Šumava National Park Workshop 5-7 June 2000
MINUTES

Workshop Title: 
Discussing a common view on the present and future management of Šumava National Park (hereafter SNP).

Purpose:
1.	Sharing the views of NGOs and discussing the present and future management of SNP.
2.	Field visits and discussion on zonation and different management practices based on zonation.
3.	Discussion of a common conservation strategy and common communications strategy.

The reason:
Conflicting views on the best management strategy for SNP among the park management, Czech and international environmental NGOs, Czech academic community and local stakeholders in SNP.

Participants:
Blaha Jaromir (FoE CR) - jaromir.blaha@ecn.cz; Hosek Jan (Independent expert) - agnos@agnos.cz; Jonasova Magda (Southbohemian University Ceske Budejovice) - Magda.Jonasova@tix.bf.jcu.cz; Konvicka Martin (Southbohemian University Ceske Budejovice) - konva@tix.bf.jcu.cz; Kores Jiri (FoE CR) - petr@negativ.cz; Kostal Leo and Kostalova Sarka (Beskydcan, FoE CR) - schkob@iol.cz; Prach Karel (Southbohemian University Ceske Budejovice) - Karel.Prach@tix.bf.jcu.cz; Sehnal Frantisek (Entomology Institute of Academy of Sciences CR, Director) - sehnal@entu.cas.cz; Spitzer Karel (Entomology Institute of Academy of Sciences CR) - spitzer@entu.cas.cz; Tichy Tomas (Botany Institute of Academy of Sciences CR) - Tichy@ibot.cas.cz; Vlasin Mojmir (Czech Union for Nature Protection) - mojmir.vlasin@ecn.cz; Urban Frantisek (Sumava NP Science Advisory Board) - f.urban@iol.cz; Valenta Michal (Sumava NP Administration) - michal.valenta@npsumava.cz; Vladimir Silovsky (Sumava NP Administration) - vladimir.silovsky@npsumava.cz; Berhnard Schon, IUCN - wald@kalkalpen.at, Kathryn Furlong (MSc student Oxford University) - kathryn.furlong@linacre.ox.ac.uk; Joep van de Vlasakker (Flaxfield Nature Consultancy) - flaxfield@tref.nl; Chris Hogan (WWF PAN Parks Communications Officer) - chogan@elender.hu; Harri Karjalainen (WWF International European Forest Officer) - hkarjalainen@wwfint.org

Monday 5 June

Introductions of all partipants:

Presentations from NGOs:

Jaromir Bláha, Hnuti DUHA:
Summary of key points:
Two central questions were posed:
1.	Are bark beetle outbreaks in SNP not a natural process? It should be clear - in the present core zones - certainly - yes. In the second zones spruce stands are largely man-made and would not be widely distributed in natural conditions and the beetle outbreaks here have larger extent than outbreaks in natural ecosystems in the core zones. However - could we look to the outbreaks like the natural reaction of ecosystems to changes in external conditions for example global warming and the way which lead to decline of spruce population and change the species composition?
2.	How should zonation of the park be arranged? To create core zones the main criteria should be size and ecological quality. Current zonation is only based on ecological quality.

Harri Karjalainen, WWF International:
Summary of key points:
1.	WWF views SNP as one of Europe's most important protected areas, as its 80% forest cover is home for many endangered species.
2.	By definition protected areas must have protection of biodiversity as a first order management objective, and commercial or extractive activities are only allowed within the framework of the conservation goals. Unfortunately, too many of the Europe's forest protected areas are protected only on a paper. 
3.	In SNP, a restoration strategy is needed which gradually changes monoculture stands to more natural dynamics.
4.	WWF would like to raise the level of protected area management in Europe by creating quality label - PAN Parks - providing independent verification for well-managed parks. WWF hopes that the new management plan in SNP will be adjusted to the PAN Parks requirements in order to get SNP verified as PAN Park.

Field Trip to Modrava:

Discussion with mayor of Modrava:
Mayor's analysis of park-community relations

•	All villages need some development to survive, but seek compromise between extremes.
•	The whole spectrum of opinions on "best management" of SNP is present in the villages. It is probably influenced by how much forest surrounds the village (the more it is surrounded by spruce forest the more the bark beetle is seen as a threat). These opinions are unrelated to employment.
•	Large areas of spruce stands affected by bark beetles are not only a problem of today, but such areas also existed in past times, what can be seen at old paintings.
•	90% of locals favour active management of bark beetle problem, independent of their jobs. 
•	Local people prefer big green spruce over a naturally dying forest. 
•	Tourists have a 100% larger area to enjoy than they did before 1989.
•	We don't need more visitors but sustainable as opposed to destructive tourism.

Tuesday 6 June:

Field Trip to Trojmezna:

Discussion with mayor of Nová Pec:
Mayor's analysis of park-community relations

•	There is need for better communication between the park and community, otherwise park's activities are difficult to justify to the community. New laws and more discussion on the management plan might improve the communications. There are points where we can find mutually agreeable solutions. 
•	Special purpose forests are not property taxed. Because of no taxation there is a paradoxical situation: SNP operates on the villages tax free land and the income doesn't go to the village but to the park. 80% of the village's problems are rooted in bad legislation.
•	If the goal of 75% core zone is realised, it could happen that people couldn't enter the woods where they've been going all their lives. Let's be fair to locals and tourists and change 1st zones (where locals and tourists can not enter but loggers can) to 2nd zones. 
•	We should decide what deserves a core zone, then leave it untouched for nature to react because we can not tell nature how to operate.

Evening discussion:

Harri Karjalainen: A vision is needed for SNP which will allow us to establish a long term sustainable approach to management. With a common vision you can then form a concrete strategy to reach that goal.

Task: What will SNP look like in its optimal state?
See synthesis of results below: "Shared Vision for Šumava National Park"

Wednesday 7 June:

Results of the evening discussion of 6 June:

I	Shared Vision for Šumava National Park

1.	SNP is in principle a wilderness area.
2.	In principle, SNP consists of all natural ecosystems including all natural processes.
3.	SNP consists of several large untouched core zones, which integrate most current core zones. The core zones should form the majority of the National Park, with limited visitor access and stable status.
4.	Human activities outside core zones should be compatible with nature conservation goals of the National Park.
5.	Sustainable tourism in the National Park is an important part of the sustainable use of natural resources to the benefit of local people.
6.	Local people have good relations with the National Park because it brings long-term benefits to them.
7.	Management of the park meets international criteria for National Park management.

II	How long way it is to reach the Vision?

Participants were asked to give their opinion on 
- how long time it will take to reach the Vision?
- what is the share of the SNP in terms of area which is already in its ideal ecological condition?

Half of the workshop participants believed it will take 20-40 years,while others believed that it will take around 100 years to achieve the Vision on-the-ground.

0			50			200			500 years

Concerning the area, all people felt that most of the area of SNP is not yet in its ideal ecological condition and hence would need ecological restoration. There were two main opinions: half of the workshop participants felt that today only 10-20 % of the park territory is in its ideal condition, while others felt that roughly 50% of the park meets this requirement.

0				50				100 % of the SNP area

III	Identify obstacles to achieving the vision:

1.	Insufficient education
•	Low awareness among politicians about nature conservation
•	Weak ecological education amongst local people.

2.	Deficiencies in legislation
•	Lack of common conception of nature conservation in the Czech Rep., and some deficiencies in legislation
•	NGOs are not well-received among key political decision-makers.
•	Change in ownership of land.

3.	Management goals unclear
•	Management methods to control barkbeetle damages follow the principles of commercial forestry rather than management of a protected area.
•	SNP management has too few nature conservation experts.

4.	Insufficient collaboration
•	Need for better transparency and clear rules concerning the use of money
•	Too few benefits for local people therefore low political support
•	General communications problems between local people / scientists and no forum to find solutions.

IV	Overcoming the obstacles to achieving the vision:
A)	Who should be involved to solve the problems?
B)	What are the appropriate methods / activities needed to solve the problems?

GROUP I: How to improve education?

A) Who's involved?
1.	Ministry of environment
2.	Management of SNP
3.	Communities
4.	Local mayors, representatives
5.	NGOs
6.	Media

B) Methods
1.	Improve the level of Nature Conservation Education in schools and for adults
2.	Organize education and training for the staff of the SNP, based on the assessment of the needs for education/training
3.	Education in the field
4.	Licensing of travel agencies
5.	Use media to raise the shortcomings in the environmental education in Czech Republic
6.	Lobbying politicians

GROUP II: How to improve legislation?

A) Who's involved?
1.	Ministries of finance and environment
2.	Municipal representatives
3.	SNP management
4.	EU representatives

B) Methods
1.	Publicise various "issues" surrounding SNP (e.g. tax reform, restitution law, values of park)
2.	Bring parties (e.g. SNP administration and local mayors) together to discuss development of legislation
3.	Explore possibilities to use EU to improve legislation

GROUP III: How to improve the management of SNP?

A)	Who's involved?
1.	Management of SNP
2.	Committee members of environmental affairs to facilitate relations between SNP management and legislators
3.	Representatives from the Ministry of environment
4.	Scientific experts
5.	Czech and international NGOs
6.	Mayors of municipalities
7.	Entrepreneurs in tourism at a local level

B) Methods
1.  Continue the current workshop in a few months with participation of all interest groups
2.  WWF or other international NGO should facilitate discussion towards the goal
3. Carry out an independent analysis of the park's management effectiveness, by using international framework
4.  Share experiences and learn lessons by organizing International conference involving nature conservation experts coming from other European national parks, from Federation of national parks.

GROUP IV: How to improve collaboration?

A)	Who's involved?
1.	SNP administration including staff of the SNP
2.	Local representatives: mayors, tourism operators, entrepreneurs
3.	County officers
4.	MPs and VIPs with a special interest in the region
5.	NGOs
6.	National and international experts
7.	Media

B)	Methods
1.	Daily contacts
2.	Workshops, meetings, training courses to gauge expectations of local people
3.	New forms of communication: email, Internet discussions to allow outsiders to participate
4.	Joint presentations in the media
5.	Common success through small projects

Concluding remarks 

Harri Karjalainen (WWF International): WWF wishes to continue to collaborate in achieving the vision for SNP, and to elaborate concrete strategy towards management that meets the requirements of PAN Parks. 

HK will inform WWF International of the green light from stakeholders to achieve shared vision. The condition for support in future is that park managers and NGOs are involved in reaching a solution, following the present working method.

Frantisek Urban (Sumava NP Science Advisory Board) and Jaromir Blaha (Hnuti DUHA) both supported this process and will participate in future discussions.

Bernhard Schon (WCPA): If the Czech government is interested, IUCN  offers assistance by nominating a small team of experts. Such a mission would have to be invited by the government of the Czech Republic, a clear "Terms of Reference" would have to be provided and all expenses associated with the mission would need to be covered.

Action points:

•	Prepare minutes of the meeting (Harri&Chris)
•	Communicate the shared Vision (All) 
•	Organize another meeting to focus on solutions to elaborate a concrete strategy to address the problems and realise the shared vision. Suggested date: Autumn 2000 (All)
•	The representatives of local communities will be invited to participate in the next discussion.