| |
Contributions from
the Column
Tribune
Regional trade barriers
Using planning to overcome borders
Grinding poverty and economic boom
11/2004
|
|
[ Conflict region Caucasus ]
Using planning to overcome borders
In Europe, a discursive approach to regional planning is progressively replacing conventional methods. Elsewhere, this innovative approach could help to defuse conflicts. One of the projects of the German Caucasus Initiative is to help Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia to implement a trans-border concept to protect biodiversity.
[ By Einhard Schmidt-Kallert ]
The Caucasus region has been in crisis since the Soviet Union collapsed – even though Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia in the South Caucasus had been among the economically strongest Soviet republics. Nevertheless, economic performance regressed dramatically in all three countries after independence. Approximately half of the population now lives under the poverty line. At the same time, ethnicity-motivated conflicts are escalating to fighting. To this day, the conflicts between Armenia and Azerbaijan over the Karabach mountain region and the secessions of Abchasia and South-Ossetia remain unresolved.
The political transformation is by no means complete. Democratic institutions and new statutory conditions have indeed been created everywhere. But in many cases political representatives do not command legitimate support within their own society. Thinking in clan terms often has a greater impact on political decision making than do democratic rules.
In this context, the Federal Government of Germany started the Caucasus Initiative in 2001 and has since supported transnational projects expected to help to reduce tensions and to prevent crises in the region. As suggested by KfW development bank and the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), the German Development Ministry has turned the protection of biodiversity into a matter of cross-border projects. The Caucasus is one of the biologically richest areas in the world. It is home to a large number of endemic plant and animal species. Reckless industrialisation in the Soviet era has damaged this unique biodiversity in many ways. In the post-Soviet era, new risks for the ecological equilibrium have arisen because of poaching, illegal logging and uncontrolled grazing.
The preservation of biodiversity is an ideal project for the Caucasus Initiative. After all, habitats will only be sustained across borders in the long run. In 2002, KfW development bank commissioned a consortium of consulting firms and the WWF to draft a “biodiversity vision” and an ecologically oriented regional planning concept for the Caucasus. Scientists from throughout the region participated in recording the most important species, their distribution in the region and all important habitats. On this basis, the WWF developed the “Biodiversity Vision 2050”, a map showing the areas which must be placed under protection or land use restrictions for sustainable biodiversity protection until the year 2050.
Discursive regional planning – a new approach
A scientifically founded policy for biodiversity protection will remain wishful thinking, however, as long as the conflicts between resource protection and all other demands for land use are not on the table. Priority areas must be negotiated in the political process. Initiating and moderating these processes was therefore a crucial task.
It is true that, even in Soviet days, there was impressive regional planning for each of the three republics. But any traveller in the area today will see how poorly the plans relate to reality not even two decades after they were drawn up. Take, for example, the Ararat valley. You will find a dismal scene of one disused engineering factory after another. You might also consider the lunar landscape of dilapidated industrial combinates around the town of Rustavi in Georgia, or the priority areas zoned for vineyards and other specialised crops, in which, today, wheat is growing on handkerchief-sized plots. Private investors, the state and the donor community are indeed investing once again in the infrastructure of the Caucasus. But none of these investments are subject to a general planning concept.
Under the buzzword “discursive planning”, a new understanding of regional planning has taken hold in Europe over the last decade. Regional planning is not just about developing plans. It moderates actively between the competing goals of state, societal and private players. Can this approach be applied to the situation in the Caucasus, which is characterised by deep contradictions? Are the parties involved, be they state agents or civil society actors, willing to think outside the box? Are they prepared for visions? It was at least worth a try.
A regional survey was carried out of all sectors relevant to the area. It included the political and socio-economic conditions, agriculture and forestry, industry, tourism, demography, settlement structures, infrastructure and ecology and the institutional setting. The planning team then formulated three alternative future scenarios for the region in the year 2022:
one scenario showed how the region could develop if current trends go on,
a second scenario was based on the “world market integration” model of development, and
the third scenario started with the assumption that all three countries would pursue “equitably sustained development” over the next two decades.
These alternatives formed the lead-in to a planning workshop lasting several days in the Georgian capital Tbilisi. Government and societal activists from the three countries were involved including, for example, representatives from the ministries for agriculture, the environment, urban development and regional planning and numerous non-governmental organisations. In the opening session, the Armenians sat to the right, and the Azerbaijanis sat to the left. The two nations are still officially at war with one another over Karabach. And in between, at the head of the horseshoe-shaped table, were the Georgians who are on talking terms with both sides.
All ideas are welcome
A facilitator explains the rules: In principle, all ideas are welcome, all visions of the future, which can be drawn from the current situation in the region. There is just one taboo: ethnic and territorial conflicts may not be mentioned. There is a sigh of relief among the participants. This time there will not be any ritualised allocation of blame. The participants get involved in the agenda and find it stimulating to discuss the scenarios: Isn’t the trend scenario too pessimistic? Can relations really get worse than they currently are? The ice has been broken – the parties are talking to each other.
Most of the ministry representatives quickly agree that there is really no alternative to the “world market integration” scenario. The region’s greatest potential is, of course, its geo-strategic location at the crossroads of the trading routes from west to east, from the EU to central Asia and from north to south, from Russia to Turkey, Iran and the Arab world. The ministers of agriculture agree that agriculture in the Caucasus must adjust to meet the scale of EU enterprises and the only opportunity is in industrial production. The representatives from the ministries of agriculture in Armenia and Azerbaijan join forces arguing with committed supporters of eco-agriculture and small local economic cycles, one from Armenia and one from Azerbaijan. No longer is Armenian pitted against Azerbaijani, now departmental officials are struggling with environmental activists. There is common ground beyond the nationalistic rhetoric. Of course there are conflicts too. But they are conflicts which can be discussed.
A dialogue is developing, triggered by the review of the scenarios the planning team presented on possible strategies for agriculture, infrastructure development and biodiversity protection. Thus the cornerstones for a new scenario develop. The planning team will eventually have to match it with an ecologically oriented regional planning programme aligned with the Biodiversity Vision 2050. The areas where serious clashes between the interests in economic development and protection of endangered species are to be expected will only become clear in the overlap between regional planning and the biodiversity vision.
Will discursive spatial planning also work in the Caucasus? A start has been made. The draft for a transnational regional development plan is a good basis for discussion. The BMZ (German Development Ministry) has promised to fund a joint secretariat for the countries in the South Caucasus so that there will be greater consistency in the dialogue on regional planning goals and biodiversity protection.
Prof. Dr. Einhard Schmidt-Kallert
is a regional planner and social scientist with the AHT Group AG in Essen. He has worked on numerous development projects in the areas of regional development and resource management, including as facilitator in the regional planning process in the Caucasus. He teaches at the University of Dortmund.
esk@aht-group.com
Further information
on the ecological nature conservation project is available from the KfW development bank:
Marcus.Stewen@kfw.de
|
