Who Owns the Land? – Institutional Analysis of Biodiversity Governance in Hungary
Abstract
The institutional setting in Hungary, as in all Central and Eastern European transition countries, has undergone some fundamental changes in the last two decades, such as the restitution and privatisation process of land and the EU accession. These changes have had many implications on biodiversity governance as well. In order to highlight some of these changes, we have analysed empirical results from a participatory action research project in the underdeveloped Mezőcsát Micro-Region in North-Eastern Hungary according to the IAD framework. Among many other factors, the non-transparent restitution process, market mechanisms, the availability of subsidies from agri-environmental schemes for Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAsas), the income strive and unclear management responsibilities derived partly from the implementation of the current Nature Conservation Act, as well as political and personal interests have created various conflicts of interests between local farmers and the national park directorate; namely, regarding the access to lands, ESA subsidies, and various ecosystem services of the flood land areas. The scarcity of land, restricted access to natural resources, and limited economic capabilities threaten the survival of small-scale farms and the multi-functionality of local agriculture. These common problems experienced by farmers have contributed to an increased cooperation among farmers, with the aim of creating a local norm accepted by all major stakeholders in local society that ’local lands should be in local hands’.
References
Balázs, B., Bodorkós, B., Bela, Gy., Podmaniczky, L. & Balázs, K.: Multifunctional Farming and Survival Strategies in the Borsodi Floodplain. In: Annette Piorr - Klaus Müller (Eds.): Rural Landscapes and Agricultural Policies in Europe, 2008 Springer, ISBN 978-3-540-79469-1
Berkes, F. (2003): Rethinking Community-Based Conservation. – Conservation Biology 18: 621–630.
Bela, Gy. & Belényesi, M. (szerk.) (2004): Integrated (multi-level inundation) water management system solving flood-protection, nature conservation and rural employment challenges. LIFE-PROroJECT (03/H/000 291) jelentés, SZIE KTI, Gödöllő
Bíró, M. (2003): A Tiszavalk és Ároktő közötti Tisza-hullámtér botanikai felmérése és értékelése. Kézirat. MTA ÖBKI, Vácrátót.
Bodorkós, B., Balázs, B., Bela, Gy. & Pataki, Gy. (2008): Community-based sustainability planning and rural development in the South-Borsod region, Hungary. – Anthropology of East Europe Review, 26(2): 7–18.
Bodorkós, B. & Kelemen, E. (2007): „Közös lónak túros a háta?”A társadalmi tőke és a részvételi akciókutatás szerepe a Mezőcsáti Kistérség gazdálkodóinak együttműködésében. URLurl: http://korny.uni-corvinus.hu/phd/1_kg_program.php, előadás az I. Országos Környezetgazdaságtani Ph.D. Konferencián, 2007. november 27. Budapest
Bodorkós, B. & Pataki, Gy. (2009): Local Communities Empowered to Plan? Applying PAR to Establish Democratic Communicative Spaces for Sustainable Rural Development. – Action Research. 7: 313–334..
Cardiff University (2002): Speaking a common language –A progress review, with recommendations on the IUCN system of protected area management categories. Information sheet number 3, URLurl: www.cardiff.ac.uk/cplan/sacl, letöltés dátuma: 2007. július 25.
Carrus, G. & Bonnes, M. (2002): Biodiversity, commons dilemmas and local conflicts in natural protected areas. Paper presented at the workshop “Options for Local Biodiversity Management in Protected Areas: the case of Bulgaria”, Vitosha National Park, 7–10 February 2002, The Macaulay Institute, Aberdeen, Scotland.
Davis, A. & Wagner, R. J. (2003): Who knows? On the Importance of Identifying "Experts" When Researching Local Knowledge – Human Ecology 31: 463–488.
Fairbrass, J. & Jordan, A. (2001): Protecting biodiversity in the European Union: national barriers and European opportunities? – Journal of European Public Policy 8 (4): 499–518.
Fischer-Kowalski, M. & Weisz, H. (1999): Society as a hybrid between material and symbolic realms – Towards a theoretical framework of society-nature interaction. – Advances in Human Ecology 8: 215–251.
Hooghe, L., Marks, G. (2001): Multi-Level Governance in the European Union. In Multi-Level Governance in the European Integration by L. Hooghe and G. Marks, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., Lanham, Maryland: pp 1–32.
Kluvánková-Oravská, T. &Chobotová, V. (2006): Shifting governance in Slovenskky Raj National Park. Institutional Changes in Agriculture and Natural Resources (ICARar) Discussion Paper 15/2006.
Mihók, B., Erős-Honti, Zs., Gálhidy, L., Bela, Gy., Illyés, E., Tinya, F., Erős-Honti, J., Molnár, Á. & Szabó, R. (2006): A Borsodi-ártér természeti állapota a helyben élők és az ökológus szemével – interdiszciplináris kutatás a hagyományos ökológiai tudásról. – Természetvédelmi Közlemények, 12: 79–103.
Moller, H., Berkes, F., O’Brian Lyver, P. & Kislalioglu, M. (2004): Combining Science and Traditional Ecological Knowledge: Monitoring Populations for Co-Management. – Ecology and Society 9(3): 2, [online] URLurl: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss3/art2
Norgaard, R.B. (1994): Development Betrayed: The End of Progress and a Coevolutionary Revisioning of the Future. Routledge, London.
Ostrom, E. (2006): Institutional Rational Choice: An Assessment of the Institutional Analysis and Development Framework. Nem publikált kézirat.
Pataki, Gy., Balázs, B., Matolay, R. (2005): Valuing Forest Ecosystems by Local Communities in Hungary: A Qualitative Enquiry. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference of the European Society for Ecological Economics, June 14 –17, 2005, Lisbon, Portugal. (részletes absztrakt CD-n)
Pretty, J. & Smith, D. (2004): Social capital in biodiversity conservation and management. – Conservation Biology 18(3): 631–638.
Proops, J.L.R. (1989): Ecological economics: rationale and problem areas. – Ecological Economics 1: 59–76.
Sárvári, A.: Emlékeztető a 2007. november 9-i, a BNPI haszonbérleti szerződéseiről szóló egyeztetésről
Sárvári, A. (2008): A Borsodi Mezőség Gazdakör Egyesület véleménye a természetvédelmi területek használatáról. Kézirat.
Stoll-Kleemann, S. (2001): Barriers to nature conservation in Germany: a model explaining opposition to protected areas. – Journal of Environmental Psychology 21(4): 369–385.
Stoll-Kleemann, S. (2004): The rationale of socio-economic research for the successful protection and use of wetlands: the example of participatory management approaches. – Hydrobiologia 527: 15–17.
Swain (1993): Transitions from collective to family farming in Post-Socialist Central-Europe: Background and Strategies for Change. The University of Liverpool, Centre for Central and Eastern European Studies, Working Paper No. 5, Rural Transition Series
Vatn, A. (2005): Institutions and the Environment. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltham, UK, Northampton, MA, USA.
