QUAESTIONES GEOGRAPHICAE 29(4) • 2010

The European Green Belt: Generating environmental governance – reshaping areas

Ja r m o Ko r t e l a i n e n

University of Eastern , Department of Geographical and Historical Studies, Joensuu, Finland

Manuscript received June 30, 2010 Revised version November 9, 2010

Ko r t e l a i n e n J., The European Green Belt: Generating environmental governance – reshaping border areas. Quaestiones Geographicae 29(4), Bogucki Wydawnictwo Naukowe, Poznań 2010, pp. 27–40, 2 figs, 3 tables. DOI 10.2478/v10117-010-0029-y, ISBN 978-83-62662-30-2, ISSN 0137-477X.

Ab s t r a c t . The article focuses on the European Green Belt (EGB), which refers to efforts to create a network of conservation areas along the borderline that used to divide Europe into the socialist and capitalist blocks. The EGB initiative attempts to link ecologically valuable areas as continuous ecological networks that cross the entire continent. The EGB is divided into three sub-regions: the Fennoscandian and Baltic Green Belt in the North and along the coastline of the Baltic Sea, the Central European Green Belt, and the South-Eastern European Green Belt. The EGB network is studied as a form of environmental governance, and its formation and furtherance are linked with the environmental governance discussion. In addition, the article aims to show that EGB governance is changing the meaning of the former . The borders have been transnationalised since they have become parts of international networks seeking to develop borderless ecological zones. However, the EGB process maintains and reproduces the borders, as the process itself depends on the availability of suitable border areas.

Ke y w o r d s : environmental governance, border areas, European Green Belt, ecological network, governance-ge- nerating network Jarmo Kortelainen, Department of Geographical and Historical Studies, University of Eastern Finland, PO Box 111, FI- 80101 Joensuu, Finland; e-mail: [email protected]

1. Introduction in the growth of various kinds of border-crossing activities ranging from everyday commuting and The European border landscapes have gone local-scale cooperation to increased transbound- through a profound change since the late 1980s. ary interaction in trade and politics. All these The former Iron Curtain between the socialist changes have strongly influenced the way Eu- and capitalist societies was torn down during the rope is understood and how the meaning of its early 1990s when the post-Soviet countries start- internal and external borders has evolved (see ed to open their formerly closed borders. Later, Paasi 2001). the extension of the towards the The article focuses on the European Green Belt east removed most of the barriers to human and (EGB), a concept which is one of the results of the material movement which used to characterise political and material changes taking place in the those border areas for decades. This has resulted European borderlands. The EGB refers to efforts 28 Jarmo Kortelainen to create a network of conservation areas along ecological regions on the ground, as a governance the borderline that used to divide Europe into the tool, and as a network of actors. The concluding socialist and capitalist blocks. Usually, the con- section presents ways in which EGB governance cept is used in its regional sense referring to ar- utilises and reshapes boundaries and border are- eal zones on the ground. In this article, a broader as in its governance-generating process. The arti- approach is employed which sees the formation cle is based on literature sources and a systematic and enhancement of the EGB as an environmen- analysis of available EGB documents. tal governance process. From this perspective, the EGB means three things. Firstly, it consists of certain land areas with characteristics that make 2. The governance-generating network it possible to define them as green belt zones. Secondly, the EGB is simultaneously a tool of en- The concept of governance is used for differ- vironmental governance which aims to bind the ent purposes; here I draw on literature which areas together and enhance specified ecological employs it to analyse changes in policy making. and social purposes. Thirdly, the EGB refers to It has become a popular notion among scholars a transnational network of actors which designs studying the changing roles of government and conceptions, coordinates the process, and puts the emergence of new forms of governing (e.g. the EGB into action. These three interlinked ele- Rhodes 1996; Jessop 1998; Pierre 2000; Kooiman ments together create a whole which is called the 2003; Bulkeley 2005). This change has been called European Green Belt (Kortelainen 2010). a shift from government to governance. The new The article has a twofold aim. Firstly, it will governance arrangements refer to dispersed, study the EGB process as a form of environmen- multi-scalar and hybrid stakeholder networks tal governance and link its formation and further- which have challenged hierarchical, territorially ance with the environmental governance discus- bound and organisationally fixed governmental sion. The empirical case is seen here as a mode of structures as the only forums of policy making. environmental governance which has linked par- This means, on the one hand, that there has been ticular border areas as parts of a governance-gen- a ”horizontal” transfer of state operations to civ- erating network. A governance-generating net- il society and business actors, and on the other work means an assemblage of actors or a system hand, that there has been a ”vertical” shift of created in order to design and maintain a specific responsibilities of the nation-states to other geo- mode of environmental governance (Kortelainen graphical scales. et al. 2010). Secondly, the article aims to show that, Echoing Rhodes (1996), governance is often as part of this EGB governance generation proc- defined as self-organising, inter-organisational ess, the meaning of the former Iron Curtain bor- networks which complement markets and gov- ders is changing. EGB activists have consciously ernmental hierarchies as governing structures. tried to improve the extremely negative image of Governance networks allocate resources and ex- those areas. The borders have also been transna- ercise control and co-ordination. Some govern- tionalised since they have become parts of inter- ance scholars exaggerate the importance of non- national networks seeking to develop borderless state actors in steering public affairs. However, I ecological zones. However, the EGB generation do not believe that these networks would totally process maintains and reproduces the borders, as supersede state bodies. Multi-organisational the process itself is based on the availability of and -sectoral governance networks have com- suitable border areas. Thus, the existence of EGB plemented existing governmental regulations, governance is based on resources provided by formed novel combinations with civil and busi- border areas. ness organisations, and reorganised governmen- The article starts with a brief introduction of tal hierarchies (see Whitehead 2003). the environmental governance perspective and Sørensen & Torfing (2005) suggest that such the presentation of the concept of a governance- networks have a relatively stable horizontal ar- generating network. It proceeds to describe the ticulation of interdependent but operationally formation of the EGB in its three senses as socio- autonomous actors who interact through nego- The European Green Belt: Generating environmental governance – reshaping border areas 29 tiations. They take place within a regulative, nor- cludes the actions of the state and, in addition, mative, cognitive and imaginary framework that, encompasses actors such as communities, busi- to a certain extent, is self-regulating. Governance nesses, and NGOs. Key to different forms of envi- networks can emerge and exist in many different ronmental governance are the political-economic forms. Some of them are self-grown and growing relationships that institutions embody and how from below, and some others are initiated from these relationships shape identities, actions, and above. The network relations can be informal in outcomes…” (Lemos & Agrawal 2006). nature or assume the form of highly formalised Border-related environmental governance associations. Usually, they cross organisational research has usually focused on transboundary boundaries, but they can sometimes be intra- environmental governance. This means coopera- organisational. Their temporal existence varies tion activities across national boundaries aiming and the geographical scale can range from local to manage common environmental problems. to national and global levels (Sørensen & Torfing While this is an aspect belonging to the EGB ini- 2005: 205–206). tiative, this article sees it more as a transnational The development of the governance concep- network and process. Although one of the major tion is largely based on studies of public services, methods of the EGB is to promote cross-border international relations and other society-related cooperation, its primary idea is to enhance a bor- topics, but in this article the focus is on environ- derless environmental governance network by mental governance in relation to border areas. linking different green belts and their actors to The governance concept has also been adopted a common transnational network. Thus, this ar- by numerous researchers dealing with natural- ticle is more about transnational environmental resource-related policies (e.g. Cashore et al. 2004; governance and how it relates to border areas in Bulkeley 2005; McCarthy 2005; Kortelainen et al. this particular case. 2010). Issues of natural resource use and conser- I believe that most definitions and studies vation have generated novel governance arrange- neglect an important element in environmental ments, networks and processes at different spatial governance – the environment itself. It is neces- scales. Governmental agencies have lost much of sary to include more explicitly socio-ecological their previous monopoly in regulating resource milieus which have enabling and conditioning use and protection since various other stakehold- properties and are spatio-temporally contingent. ers from civil society and business spheres have In their discussion of governability, Chuenpagde started to participate in official and unofficial de- et al. (2008) include ”natural systems” as elemen- cision making and enforcement. Numerous stud- tary parts of their holistic approach to environ- ies have followed these developments (e.g. van mental governance (see also Jentoft 2007). In Kersbergen & van Waarden 2004; Agrawal et al. another article (Kortelainen et al. 2010) I and my 2008; Bodin & Crona 2009). All sorts of public- colleagues have developed an approach, a gov- private partnerships are part of everyday practic- ernance-generating network, which incorporates es of environmental planning and management the local socio-ecological milieus as an integral at all geographical scales, from local projects to element in environmental governance (Fig. 1). transnational policies. The following definition A governance-generating network is a com- summarises the main elements usually associ- plex assemblage formed to produce and main- ated with environmental governance: tain a distinct type of governance arrangement. ”... environmental governance is synonymous It abstracts, combines and modifies information with interventions aiming at changes in environ- concerning concrete environments and socie- ment-related incentives, knowledge, institutions, ties, and produces standardised methods which decision making, and behaviors. More specifical- it operationalises and materialises as practices ly, we use ”environmental governance” to refer and biophysical outcomes on the ground. On to the set of regulatory processes, mechanisms this reading, governance is a relational proc- and organisations through which political actors ess in which different elements and agencies influence environmental actions and outcomes. are brought into relationships with one another. Governance is not the same as government. It in- The networks produce and distribute rules and 30 Jarmo Kortelainen

and associations through which both the design and implementation of regulation must find its way. Both the preparation and enforcement of regulations are typically carried out through several rounds of negotiations in various kinds of hybrid forums which mix different fields and sectors of society (Kortelainen et al. 2010). The processing of governance depends on the mobility of information and material things. If circulation stops and nothing moves within the network, the governance network fails. In the approach presented here, circulation is divided into four stages: abstraction, standardisation, operationalisation, and materialisation. Abstrac- tion refers to the type of circulation between sites of implementation and nodes of design which transforms concrete physical environments and their socio-ecological properties into generalised knowledge. Standardisation means a process which formulates widely applicable standards. Operationalisation refers to processes through which more general standards are made applica- ble in various contexts. Materialisation describes negotiations and practices resulting in concrete outcomes in the management of environments Fig. 1. The governance-generating network. (Kortelainen et al. 2010). Networks of governance do not operate in iso- practices whose intended aim is to affect the lation but overlap, collide with, and are shaped by way the environments are managed, utilised and other networks. The processes of governance are conserved. Governance involves heterogeneous fuelled by information about ecology and society sets of actors, including state institutions, non- created by scientific and other knowledge pro- governmental organisations, and business en- ducers. The processes receive much of their ”en- terprises. Governance-generating networks also ergy” from meta-governance and its overarching include socio-ecological sites and circumstances grand principles and values. Meta-governance where regulations take place and are enacted and has sometimes been called the ”governance of contested. governance” (e.g. Jessop 1998; Whitehead 2003). Although the process of environmental gov- It consists of those institutions and arrangements ernance is formed as an indivisible actor-net- of governance, such as the Rio process for exam- work, it is useful, at least for analytical purposes, ple, which define the ”grand principles” of trans­ to divide it into qualitatively different phases. national environmental governance. Meta-gov- Three ingredients can be distinguished: nodes of ernance consists of global expectations, demands design, forums of negotiation, and sites of imple- and guidelines which enable and steer transna- mentation. Nodes of design are concentrated as- tional environmental governance. sociations that produce standardised regulations, Sites of implementation, in turn, possess con- which are abstract enough to be applicable in and nections to socio-ecological milieus which affect transportable to various socio-ecological locales. governance. The concept of affordance can be Sites of implementation are landscapes on the helpful in this respect. Affordances have been ground where regulation materialises in a con- defined as emergent properties attached to envi- crete form, and where it is also contested. Forums ronments but which only emerge in relation to of negotiation refer to all intermediary situations certain kinds of necessary interests (Harré 2002; The European Green Belt: Generating environmental governance – reshaping border areas 31

Chemero 2003). Although the original usage of the ground in borderlands. These interlinked and ”affordance” related to individual perception, it simultaneous elements are in a necessary relation has been used to describe the broader opportuni- with each other. They are all indispensable and ties and constraints environments have to offer. influence each other, forming the environmental The local and regional combinations of social and governance process called the European Green ecological features condition, support, transform, Belt. Let me start with presenting the EGB areas. allow or deny the materialisation of environmen- tal governance systems and practices. In this ap- proach, environmental governance is afforded by 3. Sites of implementation geographically varying socio-ecological milieus, which provide different modes of environmental In the governance-generating process, local governance with geographically variable amount socio-ecological milieus affect transnational gov- of opportunities, support, obstacles, resistance, ernance in various ways. There is always a ”pre- or building blocks. These relational mixes are co- design” influence, or all information which circu- constructed by a heterogeneous set of relations lates in governance networks and makes various ranging from locally bound practices to govern- stakeholders aware of latent affordances in po- mental policies and transnational networks. They tential destinations of regulatory operations. This form locally specific constellations and provide information is present in all planning processes divergent affordances for different environmen- because ”designers” and ”operationalisers” have tal governance arrangements (Kortelainen et al. to be aware of the affordances of the potential 2010). sites of implementation. It is pointless to design The green belt initiative and projects provide governance if the standards are not applicable us with an illustrating example of the hybrid in their intended destinations. Furthermore, the multi-sited and transnational nature of contem- designed regulatory standards materialise in porary environmental governance. The EGB is a co-construction process with each place-spe- a governance-generating network which has been cific actors and socio-ecological mix of relations. designed, promoted and materialised by a heter- When geographically specific affordances tangle ogeneous set of actors originating from various with governance standards, they create different European countries. The network consists of ac- governance versions in each site, and occasion- tors from different societal fields, especially from ally local relational mixes do not support, or local NGOs, research communities, and governmental resistance blocks, new regulatory attempts (Kor­ agencies. It is designed by central actors forming telainen et al. 2010). a node of design, and operationalised through The original idea to develop the EGB initia- various forums of negotiation. Finally, govern- tive was strongly shaped by its sites of imple- ance materialises on the ground in sites of im- mentation, i.e. the border areas as a heritage of plementation, the particular borderlands which the cold-war geopolitical order and tension. This have afforded the emergence and evolvement of cold-war boundary cut Europe from the Barents the EGB initiative and network. to the Mediterranean Sea and divided the whole Next I will present the basic features of the continent into two rather different and separated EGB. Firstly, I show how it exists as sites of im- worlds. A strictly controlled and impenetrable plementation, areas and their socio-ecological boundary was framed by border zones inacces- milieus on the ground along the external border- sible to economic or other human activities. The lands of the former socialist block. Secondly, I width of the zones varied, being usually wider discuss how the EGB has been designed as a gov- on the ”socialist” side of the border, and within ernance tool, or a combination of instruments of them the widest in more remote areas. After the environmental governance, intended to preserve collapse of the socialist block, however, it lost its environments and create connections in these role as a barrier to the movement of people and border areas. Thirdly, I will analyse the forma- information. As the significance of the borders di- tion of the EGB network which aims to enhance minished, allowing more open communication, the concept and implement the EGB initiative on the border zones were made thinner or dissolved. 32 Jarmo Kortelainen

The heritage of the former geopolitical boundary tion in the borderlands which drew the attention is still visible in the landscape of various parts of of researchers and environmentalists. This makes Europe. Closed border zones were usually left it possible to argue that the borderlands, left be- out of economic use, making many of the regions hind by the former geopolitical tension and con- ecologically valuable zones or corridors. frontation, were among the original ”initiators” This was realised in two separate places. of the green belt concept. The development of Along the border between Finland and , the green belt initiative rested on amateur and already in the 1970s, satellite images showed scientific observations and was strongly guided a dark green zone of virgin forests in the border- by the characteristics of those border areas. Later, lands. This started a discussion about a ”green the concept and network were extended to other belt” on both sides of the border and generated border areas as well. research cooperation (Hokkanen et al. 2007). In Before discussing the development and design turn, German nature conservationists observed processes of this particular form of environmen- many rare species in the closed border zone be- tal governance, I will shortly present the border tween East and West Germanys when looking areas included in the European Green Belt. This through binoculars (Riecken et al. 2006). In other will show the variety of contexts in which the words, a green belt initiative started to emerge EGB concept has to be operationalised and mate- when researchers/ environmentalists dealt with rialised. As already mentioned, the concept refers the ”undisturbed” borderlands. First it occurred to areas along the former boundary between the through such media as satellites and binoculars, so-called socialist block and West-European so- but later, when the border zones were opened, cieties. Although it is presented as a continuous through field research on the ground. There was zone, in most of the regions it actually consists a certain affordance for environmental conserva- of scattered protected areas in the vicinity of the

Fig. 2. A map of the European Green Belt. The European Green Belt: Generating environmental governance – reshaping border areas 33 border. It is more like a chain than a continuous Table 1. Borders and their length along the Euro- pean Green Belt. zone. The activists of the Green Belt network di- vide the area into three sub-regions: the Fenno­ Border between countries Length (km) scandian and Baltic Green Belt in the north and – Russia 196 Finland – Russia 1340 along the coastline of the Baltic Sea, the Central Estonian coastline 3794 European Green Belt, and the South-Eastern Eu- Latvian coastline 531 ropean Green Belt (see Fig. 2 and Table 1). Lithuanian coastline 90 The border area between Finland and Russia Kaliningrad Oblast coastline 140 forms the major part of the Fennoscandian Green Polish coastline 491 Belt. The extreme remoteness and wide border German coastline 381 zones, especially on the Soviet side, left huge ar- – Germany 1393 eas of forests practically untouched (Hokkanen et Germany – 784 al. 2007). The origin of the Fennoscandian Green Czech Republic – 362 Belt dates back to the time before the collapse of Austria – 91 the Soviet Union, since the discussions concern- Austria – 366 ing cross-border cooperation in nature protection Austria – 330 Slovenia – Hungary 102 started in the late 1980s. As a result, a Friendship – Slovenia 232 Park was established (Karivalo & Butorin 2006; – Hungary 329 Lehtinen 2006). The Fennoscandian Green Belt Hungary – 151 consists of scattered protected areas in Finland, Serbia – 476 Norway and Russia. In Norway there are four Serbia – 318 protected areas covering a total of 27,000 hectares Bulgaria – 494 of land, in Finland the combined size of the 14 Bulgaria – 240 protected areas within the green belt is 580,000 Macedonia – Greece 246 hectares, and in Russia there are 6 protected ar- Serbia – 115 eas with a total of 508,000 hectares (Karivalo & – Albania 172 Butorin 2006: 40). In addition, there are hundreds Albania – Greece 282 of thousands of hectares of old-growth forests Source: http://www.europeangreenbelt.org/002.theborders_sites- under a moratorium along the Russian side of details.html. the border conserved by an unofficial agreement of the Curonian Spit. The peninsula is a protect- between environmental groups and forestry ed area consisting of two national parks, one on companies (see Kortelainen 2008; Tysiachniouk the Russian and the other on the Lithuanian side 2009). (Albrecht 2010). Within the green belt scheme, The Baltic Green Belt is the most recent addi- Lithuanian organisations develop good-practice tion to the EGB area. It differs from the other parts recommendations for coastal protection and of the green belt because it consists predominant- conservation to reduce the threat of erosion and ly of coastal environments along the east coast other damage (Morkvenaite & Blazauskas 2009). of the Baltic Sea. The German section of the BGB In , public access to the coastal zone was consists of a dense net of national nature protec- strictly restricted, which left large parts of it un- tion and NATURA 2000 areas. Especially in its touched. There is now a large national park there eastern part, the coastal strip is unsettled and un- as well as a network of NATURA 2000 areas used due to the former German Democratic Re- which form the backbone of the green belt on the public’s (GDR) system of restriction and control Latvian shore (Damberga & Ratkevica 2009). Fi- zones which reached up to 5 kilometres inland nally, the Estonian section of the Baltic Green Belt (Körner & Barkowski 2009). In , green belt embraces areas of former military bases of the So- activities concentrate on projects intended to give viet army. Some of them have been polluted by agriculture in the coastal zone a more sustainable the army, but many represent areas of ecological and less polluting direction (Skorupski 2009). importance (Sepp 2009). ’s and Kaliningrad’s (Russia) coast is In , the green belt runs through dominated by the 100-kilometre-long peninsula Germany along the former GDR border. After the 34 Jarmo Kortelainen fall of the Iron Curtain, the border was entirely a strong impact on how the projects are carried dismantled; left as its heritage is a narrow zone out. Conservation plans, for example, may cause which had been outside economic and other use conflicts with the local population, which require for decades. The plan is to protect the narrow negotiations and new approaches (e.g. Lehtinen central strip which would function as a corridor 2006). between larger reservation areas along the zone. The Green Belt continues along the borderline be- tween the Czech Republic and Germany embrac- 4. Standard development ing, for example, a transboundary national park (the Bavarian Forest/Sumava). The EGB contin- Transnational environmental governance sys- ues along the Austrian border with the former tems are based on ideas of how to influence envi- socialist countries, now the Czech Republic, Slo- ronments and their use as well as different stake- vakia, Hungary and Slovenia, where it reaches holders in a variety of socio-ecological milieus. the Mediterranean Sea. There are national parks Therefore, governance has to be standardised, and other important protected areas also in this dissociated from any particular place in order to part of the EGB (Geidezis & Kreutz 2006). be applicable in as many places as possible. It has The South-Eastern European Green Belt con- to be transmittable and applicable to different lo- sists of areas where the Iron Curtain existed in calities simultaneously, and adjustable to various Southern Europe. Here, the EGB branches off settings. Therefore, the nodes seldom generate into several lines that criss-cross the Balkans. This directly applicable regulatory practices; rather, part of the EGB separates the former Yugoslavian they produce standards which are ”pre-forms” countries from Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria and of practical operations. The standards are trans- Albania, and all those countries from Greece and lated into more tangible criteria and instructions Turkey. Also the core of the South-Eastern Euro- intended to fit regulation to spatially variable pean Green Belt consists of protected areas and socio-ecological contexts. This also makes envi- other ecologically important sites; in this part of ronmental governance geographically divergent the EGB landscapes are dominated by mountain- (Kortelainen et al. 2010). ous environments (Schneider-Jakoby et al. 2006). The concept of the EGB itself, its definition The concrete socio-ecological milieus of those and use, is an important standard tool of environ- border areas affect and afford EGB governance in mental governance. The concept of the green belt many ways. Firstly, they ”took part” in the initia- has been used for different purposes. In planning tion of the EGB concept. As relatively intact areas, literature, it originates from the 19th-century opened again after the political changes, they in- Garden City movement and has been used in ur- duced and enabled interested people to develop ban planning ever since to describe unbuilt zones the green belt idea to start with (see Riecken et al. around and within urban environments (Thomas 2006). Secondly, the former borders between the 1963; Amati 2008).The concept was extended to East and the West define regions where the green environmental planning and management when belt concept is possible in the first place since not it started to be used to express the ecological im- all border areas are eligible to join the EGB. Due portance of wildlife areas on the former or exist- to its definition, it is only restricted to the bound- ing national boundaries. This happened in the aries of the former socialist countries. Thirdly, the late 1980s when it was realised that the former regions influence the EGB concept through their Iron Curtain borderlands represented an impor- geographical diversity. Geographical variation tant ecological zone and corridor across the Euro- in socio-ecological circumstances strongly affects pean continent. the way the concept is defined, interpreted and The green belt concept was used independ- implemented. Border areas are different in terms ently in both Finland/Russia and Germany to of openness, population density, political role, describe their respective border areas. The envi- land use, and biophysical characteristics. When ronmental cooperation between the Finnish and materialising the EGB concept on the ground, Soviet authorities started in 1970s, intensified in local and regional socio-ecological milieus have the 1980s, and especially in the early 1990s when The European Green Belt: Generating environmental governance – reshaping border areas 35 the border zones were partly opened for eco- Table 2. Criteria for the determination of elements important for the function of the Green Belt as an nomic activities. A project of a border-forest in- ecological network. ventory was carried out in 1992–1994; it showed the ecological value of the ecosystems and spe- Type Description cies in the area. The results led to an idea of es- Large protected areas like national tablishing a network of separate protected areas parks, including their planned en- in the Finnish-Russian borderland, and the term Core areas largements, very large SCI/SPAs* or ”Fennoscandian Green Belt” started to be used to nature reserves, or UNESCO World Heritage Sites describe it (Lehtinen 2006). a) Small to medium-sized SCI/SPAs In Germany, the green belt concept developed or nature reserves (similar sites with soon after the fall of the Iron Curtain in 1989. En- Cluster of step- common conservation targets) which vironmental activists from all over the unified ping stones are grouped together Germany gathered together giving birth to the b) Biosphere reserves (their zonation usually reflects a similar situation) idea of a green belt. Since the dismantling of the Narrow but long continuous pro- border had revealed the ecological value of the tected areas running on or along the border zone, the environmentalists came up with Green Belt or crossing it (e.g. parts of Linear corridors the idea that the former GDR border should be the river Elbe, or of the -Mura preserved as a backbone of an ecological network river system) and connecting pro- tected areas along the Green Belt in Central Europe. In 1990, the then environmen- Small to medium-sized protected tal minister Klaus Töpfer started to support the areas in the direct neighbourhood Satellite areas idea of the green belt. From 1992 on, the Federal of/in a buffer zone around core in buffer zones areas, assumed to be functionally Agency of Nature Conservation started to fund or core satellite connected to the core areas or having various nature conservation projects along the area a high potential for the development green belt. The German government declared of connectivity the German section of the EGB to be part of the Small and medium-sized protected national natural heritage in 2005 (Riecken et al. areas (important at a regional or lo- Stepping stones 2006). cal scale, but not at an international Although the initiation and invention of the scale) concept appeared independently at various pla­ *SCI = Sites of Community Importance SPA = Special Protected Areas ces, quite soon actors from different regions Source: Schlumprecht (2006). found each other and started to design a more general concept and framework for the EGB. The “Based on all the information generated in initiative includes two standard goals that the ac- the different parts of the Green Belt and the his- tors and projects should try to reach in all parts of tory of cooperation across the different borders, the EGB. Firstly, from an ecological perspective, it became clear that a similar situation existed the green belt should be seen as a network which throughout the route of the former Iron Curtain. connects parks and protected areas with their This suggested that this border system could pro- surrounding landscapes. Secondly, from a more vide the basis or backbone of a European ecologi- social perspective, the green belt should foster cal network with large core areas and connecting sustainable development initiatives and bring areas that stretches along the entire length of the together people in regions adjoining the former continent and that should be preserved and de- Iron Curtain. The conception of the EGB is based veloped further. Therefore the vision was born to on a vision of ecological networks and on the idea establish a Green Belt from the to the of transboundary cooperation. In other words, including the Balkan Green Belt and the goal is to create connections and mobility, ec- the border between Italy, Austria and Slovenia, ologically along the green belt and socially across taking into account that the latter section had not it. Targets defined in the ecological network per- been separated by as strong a barrier as other spective especially guided the EGB initiation, but parts.” (Riecken et al. 2006: 6). also a major part of activities are concentrated on The ecological perspective of the EGB and its it, as the following quotation illustrates: standard criteria are based on a theoretical dis- 36 Jarmo Kortelainen cussion of ecological networks and landscape tools designed to ensure that the two preceding ecology (e.g. Jongman 1995; Ingegnioli 2002). The elements are achieved. There are propositions ecological network is a concept developed to en- concerning, for example, a web site, workshops, hance the conservation of biodiversity. It rests on funding opportunities, coordination of separate the idea that usually separate and unconnected projects on the ground, and the design of a brand nature reserves or other ecologically valuable for the EGB (Programme of Work 2005). areas should be connected together by various The ecological network concept forms the core kinds of ecological corridors or gateways. This is of the EGB standards. The final target of EGB gov- supposed to enable different species to migrate ernance is to create a network that would con- and interact, and thus maintain or even enrich bi- nect ecologically valuable areas together along odiversity. Usually the ecological network is di- the former cold-war boundary. It would form vided into core areas (protected areas or those of a continuous chain crossing the entire continent. high natural value), corridors or stepping stones, The other goal of the EGB, cross-border contacts, and buffer areas (allowing more intensive hu- receives much less attention in EGB documents. man use, but taking full account of the provision The social aspects of the EGB seem to be perceived of ecosystem services). Table 2 is an attempt to more like an implement for, or a by-product of, create basic criteria of developing the EGB as an the ecological programme. ecological network. The ecological network concept forms the con- ceptual core of the EGB standard, but the more 5. Building the networks practical instructions how to enhance the imple- mentation and maintenance of green belts are There is a vast variety of border regions where specified in theProgramme of Work document. Ex- the EGB initiative should work. This fact has of perts and national representatives from the coun- course caused difficulties in creating standards tries along the Green Belt prepared these instruc- that would fit all circumstances in the intended tions at a meeting in the Fertő-Hanság National destinations. The operationalisation and materi- Park in Hungary in 2004. It identifies the steps re- alisation of EGB standards is carried out through quired to implement the green belt concept. The national and local operations. “It was clear from programme of work consists of three elements: 1) the beginning that as this ecological network direct actions for the establishment of the EGB, would travel through an immensely diverse set 2) the institutional structure and stakeholder par- of countries, the structure and implementation of ticipation, and 3) enabling activities (Programme the Green Belt would differ in the various regions of Work 2005). depending on the specific natural, historical, po- The first element lists specific targets and litical and social preconditions” (Riecken et al. suggests actions that should be carried out. Sug- 2006: 6). gestions include, among others, GIS mapping, Thus, the EGB network has been designed research, and data generation of regions. One of and built keeping in mind the geographical vari- the main tasks is also to include the EGB concept ation. It is a network of actors that set the process in all possible projects, and make it more visible in motion, promote the concept, and try to im- and well known by integrating it into different plement it on the ground in different parts of the local and other events. There are also suggestions Belt. At the beginning, there were actors working to activate and increase collaboration and infor- separately on a national basis. German ENGOs mation exchange between different stakeholders organised meetings and developed the idea of the involved in, or affected by, the EGB. The second EGB. The Finnish and Russian authorities carried element specifies the roles of actors in the ini- out cooperation projects in their own border ar- tiative, including transnational NGOs, national eas. However, for the idea to become a European NGOs, and governmental bodies. This element project, international networks and collaboration details the organisation of the actors and their practices had to be created. This was one of the operational roles (see next section). The third el- issues discussed at the all-European meeting in ement, enabling activities, identifies operational Hungary in 2004. As a result of the discussions, The European Green Belt: Generating environmental governance – reshaping border areas 37 the Programme of Work set the main guidelines for and Baltic, Central Europe, and South-Eastern building the network of actors and specified their Europe. Each of the regions has a regional coor- roles and goals in generating EGB governance. dinator. According to the programme, the EGB network The Programme of Work defines some tasks of actors is intended to be open to all countries for the stakeholders involved. Because the op- and stakeholders along the belt. erationalisation of the EGB initiative depends Today the European Green Belt community strongly on legal, political and cultural charac- represents quite a typical form of environmental teristics, in each nation the network has a struc- governance where actors from different societal ture based on the national division. Countries fields form a hybrid network. This is indicated bordering the Green Belt should have a repre- by the EGB organisation itself in the following sentative authorised by the national authorities. words: “A wide variety of actors is active in the These representatives are called National Focal European Green Belt initiative. Members are na- Points, and at the moment there are 18 such focal tional and international NGOs, state agencies points. Not all the countries along the Green Belt for nature conservation and regional develop- have Focal Points, among them Norway, Russia ment, protected areas management authorities and Finland. Focal Points are either members of and the regional coordinators, and national focal NGOs, researchers and their research institutes, points…” (http://europeangreenbelt.org). or administrators of protected areas (http:// Nodes of design are hubs of networks which www.europeangreenbelt.org). National Focal include actors taking part in constructing govern- Points are important actors for national govern- ance methods as widely applicable norms, mod- ments since they are the ones whose task it is to els, tactics or guidelines aiming to affect environ- promote the Green Belt concept in state conser- ments and their management. Nodes consist of vation policies. Another of their tasks is to in- intensive and relatively constant bundles of rela- tensify collaboration with governmental bodies, tions which can concentrate in a particular loca- also other than conservation bodies (Programme tion or can have a more scattered form. Spatially, of Work 2005). nodes can emerge as punctual knots where ”de- Finally, the network of actors also includes signers” work together in physical proximity and the numerous concrete projects that take place in on a daily basis. A node of design can also consist various locations within the Green Belt regions. of sub-nodes if standards are formed in intensive The aim of those projects is to attract actors to interaction between them. However, they are join the EGB and thus to expand the significance always functional nodes which accumulate and of the concept as an environmental governance compress discursive, political and scientific -re tool. The actual work of the EGB actors consists sources around efforts to produce standardised of projects at different spatial scales. There are methods or to exercise coordination (Kortelainen activities called pan-European projects including et al. 2010). occasional international workshops and a special In the EGB network a node of design consists database project establishing a common, trans- of different actors in various locations having boundary database containing information on a more dispersed spatial form. The main coordi- important protected areas and other related top- nating body of the EGB is the initiative’s secre- ics. However, most of the projects are regional or tariat. The International Union for Conservation local; examples are listed in Table 3 below. of Nature (IUCN), a transnational ENGO, coor- The above projects connect sites of implemen- dinates the pan-European Green Belt initiative. It tation with the transnational EGB network. These links the stakeholders with each other and with are the sites where EGB standards, goals and the secretariat, contributes to the development principles are materialised and made visible. The of projects, and acts as an information hub. The projects should work in concert with the criteria Green Belt Coordination Office is embedded in developed by EGB designers which promote the the IUCN Programme Office in Belgrade.- Re ecological network concept and cross-border co- gionally, the Green Belt organisation is divided operation, among others. In effect, the EGB net- into three organisational sections: Fennoscandia work, through its projects at the implementation 38 Jarmo Kortelainen

Table 3. Some examples of regional and local EGB ernance when it became connected with the theo- projects. retical basis of ecological networks and standard Regional projects: measures were prepared to guide efforts in all Interreg III B Project: Protection and valorisation of the parts of the EGB. Thirdly, due to the transnation- longest habitat system in Europe – Green Belt Recovery Programme 2006–2008 (FYR al character of the concept, a broad international Macedonia, Albania, ) network of actors has been created reaching from Balkan Green Belt as Ecological Corridor for Wolf, Bear the Barents Sea to the Mediterranean, and from and Lynx (Jablanica-Shebenik Mountain Range) governmental offices in national capitals to local Civil-military Cooperation for Transboundary Nature projects in the borderlands. Conservation along the European Green Belt It has been shown that implementing the EGB Interreg IV B, Baltic Sea Region Programme: Baltic is not only a process that takes place through Green Belt project Local projects: projects on the ground, but also a construction Integrating Local Communities and Nature Protection work which tries to attract as many actors as pos- in the European Green Belt ( Special sible to support and join the initiative. An espe- , Serbia) cially strong emphasis seems to have been put Raising Awareness about Biodiversity and Sustainable on attracting governmental agencies and local Community Development in the Stara Planina Area groups to support the initiative in all the coun- Experience Green Belt (Germany) tries involved and in the border regions. One of Testing and Developing the Project (F+E Vorhaben) “Habitat Type Inventory of the German Green Belt” the main goals is trying to integrate the EGB con- Billy Bushcricket walks along the Green Belt (Southern cept with governmental projects and policies. The Thuringian Green Belt) EGB construction work also takes place at a more Land Purchase in the German Green Belt symbolic level. A branch of the EGB initiative has Living Werra – Lebendige Werra developed which tries to make the idea and the Species and Habitat Protection Project “Steinachtal and approach associated with the Green Belt visible Linder Ebene” and widely known. This includes, for instance, Wo ist meine Zeltbahn? Where is my shelter? the design of a logo and its use on all possible Green Belt Photo Exhibition occasions, as well as publications and events re- Cross Border Stones The Pamirian Winterfat (ÖNB) lated to the Green Belt. Willow Pollards (ÖNB) The EGB is an umbrella notion which covers and integrates projects, protected areas, actors Source: http://www.europeangreenbelt.org. and institutions under a common concept and sites, starts to transform the borderlands to a cer- ”label”. Most of them would also exist without tain degree (see Leibenath et al. 2010). the broader EGB concept. Hence, it is extremely difficult to assess the significance of green belt governance. Doubts have been presented about 6. Conclusions the ecological importance of the process since the belt seems to resemble a scattered archipel- This article has discussed the EGB as a gov- ago rather than a connected ecological network. ernance-generating network which links various The pan-European ecological network resembles actors and sites together to design, transfer and a conceptual framework rather than a material implement transnational environmental govern- thing on the ground (see Lehtinen 2006). The ance. All the included elements have been neces- EGB significance rests more on its political, social sary for the emergence and growth of the EGB and economic potentials. initiative and process. Firstly, through their socio- The transnational environmental governance ecological properties the borderlands along the network of the EGB is a border projects dependent boundaries of the former socialist countries have on certain kinds of border areas and simultane- afforded, and made it possible, to initiate and im- ously changing them. In addition to the ecological plement such a concept as the EGB. Secondly, the aspects and their effects on the ground, the EGB concept itself has been further designed and em- network has – to a certain extent – changed the ployed as a standard tool of environmental gov- role and function of boundaries and border areas. The European Green Belt: Generating environmental governance – reshaping border areas 39

The former Iron Curtain borders have received Ge i d e z i s L. & Kr e u t z M., 2006. The Central European Green Belt. In: Ullrich K. & Riecken U. (eds), The Green Belt of a new transnational role as ecological networks Europe – From vision to reality. IUCN, Gland. and corridors, or loci of transboundary coopera- Harré R., 2002. Material objects in social worlds. Theory, Cul- tion. In other words, a new transnationalisation ture and Society, 19: 23–33. Ho k k a n e n T.J., He i k k i l ä R., Ma k k o n e n T., Ka s h e v a r o v B., Ny- of borderlands has emerged based on the cross- k ä n e n R. & Ie s h k o E., 2007. The emergence of new ap-ap- European network and border-crossing activities. proaches in East-West relations: combining nature pro- Borders in their traditional and more functional tection and local development along the Green Belt of Fennoscandia. In: Lähteenmäki M. (ed.), The flexible fron- sense, as dividing lines, have lost a great deal of tier – Change and continuity in Finnish-Russian relations. their importance. Aleksanteri Institute, Helsinki. The EGB network plays a role in this bound- In g e g n i o l i V., 2002. Landscape Ecology: A widening foundation. ary ”disappearance”. At the same time, howev- Springer, Berlin. Je n t o f t S., 2007. Limits of governability: Institutional imim-- er, it maintains the borders. Although its goal is plications for fisheries and coastal governance. Marine to develop a borderless ecological network, the Policy, 31: 360–370. whole network depends on borders of a particu- Je s s o p B., 1998. The rise of governance and the risks of failure: The case of economic development. International Social lar kind. That is why it is vital for the EGB to re- Science Journal, 50 (1): 29–45. produce the borders; their histories and changes Jo n g m a n R.H.G., 1995. Nature conservation planning in Eu- or their crossings are repeated innumerable times rope: developing ecological networks. Landscape and Ur- in EGB documents and their rhetoric. The former ban Planning, 32 (3): 169–183. Ka r i v a l o L. & Bu t o r i n A., 2006. The Fennoscandain Green Iron Curtain borders are the essential resources Belt. In: Terry A., Ullrich K. & Riecken U. (eds), The Green and elementary parts of the governance-generat- Belt of Europe – From vision to reality. IUCN, Gland. ing network whose legitimacy is partly based on Va n Ke r s b e r g e n K. & Va n Wa a r d e n F., 2004. ”Governance” as a bridge between disciplines: Cross-disciplinary in- its ability to change their negative image and en- spiration regarding shifts in governance and problems hance better relations across them. Therefore, the of governmentality, accountability and legitimacy. Euro- borders have to be ”kept alive”, though in a new pean Journal of Political Research, 43: 143–171. sense. Ko o i m a n J., 2003. Governing as Governance. Sage, London. Ko r t e l a i n e n J., 2008. Performing the green market – creating space: emergence of the green consumer in the Russian woodlands. Environment and Planning A, 40 (6): 1294– References 1311. Ko r t e l a i n e n J., 2010. The European Green Belt as a form of Ag r a w a l A., Ch a t r e A. & Ha r d i n R., 2008. Changing gov- environmental governance. KRIHS Special Report, 15: ernance of the world’s forests. Science, 320 (5882): 1460– 63–81. 1462. Ko r t e l a i n e n J. & Ko t i l a i n e n J. (eds), 2006. Contested environ- Al b r e c h t M., 2010. Transboundary governance of the Curo- ments and investments in Russian Woodland Communities. nian Spit World Heritage Site. Journal of Environmental Kikimora Publications, Helsinki. Planning and Management, 53 (6): 725–742. Ko r t e l a i n e n J., Ko t i l a i n e n J. & Tysiachniouk M., 2010. Gen- Am a t i M., (ed.), 2008. Urban Green Belts in the twenty first cen- erating environmental governance through transnational net- tury. Ashgate, Aldershot. works (Forthcoming article). Bo d i n Ö. & Cr o n a B.I., 2009. The role of social networks in Kö r n e r E. & Ba r k o w s k i J., 2009. Stimulating sustainable natural resource governance: What relational patterns coastal politics in Germany. European Green Belt Newslet- make a difference? Global Environmental Change, 19(3): ter, 1/2009. 366–374. Le h t i n e n A.A., 2006. Postcolonialism, multitude, and the politics Bu l k e l e y H., 2005. Reconfiguring environmental governance. of nature. On the changing geographies of the European North. Towards a politics of scales and networks. Political Geog- University Press of America, Lanham. raphy, 24: 875–902. Le i b e n a t h M., Bl u m A. & St u t z r i e m e r S., 2010. Transboundary Ch e m e r o A., 2003. An outline of a theory of affordances. Eco- cooperation in establishing ecological networks: The case logical Psychology, 15: 181–195. of Germany’s external borders. Landscape and Urban Plan- Ch u e n p a g d e R., Ko o i m a n J. & Pu l l i n R.S.V., 2008. Assessing ning, 94 (2): 84–93. governability in capture fisheries, aquaculture and coast- Le m o s C.M. & Ag r a w a l A., 2006. Environmental Governance. al zones. The Journal of Transdisciplinary Environmental Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 31: 297–325. Studies, 7(1): 1–20. McCarthy J., 2005. Scale, sovereignty, and strategy in envi- Ca s h o r e B., Au l d G. & Ne w s o m D., 2004. Governing through ronmental governance. Antipode, 37 (4): 731–753. markets: Forest certification and the emergence of non-state au- Morkveinaite J. & Bl a z a u s k a s N., 2009. Sustainable coastal thority. Yale University Press, New Haven and London. protection along the lithuanian coast. European Green Belt Da m b e r g a A. & Ra t k e v i c a A., 2009. Military heritage as Newsletter, 1/2009. a chance for sustainable tourism in Latvia. European Pa a s i A., 2001. Europe as a social process and discourse con- Green Belt Newsletter, 1/2009. siderations of place, boundaries and identity. European Urban and Regional Studies, 8 (1): 7–28. 40 Jarmo Kortelainen

Pi e r r e J., 2000. Debating governance: authority, steering, and de- Se p p K., 2009. Assessing & promoting the Green Belt . mocracy. Oxford University Press, New York. European Green Belt Newsletter, 1/2009. Programme of Work of the European Green Belt, 2005. IUCN Eu- Sk o r u p s k i J., 2009. Promoting ecological agriculture in Po- rope, Brussels. land. European Green Belt Newsletter, 1/2009. Rh o d e s R.A.W., 1996. The new governance: governing with- Sø r e n s e n E. & To r f i n g J., 2005. Network governance and out government. Political Studies, 44 (4): 652–667. post-liberal democracy. Theory & Praxis, 27 (2): 197–237. Ri e c k e n U., Ul l r i c h K. & La n g A., 2006. A vision for the Green Th o m a s D., 1963. London’s green belt: the evolution of an Belt in Europe. In: Ullrich K. & Riecken U. (eds), The Green idea. The Geographical Journal, 129 (1): 14–24. Belt of Europe – From vision to reality. IUCN, Gland. Tysiachniouk M., 2009. Conflict as a form of governance: The Schlumprecht H., 2006. Mapping the European Green Belt. market campaign to save the Karelian forests. In: Nysten- In: Terry A., Ullrich K. & Riecken U. (eds), The Green Belt Haarala S. (ed.): The changing governance of renewable natu- of Europe – From vision to reality. IUCN, Gland. ral resources. Ashgate, Farnham. Sc h n e i d e r -Ja c o b y M., Sc h w a d e r e r G. & Fr e m u t h W. , 2006. Wh i t e h e a d M., 2003. ”In the shadow of hierarchy”: meta- The South-Eastern European Green Belt. In: Ullrich K. & governance, policy reform and urban regeneration in the Riecken U. (eds), The Green Belt of Europe – From vision to West Midlands. Area, 35 (1): 6–14. reality. IUCN, Gland.