteregion Aachen has been closely involved in the coordination of management works and monitoring on the site as well as managing EU funding applications for restoration of cultural and semi-natural landscapes.

Does the group work across any local, regional or national administrative boundaries? The group is a member of the regional Eifelverein and thus linked to the Landesgemeinschaft Naturschutz und Umwelt (LNU) which is one of the three officially recognized nature conservative organizations in NRW. However the group itself only works actively locally – it does though extend its influence further afield through the sale of tree seedlings which inevitably benefit other projects. If so, is this proving to be a straightforward process? N/A What added social return on investment SROI does the group provide? (explain the The activities of the group help to build social cohesion within the community through focusing on delivery of practical meaning of the term) outcomes. People of all age groups come together to participate and work together. Participants learn new skills including familiarity with nature conservation, habitat management and forestry. Presentations and memory evenings help to involve members of the community who are less directly active. Which of the following SROI benefits are included; community capacity building, Develops community capacity, provides informal training related to environment, social cohesion through activities. training, social cohesion, young people, vulnerable adults? Are there any areas of conflict? (eg. between reconciling nature conservation, Negotiations with the NRW Forestry Department can often be slow and involved with conservation objectives landscape or tourism objectives and wider sustainable development interests ?) sometimes coming into conflict with commercial forestry production – in particular the timing of operations can be a matter of considerable discussion. Management operations such as grazing by sheep are also problematic due to constraints which include the deer culling season. The group also strives to maintain a balance between conservation and the promotion of public access. Some previous path routes have been closed and a board walk has been constructed instead to direct visitors through the reserve whilst minimising impact. The Struffelt is also part of a drinking water catchment and this creates additional constraints. 6. Strategic context in relation to GI Are you aware of the concept of Green Infrastructure (GI)? (explain concept if required) Although the terminology is not familiar, the concepts behind GI appear to be understood by the group particularly What does GI mean to you? within the context of habitat connectivity, core protection areas, ecological restoration and ecosystem service provision.

343 What activities relevant to GI does the group undertake? With regards to strategic GI networks the group undertakes the following;

 Restoration and expansion of degraded core areas and habitats (NSG), particularly rare wet heathland and bog habitats  Improving and expanding habitats outside core areas thus providing stepping stones, linear habitat features and increasing “permeability” for movement and migration of species. Examples including tree, hedge planting and orchard management.  Development of access infrastructure to improve accessibility for local people and visitors without adversely affecting conservation priorities. To the best of your knowledge, to what extent does the group deliver local/ regional / Although the Struffelt is not classified as a Natura 2000 area it is nevertheless an important NSG and the work is national /EU policy objectives relevant to GI e.g. Natura site management, ecological compatible with EU green infrastructure guidelines. connectivity, designated landscapes? http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/ecosystems/docs/green_infrastructure_broc.pdf Work on the Struffelt NSG improves the quality and conservation value of the nature reserve and therefore enhances its function to provide GI through delivering ecosystem services including water retention, C02 sequestration, biodiversity, provision of sustainable forest products, public wellbeing and recreation. The site is also located within the Hohes-Venn – Naturpark Nordeifel. Rott is surrounded by a number of landscape Schutzgebiete (LSGs) and NSGs and these benefit from ongoing enhancement works. Was delivering strategic GI outcomes a consideration in the development of the project There is clearly an interest in enhancing the status of the Struffelt and neighbouring areas of habitat for wider or was it intended purely to satisfy a local need? environmental benefits and for the connectivity of habitats. The sale of native tree seedlings and fruit trees also helps to take forward this approach into the wider landscape. How knowledgeable are the groups generally about wider GI concepts including The group shows a high degree of specialised environmental knowledge due to the presence of experts within the European policy objectives? group and also as a result of ongoing partnership working with the Biologische Station of the Städteregion Aachen and other specialists. Although the wider concepts of GI appear to be understood, there is no specific knowledge of European policy objectives in this area and the terminology is not familiar.

6. Future Activities and Support Structures How does the group see its role developing in the future? Will the focus remain the The group has no plans for changing its role and remit at the present time. same or will it evolve? What opportunities exist for the group? The group has not identified future activities beyond its current operating remit. That said, the group has ambitious targets for the ongoing expansion of the area of restored habitat within the Struffelt NSG, the management of existing infrastructure and the continuation of the activity programme. Are there any threats to the continuation of the group? It is not known whether the membership profile, which is relatively elderly, creates a potential threat for future continuation or whether younger members have the necessary technical knowledge and time commitment to continue with the work. What types of assistance, if any, are most needed by the group? e.g technical advice, The group welcomes any form of support. fundraising support, administrative support, training provision? Is such support available? If so, where can it come from? More support could come from the Biologische Station der Städteregion Aachen, the forest administration - Wald und Holz NRW - , Untere Landschaftsbehörde of the Städteregion Aachen. The designation of the Struffelt as an EU Natura 2000 site (under the Birds or Habitats Directives) would also make it easier to obtain funding. Are current support structures / organisations adequate at present? Is there a need to The organisational support structure which the group utilises appears to be adequate for current needs. develop new structures? Are there sufficient opportunities available to network with other similar groups? The group regards networking as a useful exercise but is also concerned about the availability of time for such activities. Would it be useful to have a national or regional forum to provide advice and The group would consider a national or regional forum to be a useful step in principle. disseminate best practice? If so, what should the role of this forum be? Dialogue / network / exchange of ideas

344

AP.2.3 Soermondt Garden:

1. General background: Responses:

Name of Group? Urbane Gemeinschaftsgärten Aachen e. V Date and reason for formation? 2013 to develop an area of vacant land as a community growing space Geographical extent of the group? Aachen City Main aims and objectives of the group? (e. g. wildlife/landscape enhancement, green The aims of the group are varied and include; tourism, local sustainability/agenda 21, social inclusion, capacity building, Community growing, sustainability education, circular economy development, biodiversity, greenspace management, education/training ?) social integration, multiculturalism, healthy lifestyles and food sharing. 2. Structure and organisation of Group: How is the group structured; e.g. community association, social enterprise, informally, The group is structured formally as a voluntary association (e.V.). There is a committee who are formally elected. or as a sub group of a larger organisation? Is the group a formally constituted organisation? How many members are there? Of these, approximately what percentage are active? There are between 20 and 40 members who are active on a intermittent basis. The committee comprises of 8 people. What is the rough social / age/ gender composition of the membership? (e. g. mainly See information which has been sent separately. retired, younger people, working families etc. ?) How often do the group meet and what form do these meetings take? The group meet weekly in summer for planning and organisation and twice monthly in winter. Do the group meet to undertake practical activities or only for coordination purposes? Yes, work meetings occur weekly in summer. Some informal activities also occur and more formal activities whilst working alongside other stakeholders. How are decisions made by the group and who makes them? Decisions are made at Monday meetings. Whoever attends is able to make decisions with the structure being open 345 and democratic. When there is a disagreement, how is this resolved? Conflicts are resolved through open dialogue

Are outside experts, advisors or those with external interests encouraged to participate Yes, the group cooperate with experts including the City of Aachen and external bodies such as the NUA Natur und in the group? Umweltschutz Akademie NRW http://www.nua.nrw.de/ 3. Planning and delivery of objectives: Is there a longer term plan or vision for the activities to be undertaken? There is a contract with the City of Aachen in place, however it is not particularly secure in terms of tenure. If so, how has this plan been developed and by whom? A rough plan has been developed by the group – generally planning however is relatively short term due to the insecurity of tenure and political debates about the future of the garden. Are copies of this plan available to the wider public and other interested groups? Information about the developing concept of the garden is made freely available to groups through signage and Is the plan regularly updated and revised? websites. As required. What tangible outputs are provided by the group? Outputs include; sensory garden elements, edible plants and produce including fruit and vegetables, Education projects, Arts and creative projects, biodiversity, beehives, food sharing station and physical gardening elements. Are these outputs delivered indirectly (through a co-ordination role) or directly through Outputs are produced directly by members of the group. “hands on” volunteering? How is the work funded? The work is funded through donations of local people and group members, free labour is provided. Some projects have also received small amounts of funding from NUA. Who is responsible for accessing this funding? A fund raising street festival has been organised with food and drink being produced. Fundraising is undertaken for specific projects. Are local people encouraged to provide help with fundraising or to provide donations Yes, people are involved to high level. directly? What other types of assistance are provided “in kind” to the group by local people or Seeds have been provided for example from a local nursery supplier. businesses e.g. use of machinery or professional expertise?

What does the group do most successfully? Education programmes, community capacity building, urban greening and nature. What has the group not achieved so effectively to date? Acceptance by the wider community and authorities. Have not got the full support of the City of Aachen Doesn’t integrate with wider City planning policies and greenspace planning –culture could be more opening and welcoming. Does the group undertake any commercial activity to assist with income generation? N/A (eg. training provision, sale of forest products, equipment rental etc.) 4. Promotion of activities: Does the group carry out any educational or awareness raising activities to promote its With 2 local primary schools. objectives to specific audiences? If so, to which audiences? (e.g. local people, tourists, Refugees events and participation. schools and kitas?) What form do these take e.g. leaflets, website, workshops or Workshops. events? Does the group encourage the wider participation of the general public? If so how is Yes, through; events, websites, news items, signage, citizens meetings, this encouraged? To what extent does the group make use of information technology and the internet to Internet site and Facebook pages. promote its activities? 5. Partnership working and added value: To what extent does the group work in partnership with other organisations? If so, with City of Aachen – landowner which organisations and what is the reason for involving these stakeholders? Schools, One World Centre, Aachen Anstiftung und Ertomis ? Does the group work across any local, regional or national administrative boundaries? N/A If so, is this proving to be a straightforward process?

346 What added social return on investment SROI does the group provide? (explain the Vulnerable adults: the group works to involve homeless people with drug or alcohol issues in the project. meaning of the term) Inclusion days for refugees have been trialled. Activity in the park has reduced the impact of drug use in the area. Which of the following SROI benefits are included; community capacity building, The project also develops community cohesion and capacity and helps to engender a self help approach based on the training, social cohesion, young people, vulnerable adults? circular economy and horticultural skills. Are there any areas of conflict? (eg. between reconciling nature conservation, There are some different views about the park held by residents and locally elected officials. Some wold prefer a more landscape or tourism objectives and wider sustainable development interests ?) formal use and presentation of the site and dismiss the area as being “untidy” or “wild”. Some consider the project to be too radical within Aachen. 6. Strategic context in relation to GI Are you aware of the concept of Green Infrastructure (GI)? (explain concept if required) The term “green infrastructure” is not known although the general concept is understood. What does GI mean to you? Definition not known. What activities relevant to GI does the group undertake? Community urban gardening, urban greening, biodiversity, social and cultural ecosystem service delivery. To the best of your knowledge, to what extent does the group deliver local/ regional / Greenspaces in the City, biodiversity, connectivity, ecosystem services national /EU policy objectives relevant to GI e.g. Natura site management, ecological connectivity, designated landscapes? Was delivering strategic GI outcomes a consideration in the development of the project Local needs or was it intended purely to satisfy a local need? How knowledgeable are the groups generally about wider GI concepts including Not knowledgeable but understand concepts such as ecology, social inclusion and urban greenspace. European policy objectives?

7. Future Activities and Support Structures How does the group see its role developing in the future? Will the focus remain the Consolidation of what has been achieved so far. same or will it evolve? Possible development of other sites around the City of Aachen. Would like to increase levels of participation, social inclusion and environmental and healthy eating education. What opportunities exist for the group? Increasing awareness of community gardens and healthy eating. Are there any threats to the continuation of the group? There is a political threat that the lease of the site could be terminated which would mean another location would have to be found. What types of assistance, if any, are most needed by the group? e.g technical advice, Any type of assistance is welcomed. More support from the police and the Ordnungsamt would be helpful in terms of fundraising support, administrative support, training provision? reducing antisocial behaviour. A community outreach worker would be very helpful in terms of strengthening the links between the local people and the site. Is such support available? If so, where can it come from? Not clear. Are current support structures / organisations adequate at present? Is there a need to Structures are ok, however there is more scope for cooperation. develop new structures? Are there sufficient opportunities available to network with other similar groups? Yes there is scope to network with other urban gardening initiatives through for example the NUA Would it be useful to have a national or regional forum to provide advice and Useful to have a local network. disseminate best practice? If so, what should the role of this forum be? It could offer a homepage with links to various green organisations, transition movement etc.

347

AP.2.4 Wurmtal:

1. General background: Responses: Name of Group? AG Wurmtal e.V. Date and reason for formation? Group was formed in September 1982 to deliver targeted practical action, to lever resources and to input local ideas into the management of the Wurmtal NSG. Geographical extent of the group? The group covers the Wurmtal NSG, a linear nature corridor along the valley of the Wurm. The NSG is located within Würselen and Herzogenrath Districts covering an area of 445ha. There is a smaller protected area to the North of Herzogenrath covering 19ha which the group is also involved in managing. Main aims and objectives of the group? (e. g. wildlife/landscape enhancement, green The group carries out practical habitat management work to maintain the diversity of the site for nature conservation. tourism, local sustainability/agenda 21, social inclusion, capacity building, The group is also involved in campaigning issues regarding development threats to the Wurmtal from building education/training ?) projects, commercial development and perceived recreational conflicts (including the proposed “rad autobahn”). 2. Structure and organisation of Group: How is the group structured; e.g. community association, social enterprise, informally, The group is formally constituted as an e.V. Within the group there are informal subgroups who deal with the practical or as a sub group of a larger organisation? Is the group a formally constituted projects and the campaigning aspects respectively. organisation? How many members are there? Of these, approximately what percentage are active? There are approximately 70 members. Of these around 15 are very active. What is the rough social / age/ gender composition of the membership? (e. g. mainly The group is very mixed in terms of the social background and age representation found. The composition has retired, younger people, working families etc. ?) changed very little since the founding of the group. How often do the group meet and what form do these meetings take? There are monthly indoor planning meetings held to discuss projects and processes. There is also an AGM held each year. In addition to this there are regular work parties and practical activities taking place 348 Do the group meet to undertake practical activities or only for coordination purposes? Yes the group undertake practical activities on the ground. How are decisions made by the group and who makes them? Decisions are made through open dialogue at monthly meetings and at the AGM.

When there is a disagreement, how is this resolved? Through open discussion. Are outside experts, advisors or those with external interests encouraged to participate Yes, expert assistance is welcome. The AGM includes presentations by experts form external organisations. The group in the group? also consults with many individuals and organisations as required. “Green Surge” Typology match (with justification): Grassroots initiative – the organisation came about solely as a result of citizen action. From: “Green Surge: Innovative governance of urban green spaces WP6, P5” 3. Planning and delivery of objectives: Is there a longer term plan or vision for the activities to be undertaken? Yes the group has a clear vision for the management of its activities. If so, how has this plan been developed and by whom? The plan was developed by members of the group in discussion with local landowners and the statutory authorities. Are copies of this plan available to the wider public and other interested groups? Upon request. Is the plan regularly updated and revised? Plans for areas under the direct management of the group are updated as required. What tangible outputs are provided by the group? Physical habitat management on the ground: The group is responsible for the management of 9 areas which it owns or leases on a long term basis; these include wetlands, pastures, meadows, dry grasslands totalling 13.1 ha. The largest area of 5.2 ha, in the Wurmtalaue below Bardenberg-Pley was previously intensively cultivated but since 1994 has been converted by the group into an extensively managed meadow area. The areas are located within the NSG in the area between Herzogenrath-Kohlscheid and Würselen-Barden Berg. The AG Wurmtal E.V. has a total of 13 hectares of natural land (about 6 hectares of property and about 7 hectares of leased land). The areas are of different sizes, ranging from 1,000 m², others up to 5.2 ha and include wetland/mire areas, ponds, grasslands, orchards and woodland all located within the NSG. Within the wetland and pond areas, the main focus of Biotope protection is the restriction of livestock grazing pressure (and also protection against access by people). Within woodland areas the focus is upon natural forest development without commercial objectives. Grassland areas are extensively used for agricultural purposes and are mowed once annually (after July 1). In the case of the open orchards, the management (pruning) of the cultivated fruit trees is part of the group’s remit.

At the edge of a wetland area the group manage pollards. The shoots of the trees are cut back every 4-5 years. These old pollarded trees (used for wicker manufacture) develop many cavities in old age providing a multitude of habitats for hole breeders, including birds but also insects. Although there is an NSG designation in the areas to protect the nature, animals and plants there are also the landscape impact due to human pressure, recreational activities, government and development planning aspects etc. The group also undertakes amphibian rescue projects and installs fencing during migration periods. Since 1982, the group has also installed 300 bird nesting boxes. Are these outputs delivered indirectly (through a co-ordination role) or directly through Yes the outputs are delivered directly by members of the group through practical work days on the ground and hands “hands on” volunteering? on volunteering. In addition there is also a co-ordination role involved. How is the work funded? The group get funding from a variety of sources including: Direct assistance from NRW Umwelt Ministry for site management activities. Donations from private companies. Who is responsible for accessing this funding? Selling of produce from management operations including hay production. Undertaking promotional talks and visits for schools, kindergartens and special interest groups. Are local people encouraged to provide help with fundraising or to provide donations Members of the group manage the acquisition and spending of the funding. directly? Local schools, kitas and businesses are encouraged to contribute to funding in exchange for educational tours and events. The group includes a number of teachers and professional educators who are able to donate their time and services. What other types of assistance are provided “in kind” to the group by local people or Time and professional expertise. businesses e.g. use of machinery or professional expertise? What does the group do most successfully? Practical habitat management for conservation. Campaigning Education

349 Respected by the local community

What has the group not achieved so effectively to date? The group is proud of its achievement and is operating at an optimal level – however there is concern about the number of development threats and conflicts which the area faces. Does the group undertake any commercial activity to assist with income generation? Talks to specialist groups, businesses, schools and kindergartens. (e.g. training provision, sale of forest products, equipment rental etc.) 4. Promotion of activities: Does the group carry out any educational or awareness raising activities to promote its Yes, to schools, kindergartens and local businesses. These take the form of presentations, activity days, guided tours objectives to specific audiences? If so, to which audiences? (e.g. local people, tourists, and events. Activities are promoted through the press and local websites. schools and kitas?) What form do these take e.g. leaflets, website, workshops or events? Does the group encourage the wider participation of the general public? If so how is Yes, through open meetings, workdays and promotional activities. this encouraged? To what extent does the group make use of information technology and the internet to Yes, the group uses an internet site. promote its activities? 5. Partnership working and added value: To what extent does the group work in partnership with other organisations? If so, with The group works with local landowners – leasing agreements /land management activities which organisations and what is the reason for involving these stakeholders? NRW Umwelt Ministry – financial arrangements / compliance Local authorities – conflicts /development issues /land management issues BUND /NABU Maas Rhine Symposium

Does the group work across any local, regional or national administrative boundaries? Work with partner organisations in Holland – however day to day management responsibilities all within Germany. If so, is this proving to be a straightforward process? Generally communication processes and partnerships appear to function better in Holland where there appears to be a culture of greater openness. What added social return on investment SROI does the group provide? (explain the The group provide important education work with schools and local kindergartens. meaning of the term) Which of the following SROI benefits are included; community capacity building, Benefits to young people. training, social cohesion, young people, vulnerable adults? Are there any areas of conflict? (eg. between reconciling nature conservation, Yes there are considerable pressures from development within the area. The group are concerned about expansion of landscape or tourism objectives and wider sustainable development interests ?) recreational and commercial facilities within the protected area. These include the expansion of restaurants and parking facilities, path networks (particularly the proposed “rad autobahn”), forestry interventions and the removal of land form protected status for development projects. The group are particularly concerned about political and commercial pressure for further housing and commercial development. 6. Strategic context in relation to GI Are you aware of the concept of Green Infrastructure (GI)? (explain concept if required) Understanding of the principles but not the terminology. What does GI mean to you? Habitat connectivity. What activities relevant to GI does the group undertake? Enhancing the quality of core areas within the biotope network in particular the FFH „Natura 2000“ areas which are considered to be the most important building blocks of the Biotope network To the best of your knowledge, to what extent does the group deliver local/ regional / Natura site management, management of NSG and LSG areas to optimise ecological benefits. Protecting and managing national /EU policy objectives relevant to GI e.g. Natura site management, ecological key recreational corridor. connectivity, and designated landscapes? Was delivering strategic GI outcomes a consideration in the development of the project Aim was to manage and enhance a key local site rather than delivery of strategic GI outcomes.

350 or was it intended purely to satisfy a local need? How knowledgeable are the groups generally about wider GI concepts including The group are well informed – however the emphasis is very much upon nature conservation aspects and concepts of

European policy objectives? GI rather than provision of the wider social and cultural ecosystem services. This is illustrated by the groups concern about expanding and developing path networks in the area and focus on conflicts between nature conservation and increasing recreational use of the valley. 7. Future Activities and Support Structures How does the group see its role developing in the future? Will the focus remain the The group does not see its role changing significantly at the present time and feels that it is achieving worthwhile same or will it evolve? goals. However increasing political and economic demands for development creates conflicts which require to be addressed by the group and which will require time and energy to tackle. What opportunities exist for the group? Increased public interest in protecting the Wurmtal in response to development threats and reduction of greenspace generally in the area through housing and commercial development. Are there any threats to the continuation of the group? The group seem to be robust in their present form however there was some concern expressed about the involvement of younger people in environmental issues – younger people are preoccupied with other interests, activities and concerns. What types of assistance, if any, are most needed by the group? e.g technical advice, The group seem to function well and independently. They have high profile contacts in the business and political world fundraising support, administrative support, training provision? which helps them to achieve their objectives. The group however do feel that there are barriers between themselves and local officials. They feel that a culture of greater openness and accountability would be helpful. Is such support available? If so, where can it come from? Are current support structures / organisations adequate at present? Is there a need to There are currently barriers put in the way by local government administrations and officials who are not as open and develop new structures? accountable as they could be at the present time. The group regard their own independence from other structures as being important. Are there sufficient opportunities available to network with other similar groups? The group have their own networks and interact through forums such as the Maas/Rhine symposium. They see themselves as part of an informal network of activists and distinguish themselves from the “professional officials” who they feel don’t necessarily have conservation interests at heart.

Would it be useful to have a national or regional forum to provide advice and Contribute already through the Maas Rhine forum. However some degree of cynicism was expressed about this. disseminate best practice? If so, what should the role of this forum be? N/A – Group already have well established networks.

351

AP.2.5 Worm-Wildnis

1. General background: Responses: Name of Group? Heimatverein Worm-Wildnis e.V. Date and reason for formation? 1971 to develop a former area of sand and gravel extraction as a site for nature conservation and to also provide a community resource for local people. Geographical extent of the group? Covers the settlement area of Worm-Wildnis but focusing particularly on the Worm-Wildnis Naturpark, a NSG (ACK- 97) which comprises of a regenerating area of woodland within an area of former sand and gravel extraction and covering 8.5ha. Main aims and objectives of the group? (eg. wildlife/landscape enhancement, green The objectives of the group are diverse and represent a wide range of social and environmental objectives, these tourism, local sustainability/agenda 21, social inclusion, capacity building, include; education/training ?)  Protecting the area for nature  Providing a focal point for local activities, festivals and social events  Environmental education and sustainability  Engagement of young people  Community “drop in” centre  Developing a local path network around the community  Informal outdoor recreation Types of activities include for example; internet training, fathers days, youth camping, apple and fruit festivals. 2. Structure and organisation of Group: How is the group structured; e.g. community association, social enterprise, informally, The group has a relatively loose and informal structure although it is a formally constituted e.V. 352 or as a sub group of a larger organisation? Is the group a formally constituted organisation?

How many members are there? Of these, approximately what percentage are active? Over 100. High levels of engagement. What is the rough social / age/ gender composition of the membership? (e. g. mainly The group has generally older members but provides a range of activities which are aimed at all age groups. There are retired, younger people, working families etc. ?) a healthy number younger people in the community and the group aims to cater for all. How often do the group meet and what form do these meetings take? Very regular events and meetings. Do the group meet to undertake practical activities or only for coordination purposes? Yes, the group undertakes limited practical activities; however because of the NSG status of the site, the Forest Department, have to authorise work on the site or often prefer to undertake activities directly themselves. Generally they appear to be responsive though this can be a limiting factor in terms of the extent of direct participation. How are decisions made by the group and who makes them? Decisions are made by the group in discussion with other stakeholders through meetings and informal dialogue. When there is a disagreement, how is this resolved? It understood that externally there are divergences in opinion about how the site should be utilised; the local community see the site as somewhere that can fulfil recreational needs in addition to environmental objectives whilst the authorities prioritise nature protection over other activities. The differences must be resolved through effective ongoing dialogue and also significantly through political lobbying of elected councillors. Are outside experts, advisors or those with external interests encouraged to participate Yes, the group must collaborate with several external partners which include representatives of the authorities at local in the group? and regional level. The land is also leased from a sand and gravel extraction company and it is understood that there is still, in principle, a right to remove material, though it appears that this is unlikely to be exercised in the foreseeable future. “Green Surge” Typology match (with justification): Grass roots initiative: Relatively small scale initiatives located on public land, started and maintained quite From: “Green Surge: Innovative governance of urban green spaces WP6, P5” autonomously by local residents – there is involvement of other actors (particularly the local municipality of Herzogenrath) in the project, however the impetus for the establishment of the group has come from within the community.

3. Planning and delivery of objectives: Is there a longer term plan or vision for the activities to be undertaken? Yes, activities are planned in advance through ongoing dialogue. There’s a well-developed plan to utilise the Worm- Wildnis site as the hub of a new path and environmental interpretation network. This will incorporate land which is designated for potential new development. There are also plans to create a new fruit orchard for demonstration and If so, how has this plan been developed and by whom? community growing purposes. Are copies of this plan available to the wider public and other interested groups? The plan has been developed by members of the local community in discussion with local authority and other stakeholders. Is the plan regularly updated and revised? The group makes information about its ideas, plans and proposals freely available on its internet site and encourages local people to become involved. Yes; plans are not overly formalised and are updated as required. What tangible outputs are provided by the group? Development of the site infrastructure which includes;  Way-marked trails,  Grill/BBQ hut and area,  Youth camping area,  Activities room and social area with catering facilities  Play facilities.  Full and varied activities programme on the site (see above). Are these outputs delivered indirectly (through a co-ordination role) or directly through The activities are managed through a variety of mechanisms. Hands on site-based work such as tree management or “hands on” volunteering? path construction is usually undertaken by professional staff from the local authority. However when there is agreement, the community can also undertake some of these works directly. The co-ordination of educational or social activities is usually coordinated, or undertaken directly, by the local community or invited presenters.

353 How is the work funded? Through events, workshops and functions and through member contributions and subscriptions. Who is responsible for accessing this funding? This appears to be undertaken directly by the group and through local contacts.

Are local people encouraged to provide help with fundraising or to provide donations Yes through membership of the group and through direct participation in activities. directly? What other types of assistance are provided “in kind” to the group by local people or The local Council of Herzogenrath undertakes maintenance work such as tree management on the site to ensure businesses e.g. use of machinery or professional expertise? environmental compliance with NSG status. Local people also give their time on a voluntary basis to help facilitate activities and events. What does the group do most successfully? Provide a varied activity and social function for the local community. Enhanced and developed the site for nature conservation and as a recreational resource. What has the group not achieved so effectively to date? There appear to be some tensions between the principles of strict environmental protection of the site and its sustainable, multi-functional use as a community resource. Does the group undertake any commercial activity to assist with income generation? None (eg. training provision, sale of forest products, equipment rental etc.) 4. Promotion of activities: Does the group carry out any educational or awareness raising activities to promote its Yes, many activities organised as previously outlined. These do not have a strictly environmental focus but also include objectives to specific audiences? If so, to which audiences? (e.g. local people, tourists, educational activities, open days and social events which are aimed at a broad cross section of the community schools and kitas?) including older people and children. Events are aimed at local people across a broad age spectrum. Tourism is not considered an important aspect here as this is not locally significant.

What form do these take e.g. leaflets, website, workshops or events? There is a website to promote the venue and its activities. There are frequent workshops and events organised which raise the level of environmental awareness e.g. apple days and juicing events, local memories, festivals etc.

Does the group encourage the wider participation of the general public? If so how is Yes. Largely through events and open days which are accessible to all. The events are promoted locally through the this encouraged? website and within the community.

To what extent does the group make use of information technology and the internet to Internet site is key to promotional activities (as is use of local networks and contacts). promote its activities? 5. Partnership working and added value: To what extent does the group work in partnership with other organisations? If so, with Yes, the group works with several key local authority and government representatives who include departments form which organisations and what is the reason for involving these stakeholders? the Herzogenrath Local Council and the Städteregion Aachen. This is to ensure that the site is managed in accordance with statutory obligations and that any conflicts can be identified early and resolved accordingly. Does the group work across any local, regional or national administrative boundaries? Yes, the e.V. organises joint projects and initiatives with neighbouring groups located just over the border in Holland. If so, is this proving to be a straightforward process? These groups share similar interests. This appears to be functioning successfully. What added social return on investment SROI does the group provide? (explain the The group develops social cohesion within the community through the co-ordination of events which involve both meaning of the term) young and old people alike. The activities programme helps to develop skills such as IT, environmental awareness, sustainable food production and healthy eating. Through functioning as a social hub, the Naturpark draws in people Which of the following SROI benefits are included; community capacity building, from all sections of the community. training, social cohesion, young people, vulnerable adults? Includes all of these aspects (with the possible exception of vulnerable adults ) Are there any areas of conflict? (eg. between reconciling nature conservation, Yes, the nature reserve (NSG) status creates conflicts between those who believe in policies of strict nature protection landscape or tourism objectives and wider sustainable development interests ?) and those who would like to see greater use of the area for social and recreational functions. These conflicts are resolved through a process of ongoing dialogue between the stakeholders. Where necessary the group undertakes political lobbying of elected local officials to help influence outcomes. Generally however, the relationships between the stakeholders is positive. 6. Strategic context in relation to GI Are you aware of the concept of Green Infrastructure (GI)? (explain concept if required) The group are aware of the significance of NSGs and local designations but are not aware specifically of GI as a

354 What does GI mean to you? concept for landscape scale initiatives. See; http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/ecosystems/docs/green_infrastructure_broc.pdf

What activities relevant to GI does the group undertake? Enhancing the management of core habitat areas (NSG and Natura 2000) Enhancing biodiversity and biotope connectivity outside protected areas Developing local path networks to provide increase accessibility for walkers and cyclists. To the best of your knowledge, to what extent does the group deliver local/ regional / As above national /EU policy objectives relevant to GI e.g. Natura site management, ecological connectivity, designated landscapes? Was delivering strategic GI outcomes a consideration in the development of the project The primary focus was upon providing social benefits including creating a focal point for community activities. or was it intended purely to satisfy a local need? However environmental enhancement was also considered, though to a lesser extent. How knowledgeable are the groups generally about wider GI concepts including Not Knowledgeable regarding the topic of GI concepts and definitions European policy objectives? 7. Future Activities and Support Structures How does the group see its role developing in the future? Will the focus remain the Developing a local path network and a community orchard to function as a demonstration area. Maintaining the same or will it evolve? Nature Park as a social hub and environmental resource for the community. What opportunities exist for the group? There are potential new housing developments planned close to the site. There is a plan to develop a path network which provides connections between the site of the proposed development and the Naturpark area. There are also proposals to plant an orchard to showcase local fruit growing initiatives. The demographic in the village appears to be healthy with many young families to support future activities. Are there any threats to the continuation of the group? The lack of economic activity and local services in the village could have a negative impact. However this could also provide an enhanced role for the group to bring together the community. The land could still be potentially used for mining activity though this appears to be highly unlikely in the foreseeable future. What types of assistance, if any, are most needed by the group? e.g technical advice, The group appear to be largely proactive and self-sufficient in their approach. fundraising support, administrative support, training provision?

Is such support available? If so, where can it come from ? The group have an extensive network of contacts and seek support as required on a case by case basis. Are current support structures / organisations adequate at present? Is there a need to Getting results depends heavily upon behind the scenes contacts, informal discussion and political lobbying. develop new structures? Are there sufficient opportunities available to network with other similar groups? Group already have an extensive informal network of contacts Would it be useful to have a national or regional forum to provide advice and Already good established networks. disseminate best practice? If so, what should the role of this forum be? N/A

355

Appendix 2 (cont’d). Stakeholder Appraisals/Interviews - Scotland

AP.2.6 Dunbar:

1. General background: Responses: Name of Group? Dunbar Community Woodland Group Date and reason for formation? 2000. Town extension of some 1000 houses granted planning permission in the mid-90s, the woodland was till then private, but with East Lothian Council negotiations, 18ha of 33ha Lochend Wood was handed over to the community with a dowry of £45,000 for management start up. The land had been sold by the local farmer to a rich family, who engaged a land developer to act on their behalf, selling off parcels of land between the ‚fingers‘ of the wood to house builders. Negotiations took 7 years to complete, transfer finalised in April 2007. Geographical extent of the group? Lochend Woods lies to the south of the railway line that was the original boundary of town. 33 Hectares in total, the woodland is now right in the middle of the town, as the population has almost doubled in the last 20 years. There are now houses to the east and south of the woods, and when the latest planning application is approved, the woods will be completely encircled by built environment. Main aims and objectives of the group? (e. g. wildlife/landscape enhancement, Our motto - For Trees, for Wildlife, for People. green tourism, local sustainability/agenda 21, social inclusion, capacity building, Our aims are to look after and manage the woodland on behalf of the community, to care for the trees, and steward the education/training ?) habitat the woodland provides for the wildlife; to provide educational and recreational opportunities that a woodland provides. 2. Structure and organisation of Group: How is the group structured; e.g. community association, social enterprise, DCWG is a registered charity. We have a membership base of almost 100 people, and we have a committee of 6 dedicated 356 informally, or as a sub group of a larger organisation? Is the group a formally volunteers. constituted organisation? Our parent body is Dunbar Community Development Company, which has links to East Lothian Council, and was formed in

the late 90s to promote community activities and venues. We are a member of the Community Woodland Association. How many members are there? Of these, approximately what percentage are We currently have about 80 members. active? 8% are active on the committee, but maybe 15% are active for events in the woods. What is the rough social / age/ gender composition of the membership? (e. g. Are membership base is predominantly families with young children, and retired people. (There is a dearth of ‘twenty- mainly retired, younger people, working families etc. ?) somethings‘ in Dunbar – they‘ve all gone to live in the city!) How often do the group meet and what form do these meetings take? The management committee meets every month, 10 times a year. We meet in in a local hotel over the winter months, evening meetings, and in the summer months we meet in the woods, tagging management meetings on to events in the woods – e.g. litter pick, Easter or Beltane gatherings with campfire cooking Do the group meet to undertake practical activities or only for coordination etc. purposes? Both

How are decisions made by the group and who makes them? Decisions are made by the management committee. When there is a disagreement, how is this resolved? Very rarely do we disagree about anything, we are generally of a like mind. If there was a disagreement, we would go for a compromise, or if that can‘t work, then we go with a majority – after members making a case. Are outside experts, advisors or those with external interests encouraged to Yes, as members of CWA, we can seek advice from the experts in the group, and call on others experiences to inform us. We participate in the group? also have a Forestry Consultant who works with us when we are going for Forestry Commission grants “Green Surge” Typology match (with justification):

3. Planning and delivery of objectives: Is there a longer term plan or vision for the activities to be undertaken? Yes, we have management plan – a 5 year plan and longer term vision. The management plan is a requirement of seeking Forestry Commission funding. If so, how has this plan been developed and by whom? Developed by the management committee, with advice from CWA and Forestry consultant Are copies of this plan available to the wider public and other interested groups? Yes. Is the plan regularly updated and revised? Yes, in response to activities on the ground – e.g. storms and gales often result in trees needing to be brought down, often trees which were thought to be strong. What tangible outputs are provided by the group? Community and educational engagement - Tree planting with school groups, outdoor cooking with school groups, youth group activities – e.g. scouts, guides etc.; Stool making courses, training – e.g. chainsaw safety courses, Forest Playgroup (weekly) Events in collaboration with the local John Muir Trust/Friends of JM birthplace – John Muir birthday party. Northlight Arts events in the woods. Parkrun organisation soon to start weekly meet. Are these outputs delivered indirectly (through a co-ordination role) or directly Small scale timber extraction, with advice from Making Local Woods Work (a UK Government initiative) advisers. Planks through “hands on” volunteering? seasoning. Events run by DCWG are all volunteer run. Events with partners are funded by their own sources. How is the work funded? Stool making course came from FCS seedcorn funds, other organisers, e.g. arts organisers, find their own funding, we supply the venue and practical support Who is responsible for accessing this funding? DCWG committee members. Are local people encouraged to provide help with fundraising or to provide Yes, donation box is always on the table when we run events and take out stalls at community events. donations directly? What other types of assistance are provided “in kind” to the group by local Parkrun group (Dunbar Running Club) help us with path maintenance, DCWG members, a Duke of Edinburgh Award scheme

357 people or businesses e.g. use of machinery or professional expertise? young volunteers, and members of the public help us with litter pick/spring cleans, and school John Muir Award groups help

with maintenance of nest boxes, tree planting, etc. What does the group do most successfully? Safeguard the trees and advise neighbours. With some 250 neighbours with whom the woodland shares a boundary fence, and a heavy human footprint in the woods, this is the biggest part of our work. What has the group not achieved so effectively to date? Sustaining regular greenwood and bushcraft courses, Not achieving making products from our timber. (Due to lack of time of the committee members who have these skills) Does the group undertake any commercial activity to assist with income Yes – we have planks to sell when they are seasoned, we occasionally sell firewood, generation? (eg. training provision, sale of forest products, equipment rental We have a small income from the forest playgroup, etc.) We rent out the woodland group marquee, and ask for donations for parties booking and using the cob oven. 5. Promotion of activities: Does the group carry out any educational or awareness raising activities to Yes – occasional PowerPoint presentations to local groups – e.g. the Rotary, or sister woodland groups looking for advice. promote its objectives to specific audiences? If so, to which audiences? (e.g. local Local schools and nurseries are engaged, we do have leaflets about the woods, and annual newsletters, we have a website people, tourists, schools and nurseries?) What form do these take e.g. leaflets, and a Facebook page to advertise out events, and we take stalls at the school fairs and Civic Week (the annual gala event in website, workshops or events? the town) to promote what we do and as a membership drive. Does the group encourage the wider participation of the general public? If so .We try to attract local people to come to our events, encourage them to hire our facilities, but it’s difficult. how is this encouraged? The specific interest groups, e.g. parkrun, forest playgroup and youth groups are much more successful

To what extent does the group make use of information technology and the Almost totally reliant on internet these days. internet to promote its activities? Paper newsletters and leaflets are cost prohibitive and time consuming for volunteers to distribute.

6. Partnership working and added value: To what extent does the group work in partnership with other organisations? If Extensively – we have a partnership with ‘The Ridge‘ - a training organisation. We provide the venue, they have provided a so, with which organisations and what is the reason for involving these training hub (shipping container) stakeholders? Also see above for other partnership Does the group work across any local, regional or national administrative No boundaries? If so, is this proving to be a straightforward process? What added social return on investment SROI does the group provide? (explain N/A the meaning of the term) Which of the following SROI benefits are included; community capacity building, N/A training, social cohesion, young people, vulnerable adults?

Are there any areas of conflict? (eg. between reconciling nature conservation, Yes, many householders would have us remove the trees along their boundary fences. landscape or tourism objectives and wider sustainable development interests ?) One neighbour threatened us with legal action under the High Hedges act, we went to mediation, and ended up compromising by taking 2 Ash trees down to half their height. Some members of the community complain we‘re un-wilding the woods and making it too park-like, others grump about their kids being stung by nettles and scratched by brambles 7. Strategic context in relation to GI Are you aware of the concept of Green Infrastructure (GI)? (explain concept if No required). What does GI mean to you? What activities relevant to GI does the group undertake? GI concept not known

358 To the best of your knowledge, to what extent does the group deliver local/ Our management plan is in accordance with Forestry Commission Scotland guidelines. regional / national /EU policy objectives relevant to GI e.g. Natura site management, ecological connectivity, designated landscapes? Was delivering strategic GI outcomes a consideration in the development of the N/A project or was it intended purely to satisfy a local need? How knowledgeable are the groups generally about wider GI concepts including N/A European policy objectives? 8. Future Activities and Support Structures How does the group see its role developing in the future? Will the focus remain To continue to look after the woods, deal with dangerous trees, to run courses, to hold events, and install some benches and the same or will it evolve? art. What opportunities exist for the group? Difficulty in recruiting new active members is an on-going problem. Are there any threats to the continuation of the group? We worry about long term sustainability. We worry about liability if trees cause a problem for members of the public What types of assistance, if any, are most needed by the group? e.g technical Fundraising support. advice, fundraising support, administrative support, training provision? Is such support available? If so, where can it come from? If we knew the answer to that, it would not be a need! People with energy to engage with such initiatives are what is needed. Are current support structures / organisations adequate at present? Is there a Yes, CWA is a great support. No additional structure is required. need to develop new structures? Are there sufficient opportunities available to network with other similar groups? Yes, through CWA networks Would it be useful to have a national or regional forum to provide advice and We already have this with CWA. disseminate best practice? If so, what should the role of this forum be?

AP.2.7 Doune:

1. General background: Responses: Name of Group? Doune Community Woodland Group Date and reason for formation? A partnership was established in 2014 between the community group and the landowner following the withdrawal of the local authority as site managers. Geographical extent of the group? A local community woodland group operating in the village of Doune. Main aims and objectives of the group? (e. g. wildlife/landscape enhancement, To manage a 16ha area of regenerating woodland and wetland habitats on former sand and gravel pits for the benefit of local green tourism, local sustainability/agenda 21, social inclusion, capacity building, people and wildlife. To develop and maintain other paths for locals and visitors. education/training ?) 2. Structure and organisation of Group: How is the group structured; e.g. community association, social enterprise, The group is established as an informal association. However it works closely with Kilmadock Community Council who informally, or as a sub group of a larger organisation? Is the group a formally undertake administrative functions. The group also works in close partnership with the landowner, Moray Estates. constituted organisation? How many members are there? Of these, approximately what percentage are There are around 70 members of the group with a lower percentage of these regularly active. In addition other groups help active? out on the site including groups with learning disabilities. What is the rough social / age/ gender composition of the membership? (e. g. Generally the active members of the group are retired men. mainly retired, younger people, working families etc. ?) How often do the group meet and what form do these meetings take? The group meet weekly to undertake practical work on the site. Planning meetings also occur and group are regularly in 359 attendance at meetings of the Kilmadock Community Council. Do the group meet to undertake practical activities or only for coordination Volunteers from the DCWG have provided direct labour to undertake project delivery. This has included tree felling to open

purposes? up vistas of the main pond, the installation of new paths, the repair and replacement of steps, repair and maintenance of access infrastructure including picnic tables and benches, bird hides and bridges. A huge amount of weeding and general tidying of neglected woodland has also taken place. The group have undertaken 5000 volunteer hours of work between 2014 – 2017. How are decisions made by the group and who makes them? Decisions are made by consensus and through regular meetings with the landowner Moray Estates. When there is a disagreement, how is this resolved? Through active discussion and democratic processes. Are outside experts, advisors or those with external interests encouraged to Yes. participate in the group? “Green Surge” Typology match (with justification): Grassroots Initiative. The project represents a creative partnership model between a private landowner and a local From: “Green Surge: Innovative governance of urban green spaces WP6, P5” community group. The landowner has delegated day-to-day responsibility to the community group, however still maintains an interest in the development of the site through attendance at meetings and events. The balance of power appears to be equally shared between the landowner and the community group 3. Planning and delivery of objectives: Is there a longer term plan or vision for the activities to be undertaken? Yes, there is a management plan for the site. If so, how has this plan been developed and by whom? A 10 year plan has been developed for the site. Are copies of this plan available to the wider public and other interested groups? On request Is the plan regularly updated and revised? As required.

What tangible outputs are provided by the group? Management of the 16ha site for recreation and biodiversity objectives. To date much has been done in terms of both managing the ponds and improving the visitor facilities. This has included tree felling to open up vistas of the main pond, the installation of new paths, the repair and replacement of steps, repair and maintenance of access infrastructure including picnic tables and benches, bird hides and bridges. A large amount of weeding and general tidying of neglected woodland has also occurred. The woodland is being restructured through supplementary planting of native broadleaved species. The site is Important for wildfowl and also for diversity of fungus species. Specifically this has included creation of a network of accessible paths including 1000m of new all abilities paths for wheelchair users and other upgraded paths. Works included construction of a new footbridge and generated, in total 5000 volunteer hours from 70 regular volunteers. In terms of social outcomes there have been considerable capacity building benefits for the local community through participation in volunteering. A number of other special events have also been organised. These include summer fun days, Are these outputs delivered indirectly (through a co-ordination role) or directly family days and educational events. Camphill school, which provides education for people with learning disabilities has also through “hands on” volunteering? been involved. Volunteers from the DCWG have provided direct labour to undertake project delivery. This has included tree felling to open up vistas of the main pond, the installation of new paths, the repair and replacement of steps, repair and maintenance of access infrastructure including picnic tables and benches, bird hides and bridges. A huge amount of weeding and general tidying of neglected woodland has also taken place. The group have undertaken 5000 volunteer hours of work between 2014 – 2017. How is the work funded? The DCWG has been successful in obtaining funding through a variety of local sources. Funding contributions have been received from the Windfarm Trust, Paths for All Partnership, the Postcode Lottery, Stirling Community Pride Project, Kilmadock Community Council, CEMEX Aggregates who were formerly involve in sand and gravel extraction on the site have

360 also provided contributions.

In addition Murray Estates, the landowners have matched fundraising efforts by the local community and have donated materials for specific projects. Significantly there has been a substantial contribution of volunteer labour to the project from within the community. This has helped to galvanize support. The project has also received a £1,000 prize for winning Who is responsible for accessing this funding? Scotland’s Finest Woods Awards which has been reinvested into the project. Are local people encouraged to provide help with fundraising or to provide The group access this funding through dialogue with the landowner and their existing network of contacts. donations directly? Yes, local people participate. The group also sells some produce and craft products on a small scale basis to raise money. What other types of assistance are provided “in kind” to the group by local Moray estates provides much help in kind through their forestry and land management operations. Many local firms and people or businesses e.g. use of machinery or professional expertise? businesses donate materials and resources. What does the group do most successfully? Direct practical volunteering and co-ordination of works on the ground. Creatively involving local partners in the management of the site. What has the group not achieved so effectively to date? Does the group undertake any commercial activity to assist with income Only on a very small scale through sale of craft products etc. The aim of the group is not to raise income, other than to cover generation? (eg. training provision, sale of forest products, equipment rental it’s costs. etc.) 4. Promotion of activities: Does the group carry out any educational or awareness raising activities to DCWG operate a Facebook page which has 458 followers (Nov 18) and which documents all activities undertaken by the promote its objectives to specific audiences? If so, to which audiences? (e.g. local group. people, tourists, schools and nurseries?) What form do these take e.g. leaflets, The group also encourage active participation by the wider community through the organisation of fun days, summer play website, workshops or events? schemes and one off events and activities. Does the group encourage the wider participation of the general public? If so Through inviting assistance in workdays and open events. how is this encouraged?

To what extent does the group make use of information technology and the DCWG operate a Facebook page which has 458 followers (Nov 18) and which documents all activities undertaken by the internet to promote its activities? group.

5. Partnership working and added value: To what extent does the group work in partnership with other organisations? If The project is an active partnership between the Doune Community Woodland Group (DCWG) and Moray Estates Ltd. Other so, with which organisations and what is the reason for involving these partners include the Windfarm Trust, Paths for All Partnership, Postcode Lottery, Stirling Community Pride Project, Kilmadock stakeholders? Community Council, Stirling Council, CEMEX Aggregates Does the group work across any local, regional or national administrative No boundaries? If so, is this proving to be a straightforward process? What added social return on investment SROI does the group provide? (explain In terms of social outcomes there have been considerable capacity building benefits for the local community through the meaning of the term) participation in volunteering. A number of other special events have also been organised. These include summer fun days, family days and educational events. Camphill school, which provides education for people with learning disabilities has also Which of the following SROI benefits are included; community capacity building, been involved. training, social cohesion, young people, vulnerable adults? Yes, all of these.

Are there any areas of conflict? (eg. between reconciling nature conservation, N/A landscape or tourism objectives and wider sustainable development interests ?) 6. Strategic context in relation to GI Are you aware of the concept of Green Infrastructure (GI)? (explain concept if Not Known required). What does GI mean to you?

361 What activities relevant to GI does the group undertake? Management of the 16ha site for recreation and biodiversity objectives. To date much has been done in terms of both

managing the ponds and improving the visitor facilities. This has included tree felling to open up vistas of the main pond, the installation of new paths, the repair and replacement of steps, repair and maintenance of access infrastructure including picnic tables and benches, bird hides and bridges. A large amount of weeding and general tidying of neglected woodland has also occurred. The woodland is being restructured through supplementary planting of native broadleaved species. The site is Important for wildfowl and also for diversity of fungus species. Specifically this has included creation of a network of accessible paths including 1000m of new all abilities paths for wheelchair users and other upgraded paths. Works included construction of a new footbridge and generated, in total 5000 volunteer hours from 70 regular volunteers. In terms of social outcomes there have been considerable capacity building benefits for the local community through participation in volunteering. A number of other special events have also been organised. These include summer fun days, family days and educational events. Camphill school, which provides education for people with learning disabilities has also been involved. To the best of your knowledge, to what extent does the group deliver local/ The group is improving the condition of a local nature reserve for biodiversity benefits, including the connectivity of the site regional / national /EU policy objectives relevant to GI e.g. Natura site with the wider landscape. The site is located within the Central Scotland Green Network and forms a component of the CSGN management, ecological connectivity, designated landscapes? IHN mapping.

Was delivering strategic GI outcomes a consideration in the development of the No, purely local interests. project or was it intended purely to satisfy a local need? How knowledgeable are the groups generally about wider GI concepts including Not well acquainted. European policy objectives?

7. Future Activities and Support Structures How does the group see its role developing in the future? Will the focus remain To enhance the site further and to take on new projects around the village of Doune, in keeping with the wider aspirations of the same or will it evolve? the group. What opportunities exist for the group? Develop new projects in the village. Are there any threats to the continuation of the group? No Known. What types of assistance, if any, are most needed by the group? e.g technical Good support available currently. advice, fundraising support, administrative support, training provision? Is such support available? If so, where can it come from? Community Woodlands Association. Are current support structures / organisations adequate at present? Is there a Not required. need to develop new structures? Are there sufficient opportunities available to network with other similar groups? Yes, through Community Woodlands Association. Would it be useful to have a national or regional forum to provide advice and Exists already. disseminate best practice? If so, what should the role of this forum be?

362

AP.2.8 North West Mull Community Woodland Company

1. General background: Responses: Name of Group? North West Mull Community Woodland Company Date and reason for formation? Established in 2006 to manage the Langamull and West Ardhu Forests in the NW of Mull, Argyll, Scotland. These woodlands were purchased from Forestry Commission Scotland, the State Forestry Service under the National Forest Land Scheme. Geographical extent of the group? The group covers the extent of NW Mull. Main aims and objectives of the group? (e. g. wildlife/landscape enhancement, green  To manage the 2 woodland areas according to a long term plan incorporating economic, social and tourism, local sustainability/agenda 21, social inclusion, capacity building, environmental objectives. education/training ?)  To develop alternative enterprises within the woodlands including woodland burials and ecotourism/wildlife watching (including sea eagle observation hide).  To realise commercial returns on the woodlands through the extraction of harvestable timber through development of the necessary infrastructure.  To promote diversification through development of small scale agriculture and social regeneration through the creation of “forest crofts”. To develop energy potential of the forests through the creation of “Island Woodfuels” subsidiary and through the development of small-scale micro-hydro. 2. Structure and organisation of Group: How is the group structured; e.g. community association, social enterprise, informally, The group is structured as a not for profit public company Limited by guarantee. or as a sub group of a larger organisation? Is the group a formally constituted 363 organisation? How many members are there? Of these, approximately what percentage are active? In January 2012 NWMCWC had 163 Ordinary Members, 54 Associate Members, 10 Junior Members and 9 Directors.

There are currently 7 directors with a maximum of 12 possible. Directors must normally be resident. What is the rough social / age/ gender composition of the membership? (e. g. mainly Broad ranging. Directors are mainly retired professionals and local businesses / farmers. retired, younger people, working families etc. ?) How often do the group meet and what form do these meetings take? Formal meetings of the Directors are held between 10 – 12 times per year. Extensive minutes are produced and these are made available on the website. Do the group meet to undertake practical activities or only for coordination purposes? The group primarily work in an enabling and co-ordination role. The Company employs 3 full time staff to co-ordinate as administrators and project managers to progress the agenda of the organisation. How are decisions made by the group and who makes them? Decisions are made by the Directors through their meetings. A recent decision was also made to progress with the purchase of the Island of Ulva under the terms of the Scottish Government’s “Community Right to Buy” legislation. This required a ballot of 400 local people to allow the bid to proceed. When there is a disagreement, how is this resolved? This is resolved through discussion by the Directors. Are outside experts, advisors or those with external interests encouraged to participate Yes, the Board regularly seek advice from external experts, local people and business interests. in the group? “Green Surge” Typology match (with justification): The initiative would fit the category of a “green hub” which has evolved from a smaller grass roots initiative. From: “Green Surge: Innovative governance of urban green spaces WP6, P5” 3. Planning and delivery of objectives: Is there a longer term plan or vision for the activities to be undertaken? Yes, there are operational plans and design statements for the 2 community Woodland areas, a general business plan If so, how has this plan been developed and by whom? and Articles of Association. The recent acquisition of the Island of Ulva required an extensive feasibility study to be submitted as part of the formal bid process. Are copies of this plan available to the wider public and other interested groups? Plans are developed both internally by staff and directors and through the use of external paid consultants. Is the plan regularly updated and revised? Yes, all information is made publically accessible on the organisations website.

All plans are updated regularly subject to the requirements of funders including Forestry Commission Scotland, SNH etc. What tangible outputs are provided by the group?  Management of the 2 forest areas – Langamull (251 ha) and West Ardhu (440ha),  Creation of 16.5km of new forest extraction routes  Recent acquisition of the Isle of Ulva estate in June 2018 (2000ha)  Creation of Island Woodfuels subsidiary  Creation of 9 forest crofts.  Development of a micro hydro scheme in West Ardhu Forest.  Creation of a woodland burial ground at Langamull.  Creation of an access path and archaeological interpretation at Kildavie.  Development of a sea eagle viewing hide to promote sustainable ecotourism. Are these outputs delivered indirectly (through a co-ordination role) or directly through The company delivers these outputs as a managing agent, facilitator and co-ordinating body. It employs 3 staff in a “hands on” volunteering? coordination role to ensure effective project delivery. How is the work funded? National Forest Land scheme through Forestry Commission Scotland for purchase, Scottish Land Fund, the Robertson Trust, Hugh Fraser Foundation. There has also been significant local fundraising initiatives. In addition an interest free loan of 700,000 pounds has been received to finance timber extraction routes which totalled 2.4 million pounds. Who is responsible for accessing this funding? Yes, the Company undertakes fundraising actions locally with its members. Are local people encouraged to provide help with fundraising or to provide donations directly? What other types of assistance are provided “in kind” to the group by local people or The group have wide ranging networks of contacts and are able to seek professional expertise as required. The group businesses e.g. use of machinery or professional expertise? have adopted very much business model and seek funding to pay for professional expertise where this is not available.

364 What does the group do most successfully? Managing the woodlands through a business model whilst integrating social and environmental regeneration aspects. The Company has been shown to be opportunistic and ambitious through their recent acquisition of the Island of Ulva. What has the group not achieved so effectively to date? Some sections of the community are sceptical and remain unconvinced of the benefits of community ownership. Does the group undertake any commercial activity to assist with income generation? Yes, since 2011 the group have developed the following commercial activities with a view to achieving a longer term (eg. training provision, sale of forest products, equipment rental etc.) sustainable income stream:  Woodfuel and timber sales  Leasing land for forest crofts  Green burial site  Sea eagle viewing hide for ecotourism 4. Promotion of activities: Does the group carry out any educational or awareness raising activities to promote its Yes the group have carried out a number of forest schools events with local primary schools to raise awareness. These objectives to specific audiences? If so, to which audiences? (e.g. local people, tourists, include sea eagle watching events, and archaeological events. schools and kitas?) What form do these take e.g. leaflets, website, workshops or events? Does the group encourage the wider participation of the general public? If so how is Yes, the group organise a number of days for public participation through volunteering, interpretation and awareness this encouraged? raising. In addition local people are encouraged to become members of the organisation, including junior and affiliate members. To what extent does the group make use of information technology and the internet to The group has a good website with detailed information including full minutes and details of all meetings and projects. promote its activities?

5. Partnership working and added value: To what extent does the group work in partnership with other organisations? If so, with The group works in partnership with the Tobermory harbour Association, SW Mull Community Woodland and the Mull which organisations and what is the reason for involving these stakeholders? and Iona Community Trust, UPM Tilhill Harvesting. There has been a good working relationship with Forestry Commission Scotland (FCS) regarding development of the Forest Design Plan. As part of the development of this plan, The Mull and Iona Community Trust, Argyll and Bute Council, SNH, Historic Scotland, SEPA, RSPB, local landowners and a tenant farmer have also been consulted. The process of developing crofting tenancies was done in liaison with Crofters Commission, FCS and the Scottish government. NMWCWC has worked informally with the Rural Housing Service in developing the plans for affordable housing. There has been a partnership with Mull and Ilona Community Trust (MICT) in order to secure funding for a hydro-power feasibility study. There is a partnership between NWMCWC and two local primary schools around the delivery of a Forest School programme. The group has further collaborated with the Mull Eagle Watch Partnership with members from Strathclyde Police, RSPB, FCS, SNH and MICT, around the protection of a site where a pair of white tailed eagles were nesting. NWMCWC is a member of Community Woodlands Association (CWA), Development Trusts Association Scotland, Community Energy Scotland, Community Land Scotland, Reforesting Scotland and Confor. NWMCWC also engages in knowledge sharing with other community woodland organisations (e.g., Knoydart Forest Trust, Abriachan Forest Trust, Sleat Community Trust) and external organisations (e.g., FCS, LEADER). Does the group work across any local, regional or national administrative boundaries? N/A If so, is this proving to be a straightforward process? N/A What added social return on investment SROI does the group provide? (explain the Through involvement of young people from 2 primary schools in Forest schools programme, social housing and forest meaning of the term) crofts programmes, repopulation and community regeneration programme for the island of Ulva – particularly with reguard to addressing issue of falling school rolls, critical infrastructure and housing regeneration.

365 Which of the following SROI benefits are included; community capacity building, Young people, training in ecotourism and habitat management.

training, social cohesion, young people, vulnerable adults? Are there any areas of conflict? (eg. between reconciling nature conservation, Yes, Some local residents do not see the benefits of community ownership – this was particularly the case with the landscape or tourism objectives and wider sustainable development interests ?) acquisition of the Island of Ulva, though most resistance came from traditional landowner groups expressing vested interests. Also there have been a number of internal conflicts within the organisation regarding approaches to timber harvesting. Generally however the group adopts an integrated/ multi-disciplinary approach to all aspects of its operations. 6. Strategic context in relation to GI Are you aware of the concept of Green Infrastructure (GI)? (explain concept if required) Yes, there is awareness of Green Infrastructure. What does GI mean to you? Landscape scale connectivity and provision of local ecosystem services. What activities relevant to GI does the group undertake? Forest management, habitat management and diversification, interpretation and educational programmes. To the best of your knowledge, to what extent does the group deliver local/ regional / Scottish Forestry Strategy – forest design plan national /EU policy objectives relevant to GI e.g. Natura site management, ecological Scottish Rural Development Programme, connectivity, designated landscapes? Scottish Land Reform Programme, SNH – Loch Na Keal National Scenic Area (includes Isle of Ulva) Sea of Hebrides Marine Protected Area Local Biodiversity Action Plan through site diversification to favour biodiversity and natural habitats - wildlife of interest includes freshwater pearls and otter breeding sites in the river Bellart. There is presence of white-tailed eagles (currently monitored in Langamull wood). Hare, golden eagle, buzzard, red deer, hen harrier, barn owl and short eared owl. Was delivering strategic GI outcomes a consideration in the development of the project Intended to deliver multifunctional sustainable development objectives, representing a balance between or was it intended purely to satisfy a local need? environmental sustainability, economic and social regeneration. Yes, the group is knowledgeable.

How knowledgeable are the groups generally about wider GI concepts including European policy objectives?

7. Future Activities and Support Structures How does the group see its role developing in the future? Will the focus remain the The group will see its activities expand in relation to the recent purchase of the Island of Ulva. This will involve same or will it evolve? upscaling initiatives to bring about local sustainable economic and social regeneration initiatives on the island and linking this with a programme of ecological enhancement and environmental regeneration. In this respect the Company see themselves primarily working in an enabling role to kick-start local enterprises and regeneration initiatives. What opportunities exist for the group? The topic of land reform is very high up the political agenda within Scotland. Through their recent acquisition of Ulva the group are able to position themselves at the forefront of the Community land debate in Scotland. The group also have close links with the Community Woodlands Association and with Community Land Scotland which will help to raise additional awareness. The practical management of Ulva will provide a key challenge to the group. There are also opportunities for the group to use their specialist knowledge to advise on the development of other community Are there any threats to the continuation of the group? ownership initiatives, including within urban areas. The position of the group appears to be secure in the medium term at least. What types of assistance, if any, are most needed by the group? e.g technical advice, The group already have a well-developed and progressive network that can be called upon for assistance. In addition fundraising support, administrative support, training provision? the Group have strong affiliations through organisations as Community Land Scotland, the Community Woodland Association, DTAS – Development Trusts Association Scotland, Community Energy Scotland, Reforesting Scotland and Confor. NWMCWC also engages in knowledge sharing with other community woodland organisations (e.g., Knoydart Forest Trust, Abriachan Forest Trust, Sleat Community Trust) and external organisations (e.g., FCS, LEADER).

366 Is such support available? If so, where can it come from? Group have previously been able to attract financial support from National Forest Land scheme through Forestry Commission Scotland for purchase, Scottish Land Fund, the Robertson Trust, Hugh Fraser Foundation. There has also

been significant local fundraising initiatives. In addition an interest free loan of 700,000 pounds has been received to finance timber extraction routes which totalled 2.4 million pounds. The group have also additionally attracted funding from the Scottish Land fund of 4.4 million for the purchase of the Island of Ulva. Are current support structures / organisations adequate at present? Is there a need to Yes the group are well connected with existing support structures – there is sufficient capacity. develop new structures? Are there sufficient opportunities available to network with other similar groups? Yes, the Group have strong affiliations through organisations as Community Land Scotland, the Community Woodland Association, DTAS – Development Trusts Association Scotland, Community Energy Scotland, Reforesting Scotland and Confor. NWMCWC also engages in knowledge sharing with other community woodland organisations (e.g., Knoydart Forest Trust, Abriachan Forest Trust, Sleat Community Trust) and external organisations (e.g., FCS, LEADER). Would it be useful to have a national or regional forum to provide advice and Such Forums already exist – see the list above. The group have direct links to other fora including holding joint disseminate best practice? directorships on these bodies. If so, what should the role of this forum be? To provide continuing best practice advice and information dissemination.

Appendix 3. Selected Statutory and Mentoring Body Questionnaires:

AP.3.1 Aachen Biologische Station:

1. General Background : Details / Responses Name of organisation: Aachen Biologische Station Interview Date and Place: Stolberg, NRW - 25/10/16 Remit of organisation: To manage nature areas within the Aachen Städteregion Location and geographical coverage: Aachen Städteregion - with occasional cross border working Do you work with local community partners ? Yes, the group works with local communities in the Eifel area If yes, which groups and how are these selected ? If not, why not ? Communities become involved when there is a direct local interest in the management of a nature area. 2. Working with Communities: What is your understanding of community participation ? At what level Open Communication is the most important element and this requires a two way dialogue. Community participation is considered should this be ? What level of autonomy should exist for community be an element of specific projects rather than integral to the everyday activities of the group. groups ? Through which mechanisms do you work with these groups ? e.g. through; The Biologische Station operates as a managing agent for sites and therefore by default has to involve the necessary stakeholders.  Provision of financial support ? It is able to lever financial resources from diverse sources however it is most likely that the Biologische Station will accept financial  Provision of technical advice ? support from communities or municipalities and undertake the necessary action directly. The Biologische Station is also involved in  As a representative on a management group or forum ? attending steering groups - e.g. for the Struffelt in Rott, and is occasionally also involved in checking compliance. The Biologische  In the role of a regulator to check compliance ? Station will also provide informal advice and organisational assistance; however it is not really geared up to perform such functions  and does not proactively engage in such programmes -i.e. through outreach programmes.

367 Assisting the group as a mentor through informal dialogue ?  Other (describe) ?

How do you view your relationship with regards to community initiatives ? As an equal partner. e.g. As an equal partner, as the landowner or managing body, other role ? How do you perceive community initiatives generally ? e.g. The Biologische Station generally perceives community initiatives to be a positive thing, however there is the need for some control  As effective solutions for delivering citizen empowerment and and monitoring and awareness that community engagement requires greater inputs of staff time and resources. reducing costs ?  As something that requires close control and monitoring to deliver results ?  As potentially useful but with limitations ? (what are these limitations ?)  As an ineffective solution i.e. better to manage projects directly ?  As a burden requiring staff time and resources ? Are there examples of partnerships where you have worked successfully Rott is a good example, where the group have worked directly with the local community (Heimatverein) to manage the Struffelt with citizen’s groups ? If so what has been achieved ? NSG. Work with the Stolberg “Arbeitkreis Naturschutz” has also been very successful in terms of initiating a number of small local conservation projects including the acquisition of new sites. http://www.arbeitskreis-naturschutz.de/arbeitsfelder.html# Are there results which you are particularly proud of ? What specific tools/ mechanisms do you use to engage with communities: Engagement mechanisms include public meetings, e.g. public meetings, workshops and events, publications and websites, Workshops and events e.g. Streuobstwiesen fest. Previous children’s projects. participatory appraisals, action research etc ? Would like to be involved in more participatory work but lack of resources and staff time prevents this from happening.

3. Delivery of outcomes What contribution do you think that citizens’ groups can make towards Lots of scope i.e. direct practical management through volunteering, guided tours and events, sharing local knowledge and skills, delivery of strategic Green Infrastructure outcomes ? undertaking political activities/lobbying (e.g. Wurmtal AG)

What additional added value do you think that community participation Through improving knowledge and awareness generally of nature conservation and the natural world. Social return is not accorded can provide e.g. community capacity building, training and personal with a high priority though the group has previously co-ordinated “back to work” programmes for long term unemployed people – development, skills development etc. Are delivery of such additional these were not found to be successful due to the high amounts of supervision and management required. benefits considered to be of significant to your organisation ?

4. Sustainability and Future Policy Implications: Have you been involved in citizen participation initiatives which have failed Yes; the creation of an outlook tower at the Struffelt in Rott was found to be unsuccessful. This was due to disagreement between ? What were the reasons for this failure ? the local stakeholders and external partners. The project has since been completed in a different location. Do you think that citizen participation initiatives can be sustained in the Yes, these can be sustained in the longer term. The main factors favouring longer term sustainability are local enthusiasm and longer term or are they merely short term – what factors favour longer leadership. term sustainability ? Have your organisations policies changed in recent years towards citizen Yes there is a general interest in greater levels of citizen engagement. It is recognised that more can be achieved through this led initiatives ? mechanism. Some funding is also dependent upon developing effective partnerships (e.g. LEADER funding). If so what has been the driver for this change ? Are their internal barriers within the organisation which have prevented There is a view often that if the status quo is functioning effectively then why change current practices. In principle the view is new approaches to working with communities ? e.g. organisational inertia, generally positive however it is recognised that there are constraints in terms of time and money. cultural / financial or political barriers ?

368 Do you think citizen participation and citizen led initiatives will become This will continue to be important – however only if local stakeholders maintain an interest in being involved. increasingly significant in future ? if so why ?

AP.3.2 Stadt Aachen – Umwelt Amt

1. General Background to Organisation: Details / Responses Name of organisation: Stadt Aachen Umwelt Amt Interview Date and Place: Aachen, NRW - 07/09/2016 Remit of organisation: Local Authority – responsible for the protection, planning and management of greenspaces in the City of Aachen. Work is co- ordinated through the public open space strategy which cover public greenspace/open space, green streets/ squares. Typology of spaces includes sports areas, City Parks, heritage landscapes (historic parks), formal parks, strategic greenways, local parks and neighbourhood spaces. Location and geographical coverage: Jurisdiction for the City of Aachen Do you work with local community partners ? Yes, the Authority does this. If yes, which groups and how are these selected ? i) In a top down way through organising consultations on new initiatives / enhancement projects e.g. park or public open space enhancements. If not, why not ? ii) Reactionary: dealing with negative responses to proposals and also requests for positive intervention from particular groups. 2. Working with Communities: What is your understanding of community participation ? At what level The role of the authority is to reconcile the interests of the various parties involved in each situation. In this respect “bottom up” should this be ? What level of autonomy should exist for community groups community projects are perceived as being of equal status and importance to the interests of other residents and the wider ? public. The role of the authority to provide order and organisation within the management rather than specifically assisting particular groups. Through which mechanisms do you work with these groups ? e.g. through; The authority provides advice to reconcile conflicts. The City does not generally work through participation on management  Provision of financial support ? groups but provides leases and contracts which must be agreed and adhered to by citizen’s initiatives. The authority monitors 369  Provision of technical advice ? compliance with these contracts and will intervene or revoke the contract as necessary. In this respect the Council have more the  As a representative on a management group or forum ? role of a regulator rather than an enabler.

 In the role of a regulator to check compliance ?  Assisting the group as a mentor through informal dialogue ? The City also responds to community campaigns which might arise through negative situations e.g. groups who are protesting  Other (describe) ? about proposals for development on land which is currently public open space or which incorporates GI elements. How do you view your relationship with regards to community initiatives ? The local authority see themselves as the regulator and the managing body. They conduct consultation exercises when they e.g. As an equal partner, as the landowner or managing body, other role ? perceive works will impact upon local people or where they seek specific input or feedback from plans. However the Council do not have specific mechanisms to promote bottom up initiatives but will respond if required. How do you perceive community initiatives generally ? e.g. The Council maintain an open view on such projects and deal with each instance on a case by case basis. Generally the Council do  As effective solutions for delivering citizen empowerment and not operate mechanisms to specifically facilitate local “Bottom Up” initiatives. On the other hand the Council will invite local reducing costs ? residents to contribute to the development of proposals when new initiatives are planned.  As something that requires close control and monitoring to deliver results ? The authority recognise that bottom up community initiatives are not necessarily representative of the wider community but can  As potentially useful but with limitations ? (what are these reflect specialist interest groups within localities. The Soermondt Gardening group is a good illustration of this in practice – in limitations ?) reality most of the members are from households with higher levels of education and social mobility. The Council must be an  As an ineffective solution i.e. better to manage projects directly ? honest broker and satisfy the needs of the wider community, some of whom may not be sympathetic to the aspirations of the  As a burden requiring staff time and resources ? gardening group.

At a managerial and political level there are mixed views about the value of such projects. Some elected councillors consider the Soermondt project to be too radical and not “orderly” enough whilst others are much more positive about the initiative. In some respect this can be seen as a classical conflict between modernisers and those representing traditional interests.

Are there examples of partnerships where you have worked successfully with The Soermondt Park is a good example of where a community group have taken forward an initiative under their own auspices. citizen’s groups ? If so what has been achieved ? Initially the land was due to be developed to provide sports facilities, however the group petitioned that the land be used as a community garden and incorporated into a plan for the regeneration of the wider Soermondt Park. The group have now Are there results which you are particularly proud of ? negotiated a lease for the land and are involved in sustainable food production and wildlife gardening. There are however conflicts with the interests of some other residents in the area including the informal use of the area by members of the public in the late evening. The Council also work with local “stiftung” in particular geographical locations on a range of themes such as water and springs. An example of this is around the Lousberg. What specific tools/ mechanisms do you use to engage with communities: Public meetings, workshops and events are important mechanisms to engage with local communities. These are organised when e.g. public meetings, workshops and events, publications and websites, particular projects are proposed by the authority (e.g. new local park initiative) to inform and involve local residents. There are participatory appraisals, action research etc.? no specific mechanisms to promote “bottom up” community led initiatives – any such initiatives are dealt with on a responsive case by case basis. 3. Delivery of outcomes What contribution do you think that citizens’ groups can make towards Citizen’s groups are considered to be an appropriate mechanism in certain instances however they represent no panacea. In this delivery of strategic Green Infrastructure outcomes ? respect they should be considered to be part of a wider set potential mechanisms for the creation and management of green infrastructure and particularly for the delivery of the Council’s Open Space Strategy. What additional added value do you think that community participation can Additional added value is recognised, for example, in terms of the following; developing social capital, improving community provide e.g. community capacity building, training and personal cohesion. However these are not considered to be primary objectives in the delivery and development of greenspace planning development, skills development etc. Are delivery of such additional benefits initiatives. This may be a reflection of integrated policy objectives at a strategic level. considered to be of significant to your organisation ? 4. Sustainability and Future Policy Implications:

370 Have you been involved in citizen participation initiatives which have failed ? Yes; for example the student garden in the Aachen Stadtpark – the objectives of the project were not realistic and the What were the reasons for this failure ? commitment required by students was underestimated. The turnover of students was also a problem in terms of ongoing

sustainability. School gardens have also proved problematic as there has often been insufficient interest from across the school community to sustain the project. Do you think that citizen participation initiatives can be sustained in the Dependent upon the nature of the community. longer term or are they merely short term – what factors favour longer term sustainability ? Have your organisations policies changed in recent years towards citizen led There is a more general drive towards incorporating the views of residents and the community. initiatives ? If so what has been the driver for this change ? National and European policies. Are their internal barriers within the organisation which have prevented new There are divergences of opinion within the organisation; some departments and individual officers are open and receptive to approaches to working with communities ? e.g. organisational inertia, the concept of community engagement whilst others adhere very closely to top down methodologies and principles. In general cultural / financial or political barriers ? there is a slow transition to more inclusive methodologies which favour citizen participation. The leadership of the organisation promote these approaches, however these have not fully filtered down. Do you think citizen participation and citizen led initiatives will become Yes; this is the general direction of movement. increasingly significant in future ? if so why ?

AP.3.3 Ministry for Environment, Agriculture, Conservation and Consumer Protection of the State of North Rhine-Westphalia (MULNV)

1. General Background to Organisation: Details / Responses Name of organisation: NRW Ministry of Environment Interview Date and Place: 28/11/18 - Mantua, Italy Remit of organisation: The Ministry for Environment, Agriculture, Conservation and Consumer Protection of the State of North Rhine-Westphalia (MULNV) is part of the government of the German state of North Rhine-Westphalia. The Ministry applies Federal, State and European Union laws, oversees their implementation and controls the entire process through a variety of executive agencies. Sections under the direction of the Department include:  State Agency for Nature, Environment and Consumer Protection (LANUV)  Forest and Timber State Enterprise  North Rhine-Westphalia State Stud Farm  Director of the Chamber of Agriculture (also serves as a State Government representative)  Veterinary Laboratories Agency (SVUA) LANUV is a section within the Ministry of Environment, Agriculture, Nature and Consumer Protection of the State of North Rhine-Westphalia and advises the state government. Responsibilities include nature conservation and landscape management in addition to a number of other related technical fields.As a technical authority, LANUV supports the enforcement authorities of local and regional authorities. Within LANUV, the Nature and Environmental Protection Academy (NUA) is concerned with developing and strengthening awareness for protection of nature and the environment. Since 1997 NUA has organised events, training courses, action days and campaigns, as well as the development and provision of interpretation materials. The diversity of NUA activities has

371 steadily increased over the years.During the early years, nature conservation topics were emphasised, whilst nowadays diverse topics which include environmental protection, consumer protection, climate protection, urban development, consumer education and animal welfare are all undertaken by NUA. Sustainability, environment and global development topics have also become increasingly important in the NUA program since the Rio de Janeiro World Conference on Environment and Development. Environmental education has evolved into education for sustainable development. Location and geographical coverage: State of NRW Do you work with local community partners ? Works to deliver specific training courses on GI and nature conservation related themes through NUA. LANUV is also involved If yes, which groups and how are these selected ? in ensuring compliance with German Nature Conservation Law by responsible parties. LANUV works at a strategic level If not, why not ? 2. Working with Communities: What is your understanding of community participation ? At what level should LANUV appears to have no programme which directly promotes the involvement of local citizens groups in nature conservation this be ? What level of autonomy should exist for community groups ? other than through the function of NUA to provide training. The role of LANUV is focused upon compliance and awareness raising. Through which mechanisms do you work with these groups ? e.g. through; The role of LANUV is one of regulator. The department also provides technical advice and provides training programmes which  Provision of financial support ? are accessible to local groups e.g. community gardening and biodiversity management.  Provision of technical advice ?  As a representative on a management group or forum ?  In the role of a regulator to check compliance ?  Assisting the group as a mentor through informal dialogue ?  Other (describe) ? How do you view your relationship with regards to community initiatives ? e.g. LANUV does not work at an individual project level with communities but works at a more strategic level through targeted As an equal partner, as the landowner or managing body, other role ? funding calls, strategic policy guidelines etc.

How do you perceive community initiatives generally ? e.g. As potentially something useful but the approach of the organisation is largely top down.  As effective solutions for delivering citizen empowerment and reducing costs ?  As something that requires close control and monitoring to deliver results ?  As potentially useful but with limitations ? (what are these limitations ?)  As an ineffective solution i.e. better to manage projects directly ?  As a burden requiring staff time and resources ? Are there examples of partnerships where you have worked successfully with Projects associated with Emscher Landscape Park. citizen’s groups ? If so what has been achieved ? 2016 Funding Call for GI focusing upon disadvantaged City Districts developing Integrated Action Concepts, IHK. https://www.umwelt.nrw.de/naturschutz/natur/foerderprogramme/foerder-aufruf-gruene-infrastruktur-nrw Are there results which you are particularly proud of ? https://www.umwelt.nrw.de/fileadmin/redaktion/PDFs/naturschutz/gruene_infrastruktur_erlaeuterungen_nrw.pdf What specific tools/ mechanisms do you use to engage with communities: e.g. Training programmes through NUA. public meetings, workshops and events, publications and websites, Technical publications and websites. participatory appraisals, action research etc ? Environmental education programmes. 3. Delivery of outcomes What contribution do you think that citizens’ groups can make towards There are no specific policies within the organisation which directly promote citizen participation in Green Infrastructure, delivery of strategic Green Infrastructure outcomes ? though recent GI funding streams relate to urban areas with Integrated Action Concepts favouring delivery of associated social outcomes. This is targeted to specific urban municipalities: https://www.umwelt.nrw.de/naturschutz/natur/foerderprogramme/foerder-aufruf-gruene-infrastruktur-nrw

372 What additional added value do you think that community participation can On the periphery rather than in the mainstream. provide e.g. community capacity building, training and personal development, skills development etc. Are delivery of such additional benefits considered to be of significant to your organisation ? 4. Sustainability and Future Policy Implications: Have you been involved in citizen participation initiatives which have failed ? - What were the reasons for this failure ? Do you think that citizen participation initiatives can be sustained in the longer Improved communication between stakeholders and also within governmental institutions. term or are they merely short term – what factors favour longer term sustainability ? Have your organisations policies changed in recent years towards citizen led Organisational policies do not appear to have evolved significantly as regards to facilitating citizen led community action initiatives ? approaches. If so what has been the driver for this change ? Are their internal barriers within the organisation which have prevented new The structured approach and division of functions with Governmental organisations is restrictive and doesn’t promote creative approaches to working with communities ? e.g. organisational inertia, cultural decision making processes. Planning law with regards to nature conservation in Germany is also highly prescriptive and / financial or political barriers ? restricts the potential for third parties to become involved in the management of sites. Do you think citizen participation and citizen led initiatives will become In principle but there are significant institutional barriers, a silo mentality with strict compartmentalisation of responsibilities increasingly significant in future ? if so why ? and restrictions imposed by planning laws.

AP.3.4 Städteregion Aachen – Unser Dorf hat Zukunft

1. General Background to Organisation: Details / Responses Name of organisation: Städteregion Aachen, Umwelt Amt Link: https://www.staedteregion-aachen.de/de/navigation/aemter/umweltamt-a-70/regionalentwicklung/laendlicher- raumortsteilequartiere/unser-dorf-hat-zukunft/ Interview date and place: 09/10/2017 – Aachen - NRW Remit of organisation: The remit is to promote and encourage participation in the “Unser Dorf hat Zukunft” initiative which promotes local sustainable development initiatives within communities through an annual competition. The competition considers a number of categories including demographics, infrastructure, young people and environment. There is a structured checklist to encourage participation / action. Date of establishment: The award has been promoted since the 1960s. However in 2008 there was a change in emphasis towards sustainability objectives. Location and geographical coverage: The competition is promoted within the Städteregion Aachen. However there are also prizes awarded at State and Federal level. Do you work with local community partners ? Yes, the role of the organisation is an enabling /mentoring body assisting local communities. If yes, which groups and how are these selected ? The project works with smaller communities throughout the Städteregion in an advisory role. Communities are encouraged to approach the project for advice, information and as a first point of contact. Participation is therefore open to all groups who might have an interest. If not, why not ? N/A 2. Working with Communities:

373 What is your understanding of community participation ? At what level should That local people should be fully engaged in developing their own community through participative action. In this respect the this be ? What level of autonomy should exist for community groups ? goal should be to promote self-realisation and for local people to become less reliant upon state institutions.

Through which mechanisms do you work with these groups ? e.g. through; The project is able to signpost the local communities involved towards varied funding sources, including an initial donation of  Provision of financial support ? 500 Euros from the Sparkasse for participation in the competition. The project also encourages the local communities to apply  Provision of technical advice ? to sources such as LEADER funding, state incentives etc.  As a representative on a management group or forum ? Some technical advice in terms of governance models is provided as well as some information about how to get started on the  In the role of a regulator to check compliance ? projects. The aim is to initially provide a higher level of support and then to encourage the communities concerned to become  Assisting the group as a mentor through informal dialogue ? more self-sufficient over time.  Other (describe) ? In this respect the project is clearly working in an enabling and mentoring role. The competition specifies a series of clear scoring criteria which should be achieved in order to be successful. These are: Intergenerational cooperation, promotion of village and community pride, cooperation of clubs, demographic change, local services, involvement of new citizens, construction and village design, renewable energy and green design. How do you view your relationship with regards to community initiatives ? e.g. As an equal partner. As an equal partner, as the landowner or managing body, other role ? How do you perceive community initiatives generally ? e.g. As effective solutions for delivering citizen empowerment and creating a culture of self-sufficiency and independence based  As effective solutions for delivering citizen empowerment and upon local action. There is however no one standard model applicable to all situations. reducing costs ?  As something that requires close control and monitoring to deliver results ?  As potentially useful but with limitations ? (what are these limitations ?)  As an ineffective solution i.e. better to manage projects directly ?  As a burden requiring staff time and resources ?

Are there examples of partnerships where you have worked successfully with There are many successful examples which have achieved considerable progress. These include for example, initiatives in Rott, citizen’s groups ? If so what has been achieved ? Eicherscheid, Worm Wildnis, and Höfen. Are there results which you are particularly proud of ? What specific tools/ mechanisms do you use to engage with communities: e.g. Village workshops, village talks, themed events, village walks, field excursions, study tours / exchanges, sharing best practice public meetings, workshops and events, publications and websites, advice, knowledge pool resource including village green design briefs. participatory appraisals, action research etc ? Through all these mechanisms, but particularly through promoting personal contact with local communities. Contact will be greater during initial phases and will be reduced over time. 3. Delivery of outcomes What contribution do you think that citizens’ groups can make towards Significant impact through developing a culture of local stewardship for the environment. A good example of this is delivery of strategic Green Infrastructure outcomes ? Eicherscheid where local people have been involved in the creation of path networks, access infrastructure and visitor interpretation. Barriers to participation can however include availability of time resources, bureaucracy and dealing with top down mentality. What additional added value do you think that community participation can Environmental awareness provide e.g. community capacity building, training and personal development, Skills training skills development etc. Are delivery of such additional benefits considered to Community capacity building be of significant to your organisation ? Local pride and self sufficiency 4. Sustainability and Future Policy Implications: Have you been involved in citizen participation initiatives which have failed ? Initiatives generally have a positive outcome and tend to be “solution orientated”. The ethos is very much focused on a “Yes, What were the reasons for this failure ? we can” approach. Do you think that citizen participation initiatives can be sustained in the longer Yes, the aim is very much to achieve longer term sustainability. In this respect the need for a long term vision, with clear goals term or are they merely short term – what factors favour longer term and objectives is important. Significant also is the need to involve diverse sections of the community including younger people,

374 sustainability ? old people, sports groups, associations etc. in complimentary action. Have your organisations policies changed in recent years towards citizen led Yes, the concept has grown and developed over time. Organisation has become more supportive.

initiatives ? If so what has been the driver for this change ? There has been a general move towards decentralisation as an impact of high level policy within government. Are their internal barriers within the organisation which have prevented new Top management are supportive towards these approaches. However some individuals within the organisation are less approaches to working with communities ? e.g. organisational inertia, cultural supportive and have not adapted so easily to working in an enabling role. / financial or political barriers ? Do you think citizen participation and citizen led initiatives will become Yes, without doubt. Culture of decentralisation and declining resources from central government and institutions. increasingly significant in future ? if so why ?

AP.3.5 Community Land Scotland

1. General Background to Organisation: Details / Responses Name of organisation: Community Land Scotland Interview date and place: 23/05/18 - Dervaig, Isle of Mull, Scotland Remit of organisation: Community Land Scotland was established in 2010 as a response to the need for a collective voice for community landowners in Scotland. It is a company limited by guarantee with charitable status. Our current membership includes Scottish community landowners – owning and managing approx. 500,000 acres between them – and aspiring community landowners of varying shapes and sizes throughout Scotland. We represent these existing and aspiring community landowners to reflect their views in promoting changes to legislation to empower communities, while acting as a point of contact for any communities in Scotland who wish to find out more about community land ownership. Broadly, we work to represent the Scottish community landowning movement in different arenas of associated activity. Our key objectives are to:-  Facilitate the exchange of information, enabling groups to learn from each other’s’ experience and successes  Promote the growing importance of the community landowning sector to Scotland  Reform The Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 to simplify and strengthen powers to communities  Encourage community groups to register an interest in land  Work with communities to ease the process of communities taking ownership of public land We are members of the International Land Coalition which seeks to support community land rights and land reform movements around the world. Date of establishment: 2010 Location and geographical coverage: Scotland 375 Do you work with local community partners ? Yes, Community Land Scotland is a member association comprised of local groups and initiatives. The member groups have the right to stand on the Board.

If yes, which groups and how are these selected ? If not, why not ? Any local group or association with an interest in community land ownership is able to join. 2. Working with Communities: What is your understanding of community participation ? At what level should CLS supports the highest level of participation by local citizens and aims to promote direct community land ownership as a key this be ? What level of autonomy should exist for community groups ? mechanism for promoting sustainable development and environmental justice. It also seeks to influence governmental bodies and public policies which impact upon community land ownership. Through which mechanisms do you work with these groups ? e.g. through; CLS provides training, support and technical advice to groups. It is primarily a mentoring and a campaigning group which  Provision of financial support ? represents the interests of existing and aspiring community landowners.  Provision of technical advice ?  As a representative on a management group or forum ?  In the role of a regulator to check compliance ?  Assisting the group as a mentor through informal dialogue ?  Other (describe) ? How do you view your relationship with regards to community initiatives ? e.g. CLS is a mentor for these initiatives. The members are essentially the organisation. As an equal partner, as the landowner or managing body, other role ?

How do you perceive community initiatives generally ? e.g. CLS sees community ownership models as being essential for delivering sustainability and social justice. It believes that citizen  As effective solutions for delivering citizen empowerment and participation is a mechanism for addressing past inequalities over landownership. reducing costs ?  As something that requires close control and monitoring to deliver results ?  As potentially useful but with limitations ? (what are these limitations ?)  As an ineffective solution i.e. better to manage projects directly ?  As a burden requiring staff time and resources ? Are there examples of partnerships where you have worked successfully with Yes, many examples. 500, 000 acres of land is now under community ownership, providing a home for 25,000 people. citizen’s groups ? If so what has been achieved ? Are there results which you are particularly proud of ? What specific tools/ mechanisms do you use to engage with communities: e.g. Promoting best practice public meetings, workshops and events, publications and websites, Coordinating training events and workshops. participatory appraisals, action research etc ? Publications and training materials online Advice to groups Lobbying governmental organisations 3. Delivery of outcomes What contribution do you think that citizens’ groups can make towards CLS promotes sustainable landuse practices and the reversal of ecological decline. However the focus is upon finding locally delivery of strategic Green Infrastructure outcomes ? appropriate solutions. What additional added value do you think that community participation can Yes, these values are core to the organisation.

376 provide e.g. community capacity building, training and personal development, skills development etc. Are delivery of such additional benefits considered to be of significant to your organisation ? 4. Sustainability and Future Policy Implications: Have you been involved in citizen participation initiatives which have failed ? Yes, in the past groups have failed due to insufficient levels of funding and support in addition to lack of expertise and What were the reasons for this failure ? resources.

Do you think that citizen participation initiatives can be sustained in the longer Yes, term or are they merely short term – what factors favour longer term Appropriate legislation and policies sustainability ? Appropriate business models Community capacity and skills Access to funding and resources Established knowledge base Have your organisations policies changed in recent years towards citizen led The organisation was established only in 2010 to reflect the growing trend towards community land ownership resulting from initiatives ? Scotland’s Land Reform process. If so what has been the driver for this change ? Are their internal barriers within the organisation which have prevented new approaches to working with communities ? e.g. organisational inertia, cultural / financial or political barriers ? Do you think citizen participation and citizen led initiatives will become Yes, because of robust policies from the Scottish Government which promote land reform, diversified ownership and local increasingly significant in future ? if so why ? sustainability.

AP.3.6 Community Woodlands Association

1. General Background to Organisation: Details / Responses Name of organisation: Community Woodlands Association Interview Date: 23/05/18 - Dervaig, Isle of Mull Remit of organisation: The Community Woodlands Association was established in 2003 as the direct representative body of Scotland’s community woodland groups. We help community woodland groups across the country achieve their aspirations and potential, providing advice, assistance and information, facilitating networking and training, and representing and promoting community woodlands to the wider world. CWA was specifically set up to: Promote the benefits of community woodlands and represent the interests of community woodland groups within the political arena and to the wider world and; Support established and new community woodland groups in achieving their aspirations and full potential. Date of establishment: 2003 Location and geographical coverage: Scotland, UK Do you work with local community partners ? Yes If yes, which groups and how are these selected ? If not, why not ? CWA is a membership organisation which works with over 200 local groups. As well as being members, local groups approach CWA directly for assistance. The role of CWA is therefore very much and enabling one. 2. Working with Communities: What is your understanding of community participation ? At what level Community participation is about local people taking a lead in the planning, management and stewardship of their own local should this be ? What level of autonomy should exist for community groups woodlands. In this respect, CWA believes that community groups should be autonomous and should work as equal partners with ? other actors such as governmental bodies. 377 Through which mechanisms do you work with these groups ? e.g. through; CWA provides;  Provision of financial support ? Funding information for projects

 Provision of technical advice ? Technical advice and hands on assistance in woodland activities  As a representative on a management group or forum ? Mentoring  In the role of a regulator to check compliance ? Political lobbying and campaigning  Assisting the group as a mentor through informal dialogue ?  Other (describe) ? How do you view your relationship with regards to community initiatives ? CWA represents these groups directly with local groups also encouraged to become directors. e.g. As an equal partner, as the landowner or managing body, other role ? How do you perceive community initiatives generally ? e.g. Citizen participation and community ownership is perceived as the most effective and desirable means of governance which will  As effective solutions for delivering citizen empowerment and deliver multifunctional benefits and longer term sustainable development. reducing costs ?  As something that requires close control and monitoring to deliver results ?  As potentially useful but with limitations ? (what are these limitations ?)  As an ineffective solution i.e. better to manage projects directly ?  As a burden requiring staff time and resources ? Are there examples of partnerships where you have worked successfully with Yes, over 200 groups throughout Scotland citizen’s groups ? If so what has been achieved ? Are there results which you are particularly proud of ? That local groups are represented and have a voice.

What specific tools/ mechanisms do you use to engage with communities: Public meetings, e.g. public meetings, workshops and events, publications and websites, Workshops and conferences, participatory appraisals, action research etc ? Publications, technical reports and websites, Site visits and face to face meetings Best practice case studies 3. Delivery of outcomes What contribution do you think that citizens’ groups can make towards Potentially, however the emphasis is upon the local projects and the benefits that can be delivered to local people. delivery of strategic Green Infrastructure outcomes ? What additional added value do you think that community participation can Community capacity building, provide e.g. community capacity building, training and personal Training and personal development, development, skills development etc. Are delivery of such additional benefits Skills development considered to be of significant to your organisation ? Environmental stewardship 4. Sustainability and Future Policy Implications: Have you been involved in citizen participation initiatives which have failed ? Yes, lack of support, What were the reasons for this failure ? lack of resources and funding, lack of clear vision vested interests Do you think that citizen participation initiatives can be sustained in the Yes, can be sustained in the long term through appropriate mechanisms, structures and social enterprise approaches. longer term or are they merely short term – what factors favour longer term sustainability ? Have your organisations policies changed in recent years towards citizen led N/A

378 initiatives ? If so what has been the driver for this change ?

Are their internal barriers within the organisation which have prevented new N/A. The role of CWA is to help Community Groups to overcome such barriers with external partners. approaches to working with communities ? e.g. organisational inertia, cultural / financial or political barriers ? Do you think citizen participation and citizen led initiatives will become Yes, due to the need to address sustainability at a local level, changes in land ownership patterns and the failure of top down increasingly significant in future ? if so why ? approaches to deliver local benefits.

Appendix 4. GIS Shapefiles:

Topic Layer from inkasPortal Designated Areas; Umweltdaten LANUV NRW (c) IT NRW Düsseldorf 2009 - Alles LSGs Umweltdaten LANUV NRW (c) IT NRW Düsseldorf 2009 - Landschaftsschutzgebiet NSGs Umweltdaten LANUV NRW (c) IT NRW Düsseldorf 2009 - Naturschutzgebiete Nature Parks Umweltdaten LANUV NRW (c) IT NRW Düsseldorf 2009 - Naturpark Natura 2000 Umweltdaten LANUV NRW (c) IT NRW Düsseldorf 2009 - FFH-Gebiete National parks Umweltdaten LANUV NRW (c) IT NRW Düsseldorf 2009 - Nationalpark Biotope network Umweltdaten LANUV NRW (c) IT NRW Düsseldorf 2009 - Biotopkataster Connected habitats Umweltdaten LANUV NRW (c) IT NRW Düsseldorf 2009 - Verbundflächen (herausragende/besondere Bedeutung) Landscape character types Umweltdaten LANUV NRW (c) IT NRW Düsseldorf 2009- Landschaftsräume Green network/GI plans Umweltdaten LANUV NRW (c) IT NRW Düsseldorf 2009 – Biotopkataster Umweltdaten LANUV NRW (c) IT NRW Düsseldorf 2009- Verbundflächen (herausragende/besondere Bedeutung) Greenspace plans and networks Umweltdaten LANUV NRW (c) IT NRW Düsseldorf 2009 – Biotopkataster Umweltdaten LANUV NRW (c) IT NRW Düsseldorf 2009- Verbundflächen (herausragende/besondere Bedeutung) Path networks (local routes) Umweltdaten LANUV NRW (c) IT NRW Düsseldorf 2009- Verbundflächen (herausragende/besondere Bedeutung) Key recreational routes Umweltdaten LANUV NRW (c) IT NRW Düsseldorf 2009- Verbundflächen (herausragende/besondere Bedeutung) Physical relief and drainage Digitales Geländemodell - Schummerung (c) Geobasis NRW - DGM Schummerung Farbe

379

Appendix 5. List of Meetings and Correspondence

AP.5.1 Meetings with Local Experts and Städteregion Officials as part of the scoping process:

Date Organisation Details of Meetings with Local Experts

03/16 Städteregion Aachen Introductory meeting with key officials from Städteregion Aachen Environment and Planning and Professor Dr. Frank Lohrberg of the Institute for Landscape Architecture at RWTH, University of Aachen. 16/03/16 Städteregion Aachen Discussion with Environmental Planning Section, Städteregion Aachen to determine regional GI and Citizen Participation overview. Introductory discussion with Community Development Section. 29/03/16 Städteregion Aachen Follow up meeting with Environmental Planning Section to determine regional GI and Citizen Participation overview. 06/04/16 Städteregion Aachen Orientation visit with Environmental Planning Section for familiarisation with potential case study sites. 26/10/16 Biologische Station Interview with Biologische Station Aachen officials to determine regional GI Aachen and Citizen Participation overview. 07/09/16 Stadt Aachen Interview with Environmental Planning Section of the City of Aachen, to determine GI and Citizen Participation overview specifically within the Stadt Aachen area. 09/10/17 Städteregion Aachen Interview with Community Development Section, Städteregion Aachen to determine extent and scope of Citizen Participation in relation to “Unser Dorf hat Zukunft” and related community development programmes.

380

AP.5.2 Meetings, Site Visits and Correspondence – Städteregion Aachen Case Studies:

Site Location Date Name Activity Description /Details

Eicherscheid 11/07/16 Citizens Group Exploratory meeting and detailed Interview 12/07/16 Citizens Group Supplementary follow up material received by email 21/06/16 N/A Field visit 23/07/17 N/A Field visit 09/10/17 Mentoring Body - Städteregion Aachen Interview with project partner (Unser Dorf) Local authority /mentoring body 16/02/20 N/A Field visit for update/ review purposes Rott 28/06/16 Citizens Group Exploratory meeting and detailed Interview 07/07/16 Citizens Group Supplementary follow up material received by email 10/07/16 Citizens Group Supplementary follow up material received by email 26/10/16 Mentoring Body - Biologische Station Interview with project partner Aachen /mentoring body 21/06/16 N/A Field visit 31/03/17 N/A Field visit 17/09/17 Rott Citizens Group Action Day – observation of management activity 28/02/20 N/A Field visit for update/ review purposes 22/09/20 Mentoring Body - Biologische Station Interview with project partner Aachen /mentoring body Soermondt 06/09/16 N/A Field visit Community 07/09/16 Statutory Authority - Stadt Aachen Interview with project partner / local

Garden (Umwelt) Local authority authority representative 05/10/16 N/A Field visit 31/03/17 N/A Field visit 02/04/17 Citizens Group Exploratory meeting and detailed Interview 02/04/17 Citizens Group members Action Day – observation of management activity. 09/04/17 Citizens Group Follow up material by email 25/03/18 N/A Site Visit 04/03/18 N/A Site Visit/monitoring 22/01/20 N/A Field visit for update/review purposes 24/09/20 Statutory Authority - Stadt Aachen Response to feedback questions (Umwelt) received by email Local authority A.G. Wurmtal 27/04/17 Citizens Group Exploratory meeting and detailed e.V. Interview 01/07/17 Citizens Group Follow up material by email 07/07/17 Citizens Group Follow up material by email 14/09/17 N/A Field visit 17/09/17 N/A Field visit 05/02/20 N/A Field visit for update/review purposes Worm- 24/06/16 Citizens Group Exploratory meeting and detailed Wildnis Interview 24/06/16 Citizens Group Field visit 14/09/17 N/A Field visit 09/10/17 Mentoring Body - Städteregion Aachen Interview (Unser Dorf) Local authority 19/02/20 N/A Field visit for update/review purposes 17/09/20 Mentoring Body - Städteregion Aachen Correspondence regarding feedback (Unser Dorf) Local authority questions

381

AP.5.3 Meetings, Site Visits and Correspondence – Scotland Case Studies:

Site Location Date Name Activity Description /Details

North West Mull 21/05/18 N/A Orientation visit to Langamull and Community -22/05/18 Ardhu Community Woodlands, Mull Woodlands Company (NWMCWC) 23/05/18 Citizens Group - NWMCWC Interview – Chair 24/05/18 N/A Orientation visit to Ulva Ferry / Loch na Keal National Scenic Area 25/05/18 N/A Orientation visit to Loch Na Keal NSA and proposed Inner Hebrides Special Area of Conservation (SAC) Doune 26/05/18 N/A Orientation Visit to Doune Ponds 27/04/19 Citizens Group - DCWG Detailed Site Visit Dunbar 07/18 Citizens Group – LCWG Detailed Site Visit 12/12/18 LCWG Questionnaire proposal – email dialogue 19/01/19 LCWG Questionnaire survey – email dialogue Mentoring Bodies 23/05/18 Mentoring body – Community Land Interview Scotland, Chair 23/05/18 Mentoring body – Community Woodland Interview Association, Director

382

383