council of europe (2006) - challenges of the european landscape convention

Convention

Fr ench edition:
P a y sa g e et dévelo ppement d ur abl e – Le s enjeu x de La C onvent ion eur o péenne
d u pa y sa g e
ISB N-10: 92-871-5988-2
ISB N-13: 978-92-871-5988-5
T he o pinion s e x pr e ssed in t hi s wor k ar e t he r e spon sibil it y o f t he aut hor(s) and d o
not nece ssar il y r e fl ect t he o fficial pol ic y o f t he C ouncil o f E ur o pe.
All r ights r eser ved. No par t of this pu blication may be tr anslated, r e pr oduced or
tr ansmitted, in any f or m or by any means, electr onic (CD-R om, Inter net, etc.)
or mechanical, including photocopying, r ecor ding or any inf or mation stor age or
r etr ieval system, without pr ior per mission in wr iting f r om the Pu blic Inf or mation
and Pu blications Division, Dir ector ate of Communication (F-67075 Str as bour g
Cedex or pu [email protected]).
Photo: Jean-Fr ançois Seguin
“On the Long Str and, an Ir ish beach, pe bbles unite in their diversity as if in
homage to the Eur opean Landsca pe Convention”
© Council of Eur ope
Cover design: Gr a phic Design Unit, Council of Eur ope
Text pr oof r eading and layout by the Documents and Pu blications Pr oduction
De par tment (SPDP), Council of Eur ope
Council of Eur ope Pu blishing
F-67075 Str as bour g Cedex
htt p:/ book .coe.int
Pr inted at the Council of Eur ope

Pr ef ace
The Eur opean Landsca pe Convention was adopted in Flor ence (Italy) on
20 Octo ber 2000 under the aus pices of the Council of Eur ope, with the aim of
pr omoting Eur opean landsca pe pr otection, management and planning, and
or ganising Eur opean co-oper ation in this ar ea. It r e pr esents the first inter national
tr eaty to be exclusively concer ned with all as pects of Eur opean landsca pe. It
a pplies to the entir e terr itor y of the par ties and covers natur al, r ur al, ur ban and
per i-ur ban ar eas. It concer ns landsca pes that might be consider ed outstanding as
well as ever yday or degr aded landsca pes.
The convention r e pr esents an im por tant contr i bution to the im plementation of
the Council of Eur ope’s o b jectives, namely to pr omote democr acy, human r ights
and the r ule of law and to seek common solutions to the main pr o blems f acing
Eur opean society today. By tak ing into account landsca pe, cultur al and natur al
values, the Council of Eur ope seek s to pr otect Eur opeans’ quality of life and well-
being in a sustaina ble development pers pective.
TheCouncil of Eur ope has under tak en a wor k aiming at examining and illustr ating
cer tain f undamental as pects of the convention: Landsca pe and
– social, economic, cultur al and ecological a ppr oaches;
– individual and social well- being;
– s patial planning;
– identification, assessment and quality o b jectives;
– awar eness-r aising, tr aining and education;
– inter national policies and pr ogr ammes; tr ansf r ontier landsca pes;
– pu blic par tici pation.
This book has been pr oduced thank s to the Council of Eur ope ex per ts’ r e por ts
and to the r esults of the wor k shops which have tak en place on the im plementation
of the Eur opean Landsca pe Convention and have ena bled s pecific exam ples and
cases to be used to illustr ate the same themes.1 The var ious r esulting pu blications
may thus be examined together .
Our thank s go to Messrs Michel Pr ieur , Yves Lugin bühl, Bas Pedr oli,
Jan Diek Van Mansvelt, Ber tr and de Montmollin and Flor encio Zoido f or the
excellent quality of their contr i butions to the de bate.
1. Documents T-FLOR 2 (2002) 18 and 18 addendum and T-FLOR (3 (2002) 12. Also see Council of
Eur ope Pu blishing, Eur opean s patial planning and landsca pe ser ies, 2005, No. 72 and 2006, No. 74.
3
Land sca pe and su st ainabl e develo pment
The r e por ts wer e pr esented to two Confer ences of the Contr acting and Signator y
States to the Eur opean Landsca pe Convention, held bef or e the convention even
came into f or ce, the first on 22 and 23 Novem ber 2001, the second on 28 and
29 Novem ber 2002 and to the confer ence held when the convention came into
f or ce, on 17 June 2004.2 The r e pr esentatives of gover nments and of inter national
gover nmental and non-gover nmental or ganisations who attended these confer ences
thus had the oppor tunity to discuss the r elevant issues and to tak e the first ste ps
towar ds optimum im plementation of the convention.
The main featur e of the Eur opean Landsca pe Convention, which is wholly
dedicated to landsca pe, meaning landsca pe as a whole, is the way it in which it
calls f or the landsca pe to be valued as a pr oduct of histor y, the f ount of cultur al
identity, a her itage to be shar ed, and a r eflection of a Eur ope of multi plicity.
The task ahead, an am bitious one, is hugely im por tant to the f utur e of our land and
our surr oundings. We wish ever y success to those who ar e committed to it.
Maguelonne Dé jeant-Pons
and Landsca pe Division
Council of Eur ope
Enr ico Buer gi
Convention Confer ences,
2001-2004
2. Documents T-FLOR 1 (2001) 19, T-FLOR 2 (2002) 27 and T-FLOR (2004) 15.
4
Pr eam ble to the convention
M ichel P r ieur , e x per t t o t he C ouncil o f E ur o pe
Intr oduction........................................................................................................ 11
1.1.1. Well- being f or all ................................................................................... 13
1.1.2. Sustaina ble development ....................................................................... 15
1.2. The pr inci ples of the convention............................................................ 17
1.2.1. The integr ation pr inci ple........................................................................ 18
1.2.2. The consistency pr inci ple ...................................................................... 21
1.3. Essential instr uments ............................................................................. 22
1.3.1. Institutional instr uments......................................................................... 22
1.3.2. Inf or mation and par tici pation arr angements .......................................... 24
2. Landscape and individual and social well-being
Pr eam ble to the convention
Y ve s Lu ginbühl , e x per t t o t he C ouncil o f E ur o pe
Intr oduction........................................................................................................ 31
2.1.1. Individual well- being ............................................................................. 34
2.1.2. Social well- being ................................................................................... 35
2.2. Landsca pe and well- being...................................................................... 36
2.2.1. Landsca pe and individual physical well- being ...................................... 36
2.2.2. Landsca pe and individual s pir itual well- being ...................................... 39
2.2.3. Landsca pe and mater ial well- being ....................................................... 41
2.2.4. Landsca pe and social well- being ........................................................... 41
2.3. Do contem por ar y landsca pes pr oduce individual and social
well- being?............................................................................................. 43
2.3.1. R ationalisation of activities f or gr eater pr oductivity ............................. 44
2.3.2. The quest f or immediate pr ofit and/or the logic of s peed ...................... 45
2.3.3. The disa ppear ance of the cultur e of natur e in f avour of technological
or vir tual cultur e..................................................................................... 47
2.3.4. The difficulty of secur ing pu blic par tici pation....................................... 47
2.3.5. The tr end towar ds the monetar isation of non-mar k et goods ................. 48
2.4. The Eur opean Landsca pe Convention’s contr i butions to individual
and social well- being ............................................................................. 49
Conclusion ......................................................................................................... 51
3. Landscape and spatial planning policies
Ar ticle 5 of the convention
F lor encio Z oid o N ar anjo , e x per t t o t he C ouncil o f E ur o pe
Intr oduction........................................................................................................ 55
3.1. Eur opean s patial planning pr actice ........................................................ 57
3.2. Syner gies between landsca pe and s patial planning................................ 63
3.3. Landsca pe in s patial planning instr uments at differ ent scales ............... 66
3.3.1. The Eur opean scale ............................................................................... 67
3.3.2. National and r egional scales .................................................................. 71
3.3.3. The local scale........................................................................................ 74
Ber t r and de M ont moll in , e x per t t o t he C ouncil o f E ur o pe
Intr oduction......................................................................................................... 83
4.1.1. The ex per ience of Switzer land................................................................86
4.1.2. The ex per ience of Italy ...........................................................................87
4.1.3. The ex per ience of Slovenia: s patial planning and sustaina ble
development in Slovenia......................................................................... 92
4.1.4. The ex per ience of the United K ingdom: as pects of landsca pe
char acter isation and assessment in the UK ............................................. 93
4.2. Towar ds the development of innovative tools ........................................ 93
5. Landscape and identification, assessment and quality ob jectives
Intr oduction........................................................................................................ 99
5.1. Identif ying and assessing landsca pes, and f or mulating landsca pe
quality o b jectives: a new political f r amewor k ....................................... 99
5.1.1. Identification ........................................................................................ 100
5.1.4. Cultur al and natur al r esour ces ............................................................. 103
5.2. Identif ying and assessing landsca pes, f or mulating landsca pe quality
o b jectives: efficient and innovative methods ....................................... 104
5.2.1. Landsca pe identification and assessment methods .............................. 105
5.2.2. The f or mulation of landsca pe quality o b jectives ................................. 113
Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 114
Ba s P ed r ol i and J an Diek Van M an svel t , e x per t s t o t he C ouncil o f E ur o pe
Intr oduction....................................................................................................... 119
6.1. Awar eness-r aising, education and tr aining f or living landsca pes ........ 121
6.1.1. Connection with and commitment to the landsca pe ............................. 121
6.1.2. Education and tr aining as human r esour ce development...................... 123
6.2. Inter acting dimensions of landsca pe ..................................................... 129
6.2.1. Landsca pe, a young conce pt f or understanding and f or management .. 129
6.2.2. The f actual, the r ight and the r eal landsca pe......................................... 129
6.2.3. The natur al, the social and the cultur al landsca pe ................................ 130
6.2.4. On identity, char acter , cultur e and physical a ppear ance ....................... 134
6.2.5. Com pati bility of landsca pe per ce ptions................................................ 136
6.3. Pr actical consequences.......................................................................... 137
6.3.1. The power of exam ples ......................................................................... 137
6.3.2. Basic inf or mation needed on r elevant par ameters ................................ 137
6.4. Towar ds action ...................................................................................... 138
6.4.1. Questions and pr eliminar y answers ...................................................... 138
6.4.2. Im plementation ..................................................................................... 139
6.5. Synopsis: the Eur opean Landsca pe Convention, a par adox?................ 140
Additional r efer ences ........................................................................................ 140
7. Landscape and policies, international programmes and transf rontier
landscapes
Ar ticles 9 and 12 of the convention
Intr oduction....................................................................................................... 143
7.1. Integr ation of the landsca pe into inter national policies and
pr ogr ammes........................................................................................... 144
7.1.2. Methods of achieving integr ation ......................................................... 149
7.2. Tr ansf r ontier landsca pes ....................................................................... 154
7.2.1. Per manent instr uments f or local and r egional tr ansf r ontier
co-oper ation .......................................................................................... 154
Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 160
Ar ticles 5.c and 6.D of the convention
M ichel P r ieur and S yl vie Dur ou sseau , e x per t s t o t he C ouncil o f E ur o pe
Intr oduction....................................................................................................... 165
7
8.1. The r equir ements of the Eur opean Landsca pe Convention with
r egar d to pu blic par tici pation ................................................................ 166
8.2. The r equir ements of theAar hus Convention with r egar d to
pu blic par tici pation ............................................................................... 170
8.3. A pplica ble law r egar ding par tici pation in cer tain Eur opean states ...... 173
8.3.1. The pu blic affected by the definition and/or im plementation of
landsca pe policies ................................................................................. 173
8.3.2. Pu blic policy affected by par tici pation pr ocedur es in landsca pe
matters................................................................................................... 179
8.3.3. Par tici pation pr ocedur es s pecific to im plementation of the
r equir ements of Ar ticle 5.c.................................................................... 181
8.3.4. Par tici pation pr ocedur es s pecific to the definition of landsca pe-
quality o b jectives (Ar ticle 6.D)............................................................. 190
8.3.5. Par tici pation pr ocedur es s pecific to a par ticular landsca pe or
terr itor y ................................................................................................. 192
8.3.6. Pr ovisions designed to f oster the emer gence of a landsca pe cultur e
among the author ities and the population ............................................. 195
8.3.7. Pu blic influence on the final decision ................................................... 198
8.3.8. The effect of par tici pation pr ocedur es on the integr ation of
landsca pe concer ns in the im plementation of pu blic policies............... 199
8.4. Pr oposals f or im pr oving pu blic par tici pation in landsca pe
pr otection, management and planning .................................................. 199
8.4.1. Landsca pe awar eness and education..................................................... 200
8.4.2. Tr aining and r esear ch in landsca pe matters .......................................... 202
8.4.3. The pr ocedur es f or par tici pation in landsca pe matters ........................ 203
8.4.4. The integr ation of landsca pe pr otection in differ ent sector al
policies ..................................................................................................206
A ppendices
A ppendix 1: Questionnair e r elating to the im plementation of
Ar ticles 5.c and 6.D of the Eur opean Landsca pe Convention.... 209
A ppendix 2: Section 6 of the Fr ench constitutional law No. 2003-276
of 28 Mar ch 2003 on the decentr alised or ganisation of the
R e pu blic, Jour nal officiel de la R é pu blique f r ançaise No. 75 of
29 Mar ch 2003, page 5568 .........................................................212
A ppendix 3: Dir ective No. 2003/35/EC of 26 May 2003, pr oviding
f or pu blic par tici pation, OJEC, No. L 156 of 25 June 2003,
A ppendix II.................................................................................212
ecological appr oaches
“T he member S t at e s o f t he C ouncil o f E ur o pe sig nat or y
her et o [ ... ]
C oncer ned t o achieve su st ainabl e develo pment ba sed on
a bal anced and har moniou s r el at ion shi p bet ween social
need s , economic act ivit y and t he envir onment ...”

Intr oduction
As the first r egional inter national convention exclusively to do with landsca pe, the
convention opened f or signatur e in Flor ence on 20 Octo ber 2000 has ar oused gr eat
inter est among Council of Eur ope mem ber states. In a moder n way in k ee ping with
the universal pr inci ples of the R io Declar ation, the convention r eflects the Council
of Eur ope’s main o b jectives: democr acy, extension of human r ights to tak e in the
envir onment, and hel ping solve the main pr o blems of contem por ar y Eur opean
society. It also gives pr actical effect to the joint Council of Eur ope-United Nations
Envir onment Pr ogr amme Pan-Eur opean Str ategy f or Biological and Landsca pe
Diversity which envir onment ministers of 55 Eur opean countr ies a ppr oved at
Sofia on 25 Octo ber 1995.Action Theme No. 4 in the 1996-2000Action Plan was
entitled “Conser vation of landsca pes”, and the aims to be achieved by the year
2000 wer e:
“To pr event f ur ther deter ior ation of the landsca pes and their associated cultur al and
geological her itage in Eur ope, and to pr eser ve their beauty and identity. To corr ect the
lack of integr ated per ce ption of landsca pes as a unique mosaic of cultur al, natur al and
geological featur es and to esta blish a better pu blic and policy-mak er awar eness and
mor e suita ble pr otection status f or these featur es thr oughout Eur ope.”
The Eur opean Landsca pe Convention can be r egar ded as having am ply r isen to
those challenges: it goes well beyond mer e pr otection of landsca pes to concer n
itself with landsca pe management and development, and it pr omotes pu blic and
official awar eness of the need to be attentive to all k inds of landsca pe, whether
or dinar y ones, outstanding ones or s poilt ones.
The now gener al r ecognition that all landsca pe has a social, economic, cultur al
and ecological f unction is due to landsca pe’s contr i bution – as the pr eam ble to the
convention ex pr essly states – both to the community’s well- being and sustaina ble
development. In s pite of its a ppar ent a bstr actness, landsca pe, thr ough its physical
com position and its psychological dimension, meets im por tant social and cultur al
needs while also playing a par t in ecological and economic f unctions. This
com bination of char acter istics, r eflecting landsca pe’s multi plicity of f unctions, is
unique. The Eur opean Landsca peConvention sets out to convince decision mak ers
and the pu blic of the pr esent and potential wealth which all landsca pes possess and
of the need f or all ar eas of official policy to tak e this f actor , which is now better
a ppr eciated, into account.
Why landsca pe “ policies” in the plur al? Although Ar ticle 1.b of the convention
uses the singular in defining the ter m “landsca pe policy”, the deli ber ate em phasis
is on avoiding im posing any one model in landsca pe matters. The concer n, in
11
13
r eci pes but the methodology to use in or der to attain what the pr eam ble states to be
the convention’s two main o b jectives:
– individual and social well- being;
– sustaina ble development based on a balanced and har monious r elationshi p
between social needs, economic activity and the envir onment.
Thus it is f or the Par ties, thr ough active monitor ing committees,8 to back u p
convention im plementation with Eur opean co-oper ation based on exchange
of ex per ience and inf or mation and on demonstr ation of successes or f ailur es.
It is hoped this will pr oduce a k ind of illustr ated, collectively pr oduced users’
manual to the convention, guar anteeing consistency of o b jectives, pr inci ples and
im plementation tools.
Below we shall be consider ing what, f or the pur poses of the Eur opean Landsca pe
Convention, constitutes the actual f oundations of landsca pe policies. In or der to be
a ble to f or mulate clear ly, and then im plement, landsca pe policies, ther e ar e var ious
pr er equisites. They r elate to differ ent conce ptual and mater ial levels. First we need
a clear statement of the o b jectives of the new Eur opean landsca pe policy – why
a landsca pe convention? We will then pr esent two k ey pr inci ples of convention
accession and im plementation. Lastly, to have pr oper landsca pe policies, par ties to
the convention must esta blish at least minimum machiner y in ter ms of institutions
and exer cise of r es ponsi bilities on the one hand and inf or mation arr angements and
pu blic par tici pation in line with the convention on access to inf or mation, pu blic
par tici pation in decision mak ing and access to justice in envir onmental matters
(Aar hus, 25 June 1998) on the other .
1.1. The ob jectives of the convention
The Eur opean Landsca pe Convention tak es as its star ting point the o bser va ble f act
of landsca pe deter ior ation in Eur ope, in ter ms of landsca pe quality and diversity,
as a r esult of numer ous and var ied f actors. Incr eased pu blic and official awar eness
in Council of Eur ope mem ber states has gone hand in hand with pr esent-day
insistence on quality of life in an uns poilt envir onment, yet at the same time on
having the benefit of a degr ee of economic development.
That is why the convention’s main o b jectives ar e concer ned with guar anteeing
both well- being f or all and what has been k nown, since the Br undtland r e por t “Our
common f utur e”,9 as sustaina ble development.
1.1.1. Well-being f or all
Human activity – whether industr y, agr icultur e and f or estr y, or constr uction of
inf r astr uctur e and buildings f or var ious pur poses – has visual as well as physical
8.Ar ticle 10 of the Eur opean Landsca pe Convention.
9. Gr o Har lem Br undtland, Wor ld Health Or ganization, 1987.
Land sca pe and social , economic, cul tur al and ecolo gical a ppr oache s
13
im pact, modif ying the individual’s per ce ption of his or her surr oundings. It may
even cause what some people descr i be as visual pollution.
The landsca pe is a f amiliar par t of ever yone’s daily scene and plays a par t in
people’s sense of belonging to a par ticular place and a par ticular community. So
on a conscious or even unconscious level it contr i butes to mental well- being, and
uns poilt landsca pes per ha ps ther ef or e play a par t in com bating violence. Those
who visit or ex plor e an ar ea, as tour ists or f or wor k , tak e away an im pr ession
of a par ticular identity and a local distinctiveness, leading them to judge their
ex per ience of the ar ea positively or negatively. Both local people and the visitor
will see the landsca pe as a f actor in quality of life or the lack of it.
As stated in Ar ticle 5.a of the Eur opean Landsca pe Convention, landsca pes ar e
“an essential com ponent of people’s surr oundings, an ex pr ession of the diversity
of their shar ed cultur al and natur al her itage, and a f oundation of their identity”. It
is because landsca pe is indissocia ble f r om people’s surr oundings that it “is a k ey
element of individual and social well- being”, as affir med in the pr eam ble to the
convention.
Clear ly, then, the convention’s pur pose is to do ever ything possi ble to pr eser ve that
individual and collective well- being by means of officially f or mulated landsca pe
policies instead of letting landsca pes tak e sha pe and evolve s pontaneously.
The f act that landsca pe involves a sensitive r elationshi p to an ar ea, without any
ownershi p link between the beholder and the beheld, changes landsca pe into a
genuine “common r esour ce”,10 in other wor ds a collective visual asset or item of
common her itage. It is ther ef or e only to be ex pected that society should tak e ste ps
to pr eser ve that her itage f or pr esent and f utur e gener ations. The ex planator y r e por t
to the convention (par agr a ph 30) ex pr esses this ver y well:
“In their diversity and quality, the cultur al and natur al values link ed to Eur opean
landsca pes ar e par t of Eur ope’s common her itage, and so Eur opean countr ies have a
duty to mak e collective pr ovisions f or the pr otection, management and planning of
these values.” 11
As, ther ef or e, landsca pe is both an essential com ponent of community well- being
and a common asset, the individual has r ights and duties in r es pect of that asset,
which is am ple justification, if any wer e needed, f or the o bligation – r e peatedly
stated in the convention – to involve the community in landsca pe policies (we
shall come to this in due course). The pr eam ble to the convention gives a clear
statement of the close link between the individual’s r ights and duties and concer n
f or well- being:
“Believing that the landsca pe is a k ey element of individual and social well- being
and that its pr otection, management and planning entail r ights and r es ponsi bilities f or
ever yone.”
10. Penultimate par agr a ph of the pr eam ble to the Eur opean Landsca pe Convention.
11. Par agr a ph 36 of the Ex planator y R e por t of the Eur opean Landsca pe Convention.
14
1.1.2. Sustainable development
The Eur opean Landsca pe Convention’s second main pur pose is to hel p achieve
sustaina ble development.
Landsca pe is a com ponent of the envir onment, just lik e water , air and biological
diversity. Consequently landsca pe policies must be so f or mulated as to fit in
with the o b jectives of sustaina ble development. As ex plained in the ex planator y
r e por t:
“The concer n f or sustaina ble development ex pr essed at the 1992 R io de Janeir o
confer ence mak es landsca pe an essential consider ation in str ik ing a balance between
pr eser ving the natur al and cultur al her itage as a r eflection of Eur opean identity and
diversity, and using it as an economic r esour ce ca pa ble of gener ating em ployment in
the context of the boom in sustaina ble tour ism.”
This is why the pr eam ble to the convention gives pr ominence to sustaina ble
development as one of the tr eaty’s o b jectives:
“Concer ned to achieve sustaina ble development based on a balanced and har monious
r elationshi p between social needs, economic activity and the envir onment.”
In a statement to theCouncil of Eur opeEncounters at Segovia (S pain) the secr etar y
gener al of Eur opa Nostr a r eferr ed to Italy’s setting u p pilot ar eas f or landsca pe
pr otection and enhancement:
“The over all cost of an integr ated pr ogr amme of that k ind would undou btedly be gr eater ,
he said, than s por adic action but the money was an investment, not economically
unpr oductive ex penditur e. The pilot zones would show by exam ple, which was the
most persuasive way of doing so, that landsca pe pr otection was not incom pati ble
with economic development and that, on the contr ar y, pr otecting and enhancing the
landsca pe was a pr er equisite f or sustaina ble economic development.”12
Sustaina ble development is now a goal built into all envir onmental policy, and
landsca pe action is consistently r eferr ed to as a f actor , of no less significance
than others, in sustaina ble development. It is wor th dr awing attention, her e, to
the two basic pr inci ples that sha pe the content of sustaina ble development. These
ar e Pr inci ples 3 and 4 of the 1992 R io de Janeir o Declar ation on envir onment and
development:
Pr inci ple 3: “T he r ight t o develo pment mu st be f ul fill ed so a s t o equit abl y meet
develo pment al and envir onment al need s o f pr e sent and f utur e g ener at ion s.”
Pr inci ple 4: “ I n or der t o achieve su st ainabl e develo pment , envir onment al
pr ot ect ion shall con st itut e an int e g r al par t o f t he develo pment pr oce ss and cannot
be con sider ed in i sol at ion f r om it .”
12. Antonio Mar chimi Camia, in a pa per on pr otecting the landsca pe as a pr ior ity f or civil society,
Segovia meeting, 6 and 7 A pr il 2000. See Envir onmental Encounters, “ Awar ene ss o f t he l and sca pe:
f r om per ce pt ion t o pr ot ect ion”, Council of Eur ope Pu blishing, 2002, No. 52, pp. 43-49.
15
17
char acter istics and evolution of landsca pe in both r ur al and coastal ar eas18 and this
dou bly a pplies in pr otected ar eas.19
Lastly, cultur al sites of course need landsca pe policies gear ed to sustaina bility,
as pointed out in Council of Eur ope Committee of Ministers R ecommendation
No. R (95) 9 of 11 Se ptem ber 1995 on the integr ated conser vation of cultur al
landsca pe ar eas as par t of landsca pe policies:
“It is im por tant that landsca pe policies should dr aw on the pr inci ples of sustaina ble
development while str iving, by tak ing a ppr opr iate measur es, f or com pati bility between
the managed evolution of the landsca pe and the economic and social changes which
tend to alter the envir onment.”20
The f act is that by tak ing car e of the landsca pe we simultaneously pr omote
communal well- being, safeguar d the envir onment and pr otect economic activity.
All f our ingr edients of sustaina ble development (social, ecological, economic
and cultur al im pr ovement) ar e thus involved her e. The ex planator y r e por t to the
convention mak es that point sever al times:
“This [individual, social and cultur al f ulfilment] may hel p to pr omote the sustaina ble
development of the ar ea concer ned, as the quality of landsca pe has an im por tant bear ing
on the success of economic and social initiatives, whether pu blic or pr ivate.”21
“These var ious tr eatments [of landsca pes] may allow an im por tant socio-economic
development of the ar eas concer ned.”22
The pr eam ble to the convention, which, legally, has the same f or ce as the body of
the text, states the economic as well as social im pact of landsca pe:
“… [ t he l and sca pe] con st itut e s a r e sour ce f avour abl e t o economic act ivit y and
who se pr ot ect ion , mana g ement and pl annin g can cont r ibut e t o job cr eat ion.”
1.2. The pr inciples of the convention
The Eur opean Landsca peConvention contains, both dir ectly and indir ectly, a lar ge
num ber of pr inci ples. Ar gua bly the convention’s scope23 is a pr inci ple in itself ,
given the innovativeness of stating that all landsca pes deser ve attention, r egar dless
of their value and even if they ar e ever yday or degr aded landsca pes. It has been
said that the convention democr atises landsca pe, tak ing a social r ather than an
18. See Council of Eur ope Committee of Ministers R ecommendation No. R (97) 9 of 2 June 1997 on a
policy f or the development of sustaina ble envir onment-f r iendly tour ism in coastal ar eas.
19. SeeCouncil of Eur opeCommittee of Ministers R ecommendation No. R (95) 10 of 11Se ptem ber 1995
on a sustaina ble tour ist development policy in pr otected ar eas.
20. Ar ticle 6.1 of the Council of Eur ope Committee of Ministers R ecommendation No. R (95) 10 of
11 Se ptem ber 1995 on a sustaina ble tour ist development policy in pr otected ar eas.
21. Par agr a ph 24 of the ex planator y r e por t of the Eur opean Landsca pe Convention.
22. Par agr a ph 27 of the ex planator y r e por t of the Eur opean Landsca pe Convention.
23.Ar ticle 2 of the Eur opean Landsca pe Convention.
17
elitist view of it,24 and r ecognises a human r ight to landsca pe. The convention also
contains the pr inci ple of pu blic involvement, which we shall be look ing at as an
action tool in that im plementing it necessitates ada ptation of pr ocedur es. Nor must
we over look the pr inci ples of su bsidiar ity and diversity.
We have opted to highlight two less o bvious pr inci ples in the convention which,
however , will play a ma jor r ole in its f utur e im plementation: the integr ation
pr inci ple and the consistency pr inci ple.
1.2.1. The integr ation pr inciple
We can connect the integr ation pr inci ple as r egar ds envir onment, and thus
landsca pe, to the a bove-quoted Pr inci ple 4 of the R io de Janeir o Declar ation:
landsca pe pr otection needs to be an integr al par t of the development pr ocess and
cannot be tr eated in isolation. In actual f act ther e ar e two k inds of integr ation
her e: integr ating the envir onment into landsca pe policies, which is to some extent
the natur al and o bvious a ppr oach, and integr ating landsca pe consider ations into
other sectors of activity and thus building them into sector al policies. This second
ty pe of integr ation is much mor e com plex, r equir ing extensive co-or dination at all
levels of decision mak ing.
While the convention ex pr essly deals with integr ation in the context of national
measur es, we must not omit to mention integr ation in the context of Eur opean
co-oper ation.
Ar ticle 5.d places an integr ation o bligation on par ties:
“Each Par ty under tak es:
[…]
d . to integr ate landsca pe into its r egional and town planning policies and in its cultur al,
envir onmental, agr icultur al, social and economic policies, as well as in any other
policies with possi ble dir ect or indir ect im pact on landsca pe.”
The ex planator y r e por t to the convention states that landsca pe o b jectives ar e to
be tak en into account in all r elevant sectors of pu blic life.25 Building landsca pe
consider ations into policy in this way is a unique oppor tunity to r econsider sector al
policies without narr owly f ocusing r eview on landsca pes which alr eady have legal
pr otection.
This integr ation is of course viewed as a pplying to all stages of action on an ar ea
– f r om the f r aming of str ategies, plans or pr ogr ammes to giving per mission f or an
activity or item of inf r astr uctur e. In the field of s patial planning and development,
integr ation of sector al policies consists in giving thought simultaneously to the
mutual inter actions of a r ange of activities well bef or e a final decision is tak en.
24. R iccar do Pr ior e, “La Convention eur opéenne du paysage”, Revue eur o péenne d e d r oit de
l ’ envir onnement , 2000, No. 3, p. 285.
25. Par agr a ph 50 of the Eur opean Landsca pe Convention.
18
landsca pe. In the event of disagr eement, landsca pe ser vices would have to be a ble
to veto a pr o ject or a ppeal to some higher ar bitr ation body. The ser vices involved
in such consultation could dr aw u p non- binding codes of conduct f or planners
so that ther e would be a s pecialist document with educational intent pr oviding a
negotiation f r amewor k .
The k ey questions with the integr ation pr inci ple ar e, in actual pr actice, what
ty pe of integr ation is needed and what a ppr oach to adopt. Ther e has to be over all
integr ation of the differ ent integr ation levels, with pr ovision f or geogr a phical
integr ation, institutional integr ation, integr ated planning and integr ated decision
mak ing. The Inter national Centr e f or Com par ative Envir onmental Law made
r ecommendations to this effect dur ing the pr e par ations f or the United Nations
Wor ld Summit on Sustaina ble Development in Johannes bur g.28
Integr ation at the level of Eur opean co-oper ation is no less im por tant than an
integr ated national a ppr oach. Two ar ticles of the convention ar e par ticular ly
r elevant her e,Ar ticles 7 and 8.
By under tak ing to tak e the landsca pe dimension into consider ation in inter national
policies and pr ogr ammes and to co-oper ate f or that pur pose, states par ties to the
convention agr ee, under Ar ticle 7, to have the inter national bodies of which they
ar e mem bers tak e landsca pe into account wher e r elevant. The Eur opean Landsca pe
Convention must not be an isolated inter national legal instr ument oper ating in a
vacuum and must be a dr iving f or ce to pr omote the landsca pe conce pt wher ever
a ppr opr iate. This “inclusion” of landsca pe (asAr ticle 7 puts it) is an o bligation on
states not only in the other Eur opean bodies of which they ar e mem bers – such
as, in some cases, the Eur opean Union or , in others, the United Nations Economic
Commission f or Eur ope – but also in wor ld or ganisations, in par ticular of course
Unesco, thr ough the wor ld her itage convention, and the IUC N.
Lastly, the integr ation pr inci ple must also guide the multilater al Eur opean co-
oper ation f or which ther e is pr ovision in Ar ticle 8 of the convention. By pooling
inf or mation and ex per ience and arr anging f or technical and scientific assistance,
including legal assistance, the par ties to the Eur opean Landsca pe Convention must
see to it that the integr ation pr inci ple set out inAr ticle 5.d is pr oper ly im plemented.
Pr oactive co-oper ation in this ar ea will consist in suggesting r emedies or offer ing
advice based on com par ison of ex per ience, in the f or m of guidelines, white pa pers
or sets of pr inci ples which would be dr awn u p by s pecialist committees under
Council of Eur ope aus pices and then a ppr oved by the Confer ence of Par ties.
Ar ticle 8 pr ovides f or co-oper ation “in or der to enhance the effectiveness of
measur es tak en under other ar ticles of this Convention”.
28. See r ecommendations on integr ated management of the envir onment in theDeclar ation of Limoges
II, A Wor ld Meeting of Envir onment Law S pecialists and Associations, CIDCE, Limoges, 9 and
10 Novem ber 2001.
secondar y im por tance as a f actor in biological diversity31 or as a geogr a phical entity
to be pr otected f or its aesthetic value (as in many inter national documents on coastal
or mountain zones).32 Consistency hencef or th r equir es co-or dinated inter national
action on landsca pe in the s pir it of the Eur opean Landsca pe Convention.
Im plementation of joint pr ogr ammes in the case of cr oss- bor der landsca pes, as
pr ovided f or inAr ticle 9, will be a test of the consistency pr inci ple when it comes
to com bining the convention’s pr inci ples with distinctive local, cultur al and legal
featur es. Lastly, by its ver y natur e,Ar ticle 12 r eflects the r equir ement that ther e be
consistency between the Eur opean Landsca pe Convention and any other national
or inter national legal instr uments str icter than it – that is, mor e f avour a ble in ter ms
of effective pr ovision f or the landsca pe.
To gauge consistency given var ious, of ten contr adictor y, r equir ements will
need detailed illustr ations of good and bad pr actice, com plete with photogr a phs
and documentation, so as to build u p a var ied ar chive of exam ples that meet
the r equir ements of Ar ticle 8 and hel p mak e the new landsca pe policy mor e
effective.
1.3. Essential instr uments
Some of the o bligations in the convention r equir e states to put instr uments in place
if none exist in national legal systems. Those which ar e clear ly essential f or f r aming
and im plementing landsca pe policies ar e, first, institutional instr uments closely
bound u p with exer cise of powers and, secondly, par tici pation and inf or mation
arr angements which meet the r equir ements of theAar hus Convention.
1.3.1. Institutional instr uments
Although the convention is silent as to what institutions need setting u p, we can
assume that the r equir ements to f r ame landsca pe policies,33 to r ecognise landsca pes
in law,34 to esta blish par tici pation pr ocedur es and to integr ate landsca pe into other
policies35 call f or administr ative machiner y to per f or m those f unctions.
That does not mean ther e necessar ily has to be a s pecial law dealing with landsca pe:
giving legal r ecognition to landsca pe can be done in the constitution or in any
piece of legislation, and f or ther e to be an administr ative de par tment r es ponsi ble
f or landsca pe does not r equir e landsca pe legislation. Conceiva bly ther e could
even be a law dealing with landsca pe and giving it legal r ecognition without any
31. The biological diversity convention does not r efer to landsca pe, mer ely r eferr ing in its pr eam ble to
the r ecr eational or aesthetic significance of some ingr edients of biological diversity.
32. The im plementing Pr otocol f or the im plementation of the Al pine Convention of 1991 of
20 Decem ber 1994 in the field of natur e pr otection and landsca pe conser vation is mainly concer ned
with the “unique beaut y” (see pr eam ble) and the “d iversit y , d i st inct ivene ss and beaut y o f natur al
l and sca pe s” (Ar ticle 1).
33.Ar ticles 1.b and 5.b of the Eur opean Landsca pe Convention.
34.Ar ticle 5.a of the Eur opean Landsca pe Convention.
35.Ar ticle 5.c and d of the Eur opean Landsca pe Convention.
22
par tici pation”.54 This wor ding is open to var ious inter pr etations. It r eflects an
o bligation, if not to adopt the pu blic’s views ex pr essly, at least not to disr egar d
them and to tak e them into account as f ar as possi ble. R eview of the r easons given
in a ppeal pr oceedings bef or e a higher administr ative author ity or a cour t will then
test whether due account has been tak en.
The r eason f or theEur opean Landsca peConvention’s insistence on the par tici pative
a ppr oach is a desir e not so much to f all in with pr evailing f ashion as to give legal
r ecognition to the s pecial featur es of landsca pe. Landsca pe exists because it is
visi ble. A landsca pe policy which involved only ex per ts and administr ators, who
themselves ar e of ten s pecialists, would r esult in landsca pes that wer e im posed on
the pu blic, just as in the days when landsca pe was pr oduced by and f or an elite.
Democr atisation of the landsca pe is not just a question of the new scope which the
Eur opean Landsca pe Convention intr oduces; it is also r eflected in this collective
and individual a ppr opr iation of all landsca pes, thr ough the r equir ement that ther e
be dir ect par tici pation f or all in all phases of decision mak ing r egar ding landsca pe
alter ation, su per vision of landsca pe evolution and pr evention of r eckless landsca pe
destr uction.
All the mor e account will be tak en of the outcome of par tici pation if the
par tici pation pr ocess itself is pr oof against cr owd- pleasing tactics on the one
hand and a bnor mal pr essur e f r om par ticular lo bbies on the other . This entails
achieving balanced involvement of ex per ts, elected r e pr esentatives, the pu blic and
the voluntar y sector . And ther e is a pr er equisite – all the pr eliminar y awar eness-
r aising, tr aining and education which ar e the cor nerstone of par tici pation.
54.Ar ticle 6.8 of theAar hus Convention.
28
social well-being
“T he member S t at e s o f t he C ouncil o f E ur o pe sig nat or y
her et o […]
Awar e t hat t he l and sca pe […] cont r ibut [e s ] t o human well -
bein g […];
Bel ievin g t hat t he l and sca pe i s a k e y el ement o f ind ivid ual
and social well -bein g […]”

31
“ I f I wer e t o inquir e what pa ssion i s mo st natur al t o men
who ar e st imul at ed and cir cum scr ibed b y t he ob scur it y
o f t heir bir t h or t he med iocr it y o f t heir f or tune, I coul d
d i scover none mor e pecul iar l y a ppr o pr iat e t o t heir
cond it ion t han t hi s love o f ph y sical pr o sper it y. T he
pa ssion f or ph y sical com f or t s i s e ssent iall y a pa ssion
o f t he midd l e cl a sse s; wit h t ho se cl a sse s it g r ow s and
spr ead s , wit h t hem it i s pr e ponder ant . F r om t hem it
mount s int o t he higher or ders o f societ y and de scend s
int o t he ma ss o f t he peo pl e.”
Al e xi s de T ocquevill e, De la démocr atie en Amér ique,
P ar i s , P a g nerr e, 1850.
Intr oduction
If we r efer to the definition of landsca pe given in the Eur opean Landsca pe
Convention,55 the r elationshi p that it is possi ble to esta blish between individual and
social well- being and landsca pe is self -evident, since this definition associates the
landsca pe with the quality of people’s lives, which this text aims to im pr ove. In f act,
this r elationshi p r aises com plex pr o blems, which ar e mor e or less inter connected.
It is not possi ble sim ply to state that all “high-quality” landsca pes corr es pond to the
(individual and social) well- being of the people who live in the terr itor y of which it
is the visi ble ex pr ession. This r elationshi p between the landsca pe, individual well