What exactly are they doing today in terms of sustainable development?
Their range of activities is much wider than in the early days. They’re engaged in what can be called transformation management: together with various stakeholders, they develop visions for how the entire area of a nature park can be developed in line with sustainability aims, as well as implementing, evaluating, and disseminating corresponding programmes. At the same time, they perform transition management in their focus areas, including agriculture and nutrition, biodiversity and nature conservation, climate and energy. They drive change by motivating local stakeholders to test new things and experiment – especially social and cultural innovations.
The strength of the French parks lies in their ability to bring together different stakeholders, mediate between conflicting interests, overcome deadlocked situations, find solutions, and create synergies.
__________________________________________________________
“The parks do much more than promote tourism”
__________________________________________________________
In Switzerland, environmental groups contend that park labels are mainly used to promote tourism and market local products. Is it any different in France?
The widespread perception that nature parks mainly promote tourism has long since ceased to be true, especially in France. In the 1980s and 1990s, many countries developed new tools for nature conservation. In France, the responsibility was delegated to nature parks, which were tasked with working together with local authorities to develop corresponding approaches for nature and landscape conservation. As a result, they collaborated with local stakeholders to create the necessary measures and determine the actual conservation areas.
In Switzerland, things went a bit differently. When the first nature parks were established here in 2007, lots of nature conservation areas had already been designated. But the Swiss parks also do a lot more than merely promote tourism. As in France, they view themselves as agents of sustainable regional development.
________________________________________________________________________________
“For example, they want to enable people to eat food that is seasonal, organic, and healthy – and also tastes good”
________________________________________________________________________________
Are there any concrete examples of actual transformations realized by French nature parks?
One good example is in the area of agriculture and nutrition: in the 1960s and 1970s, the parks promoted local products, but focused solely on production. They quickly realized this wasn’t enough. Today, they emphasize the entire value chain – from production to processing, distribution, and consumption. Here, they try to identify a sensible approach to local production and consumption according to ecological principles.
For example, they have launched community food service projects and offer courses on how to modernize local cuisine. The goal is to enable people to eat food that is seasonal, organic, and healthy – and also tastes good.
Swiss nature parks also offer local products – mostly dairy products, sausages, honey, baked goods, etc. Does France go further than this?
Definitely. In Switzerland, these products are marketed with the “Regio Plus” label, suggesting that local automatically means sustainable. From a sustainability perspective, this isn’t true of course. For it all to be sustainable, you have to consider local production along with ecological production methods and seasonal consumption. In France, efforts are made to effectively coordinate these aspects.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
“In France, parks are more important and influential among authorities and in politics when compared to Switzerland”
_______________________________________________________________________________________
How?
By rewarding businesses that commit to the nature park concept and develop their entire operations in line with its principles. It’s not just a label, but rather a management tool that incentivizes businesses to continuously improve their sustainability. The goal is for them to become ambassadors and communicators on behalf of the nature park concept. This is unique and greatly distinguishes the French model of nature parks. In Switzerland, by contrast, a business can be against the nature park and still market its goods using the Regio Plus label.
Are there other key differences between nature parks in Switzerland and France?
Broadly speaking, there are two: the most important difference is probably that French parks are afforded greater significance in the administrative, regulatory, and political system. They are represented in many working groups and develop landscape and biodiversity concepts together with and for authorities, for example. They are also closely involved in spatial planning: parks are frequently tasked with designing processes of spatial development and collaborating on them – or, at minimum, contributing their expertise. Meanwhile, democratic processes are preserved: the parks do not have enforcement authority, but can play a big role in shaping policy.
____________________________________________________________________________
“Parks in France think and act cross-sectorally from the beginning”
____________________________________________________________________________
Another difference is that parks in France are significantly bigger and better equipped than in Switzerland. An average of 40 specialists work in various areas and projects at each park. But that number can be even higher when it comes to implementing large, international projects. Suffice is to say that much more is possible in comparison to Swiss parks, which have fewer resources at their disposal.
While many parks have failed in Switzerland – from Seerücken in Thurgau to Neckertal, Rätikon, Adula, Val de Bagne, Thunersee-Hohgant, and Val d'Hérens, etc. – many more are being added in France and they are growing in size. What explains this?
In France, too, parks have been halted and certain municipalities have opted not to join – and not just at the margins of the park, but rather right in the middle. Nevertheless, parks in France continue to grow steadily. When the charter of a given nature park is reviewed, additional municipalities tend to join.
What’s the secret of their success?
In general, municipalities and local stakeholders have realized that parks are a pragmatic, forward-looking regional management tool. Parks often contribute good solutions to deadlocked situations and create useful proposals and projects concerning new issues, like use of renewable energies. Key here is that they think and act cross-sectorally from the beginning, aim for integration, and emphasize feasibility. The latter also attracts criticism, however.
______________________________________________________
“Local heritage shouldn’t become a museum”
______________________________________________________
Are they also successful because they preserve so-called local heritage?
Their idealistic basis is certainly an important factor. It’s rooted in the concept of working with the locally available patrimoine. In contrast to the German term Kulturerbe (“cultural heritage”), the French concept of patrimoine is also strongly linked to nature and the landscape. This anchoring rests on many local actors and residents. At the same time, this local heritage shouldn’t become a museum, but rather serve as a foundation for all sorts of innovations: social, economic, ecological, institutional, and technical creations.
Do they have as much impact as their reputation suggests?
There are lots of studies on what the parks do, but almost none on their effectiveness – that is, what has changed in these areas thanks to the parks. Certain quantitative analyses show that French park areas are better off, on average, compared to other rural areas in terms of biodiversity and unemployment. But it’s virtually impossible to prove this is mainly due to the parks, since they’re only one player among many in these areas.
________________________________________________________________________________________
“Sustainable development requires more than just gradual, selective changes”
________________________________________________________________________________________
So, various studies emphasize their “soft” effects. These include the processes I’ve mentioned, which parks have initiated, designed, implemented, or accompanied, leading to innovations and cross-sectoral cooperation. It’s fair to say that parks have a transformative impact at the local and regional level. However, sustainable development requires not only gradual, selective changes, but also massive, sweeping changes. This is where the parks and local actors can come up against overarching national and international policies, which strongly influence their room for manoeuvre.
What levers could be used to make them even more effective?
One possibility is to involve new stakeholders more closely in park work, in particular youths and young adults. After all, they’re the ones who will need to keep this movement going in the future. But also big businesses and industries located in the parks should be more involved.
Another approach would be to draw more attention to individual and collective behaviour and actions – regarding mobility, resource use, food, etc. – so as to engage more with local communities and the public.
_________________________________________________________________________________
“They need to introduce bold solutions to the discussion – even if not everyone likes them”
_________________________________________________________________________________
So, they should be more proactive in their approach and communication?
Yes, that’s another point. If they want to stay ahead of their time, I think the parks should communicate their knowledge more widely and with greater determination. They should show more explicitly and firmly how they aim to serve as laboratories for public policies that balance people and nature. Pragmatic, consensus-oriented approaches – taking small steps and emphasizing short- and medium-term feasibility – probably won’t be enough to massively accelerate ecological transitions in the long run.
In short, they need to act more as visionaries and thought leaders, introducing bold solutions to the discussion – both nationally and internationally – even if these are not to everyone’s liking.
