445
edits
Sustainable tourism in Šumava national park: Difference between revisions
Sustainable tourism in Šumava national park (view source)
Revision as of 08:15, 28 September 2016
, 08:15, 28 September 2016Restructured, amended
Jana Dlouha (talk | contribs) (Mainly refences improved) |
Jana Dlouha (talk | contribs) (Restructured, amended) |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
==History of the population of the area== | ==History of the population of the area== | ||
Social conditions of the region have been worsening in several stages resulting in a distorted social structure. Since a population peak in the second half of the 19th century, the local inhabitants have been declining in number until WWII; after 1945, most of the original residents (of German nationality) were displaced from the Czech part of the Bohemian Forest. Many villages in the frontier area were abandoned, often even intentionally destroyed while the others were resettled with newcomers that were not familiar with sustainable life in this mountain region. Under the communist regime (till 1990) there was also closed frontier zone spreading over the majority of the mountain region where entry for civilian visitors was not permitted. This was also one of the reasons that the natural value remained untouched here. | Social conditions of the region have been worsening in several stages resulting in a distorted social structure. Since a population peak in the second half of the 19th century, the local inhabitants have been declining in number until WWII; after 1945, most of the original residents (of German nationality) were displaced from the Czech part of the Bohemian Forest. Many villages in the frontier area were abandoned, often even intentionally destroyed while the others were resettled with newcomers that were not familiar with sustainable life in this mountain region. Under the communist regime (till 1990) there was also closed frontier zone spreading over the majority of the mountain region where entry for civilian visitors was not permitted. This was also one of the reasons that the natural value remained untouched here. For more information see ([http://www.npsumava.cz/en/3287/sekce/history-of-the-landscape/ NP ŠUMAVA/History]) | ||
== Actors == | == Actors == | ||
List of actors see ([http://www.geo-praha.cz/ic.htm#STAKEHOLD_SUMAVA GEO Group, 2002)]); following overview cited from ([http://ejes.cz/index.php/ejes/article/view/150 Křenová, Vrba, 2014]) | |||
===State administration=== | ===State administration=== | ||
Vulnerable to political (often non-supporting nature protection) interests. Often changing directors of the Park (9 directors in 22 years; in contrast on the German side – 3rd director in 43 year history). Management is not consistent and even legal framework has been changing. | Vulnerable to political (often non-supporting nature protection) interests. Often changing directors of the Park (9 directors in 22 years; in contrast on the German side – 3rd director in 43 year history). Management is not consistent and even legal framework has been changing. | ||
| Line 22: | Line 20: | ||
===Private owners=== | ===Private owners=== | ||
Former municipal forests (up to 9% of the territory) were restituted by former owners (municipalities) after lobbying. The owners became eligible for financial compensations of decrement income, yet escalating their complaints on ‘unjust bark beetle combat’ in surrounding NP forests. They have own plans which do not respect nature conservation standards. | Former municipal forests (up to 9% of the territory) were restituted by former owners (municipalities) after lobbying. The owners became eligible for financial compensations of decrement income, yet escalating their complaints on ‘unjust bark beetle combat’ in surrounding NP forests. They have own plans which do not respect nature conservation standards. | ||
== Tourism == | |||
([http://www.tourism4nature.org/results/su_pictures/su03_tmp_en.pdf RDA, 2007]; [http://www.sumavanet.cz/mszapad/turistika.asp?lng=en Information server ŠumavaNet.CZ]; [http://www.tourism4nature.org/results/backdocs/Criteria%20for%20Sustainable%20Tourism.pdf Ecological Tourism in Europe and UNESCO MaB, 2007]). | |||
== Conflicts == | |||
General problems of the region ([http://www.geo-praha.cz/ic.htm#NP_SUMAVA_ANAL GEO Group, 2002)] are source of conflicts. | |||
Currently there are ongoing discussions about an appropriate management of the forests, i.e. ‘non-intervention’ management versus ‘necessary’ bark-beetle combat. Šumava National Park has been established by the Czech Government Regulation No. 163/1991 of March 20, 1991. Its Article 4 outlines zonation into 3 zones according to the natural values and hence differentiated management of the protected phenomena. In the Zone 1 are strictly natural areas where human intervention is limited; area belonging under this Zone has been subject of discussions (significantly reduced in 1995; after critique of the IUCN extension was proposed by the Šumava NP Authority which was not officially approved). As the bark beetle infestation appeared in this Zone, these discussions eventually developed into the battle between nature protection oriented NGOs and representatives of municipalities who insisted on cutting down the affected trees | |||
In the period 1998 – 2001 the most strictly protected Zone 1 of the Šumava national park was logged in by the relevant authority (decision was accompanied by democratic process of decision-making) – the reason was to control bark beetle infestation, but finally the situation was opposite, the infestation increased. In 1998 the Park Authority requested exemption from the legal protection regime which was approved by the Ministry of Environment in spite of numerous protests by NGOs (annual administrative appeals to the Ministry have failed, as well as appeal to the High Court, Constitutional Court and National Environmental Monitoring Agency) ([http://www.zelenykruh.cz/dokumenty/sbornik-limity-soudni-ochrany-web.pdf Humlíčková, 2008]), see also other resources, e.g. [http://crowdvoice.org/protests-to-protect-national-park-in-czech-republic?all=true here]. | |||
==Village Prášily== | ==Village Prášily== | ||
| Line 28: | Line 35: | ||
==Resources== | ==Resources== | ||
*Criteria for Sustainable Tourism for the three Biosphere Reserves Aggtelek, Babia Góra and Šumava. Online http://www.tourism4nature.org/results/backdocs/Criteria%20for%20Sustainable%20Tourism.pdf | *Criteria for Sustainable Tourism for the three Biosphere Reserves Aggtelek, Babia Góra and Šumava. Online http://www.tourism4nature.org/results/backdocs/Criteria%20for%20Sustainable%20Tourism.pdf | ||
*Ecological Tourism in Europe and UNESCO MaB, 2007. Criteria for Sustainable Tourism for the three Biosphere Reserves Aggtelek, Babia Góra and Šumava Online http://www.tourism4nature.org/results/backdocs/Criteria%20for%20Sustainable%20Tourism.pdf | |||
*GEO Group (2002). Reference area NP ŠUMAVA (CZ/G). Online http://www.geo-praha.cz/ic.htm | |||
*Humlíčková, P. (2008) Jaké jsou limity soudní ochrany v Čechách? Sborník mezinárodní konference, Zelený kruh, Praha. ISBN: 978-80-903968-2-1, str. 4-5. Online http://www.zelenykruh.cz/dokumenty/sbornik-limity-soudni-ochrany-web.pdf | *Humlíčková, P. (2008) Jaké jsou limity soudní ochrany v Čechách? Sborník mezinárodní konference, Zelený kruh, Praha. ISBN: 978-80-903968-2-1, str. 4-5. Online http://www.zelenykruh.cz/dokumenty/sbornik-limity-soudni-ochrany-web.pdf | ||
*Information server ŠumavaNet.CZ Microregion Šumava West. Online available from http://www.sumavanet.cz/mszapad/turistika.asp?lng=en | |||
*Johnstone, Ch. (2014). Radio Praha, Broadcast in English. Wilderness trumps insensitive development of Šumava says study. Online http://www.radio.cz/en/section/marketplace/wilderness-trumps-insensitive-development-of-sumava-says-study | |||
*Klos, Č. (2011). Šumava and the rule of law. CzechPosition.com http://www.ceskapozice.cz/node/38923 | *Klos, Č. (2011). Šumava and the rule of law. CzechPosition.com http://www.ceskapozice.cz/node/38923 | ||
*Křenová, Z., & Vrba, J. (2014). Just how many obstacles are there to creating a National Park? A case study from the Šumava National Park. European Journal of Environmental Sciences, 4(1). Online http://ejes.cz/index.php/ejes/article/view/150 | *Křenová, Z., & Vrba, J. (2014). Just how many obstacles are there to creating a National Park? A case study from the Šumava National Park. European Journal of Environmental Sciences, 4(1). Online http://ejes.cz/index.php/ejes/article/view/150 | ||
*Johnstone, Ch. (26.07.2011) Czech Šumava National Park turns into battleground. CzechPosition.com. Online http://www.ceskapozice.cz/en/business/energy-green-biz/czech-sumava-national-park-turns-battleground | *Johnstone, Ch. (26.07.2011) Czech Šumava National Park turns into battleground. CzechPosition.com. Online http://www.ceskapozice.cz/en/business/energy-green-biz/czech-sumava-national-park-turns-battleground | ||
*RDA (Regional development agency Šumava, o.p.s.) (2007). Tourism in the Šumava Mountains Concept of Sustainable Tourism Development. Action Programme. The 2nd update. Online http://www.tourism4nature.org/results/su_pictures/su03_tmp_en.pdf | |||
*Rousek, L. (2011) Hungry Bark Beetle Sparks Czech Political Controversy. The Wall Street Journal. Online http://blogs.wsj.com/emergingeurope/2011/08/03/hungry-beetle-sparks-czech-political-controversy/ | *Rousek, L. (2011) Hungry Bark Beetle Sparks Czech Political Controversy. The Wall Street Journal. Online http://blogs.wsj.com/emergingeurope/2011/08/03/hungry-beetle-sparks-czech-political-controversy/ | ||
**other sources about the conflict see Crowdvoice, tracking voices of the protest, http://crowdvoice.org/protests-to-protect-national-park-in-czech-republic?all=true | **other sources about the conflict see Crowdvoice, tracking voices of the protest, http://crowdvoice.org/protests-to-protect-national-park-in-czech-republic?all=true | ||
*Silva Gabreta http://www.npsumava.cz/cz/3241/sekce/table-of-contents/ | *Silva Gabreta http://www.npsumava.cz/cz/3241/sekce/table-of-contents/ | ||