SISTEMA DE RETENCIÓN INFANTIL

Presently, it is very difficult to make conclusions on the social consequences of Nature Parks‟ strategies in Luxembourg. This is mainly because most social features are typically qualitative, with enormous challenges on how to find a balance among stakeholders‟ perceptions on the social benefits of parks and because presumably, the prosperity of most people living in the Nature Park areas is much more determined by external factors (mainly people living in park areas, but working in Southern municipalities). The United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD, 2012) has made similar highlights on the social aspects of protected areas by concluding that, projects and policies for a greener economy have been dominated by environmental and economic concerns, with social issues consistently receiving the least attention. Practically, this is because there is little consensus on how the social dimensions of the green economy should be defined and addressed. This

147

normative conclusion somewhat mirrors what is presently happening in our case study areas. For the fact that there are no data sources with relevant information about the social reality of Nature Parks‟ policies in Luxembourg, analysis on this aspect can only be linked to externalities perceived during empirical exercises and which are motivated by investments in economic or environmental projects. That is aspects in which policies in Nature Park have a direct or indirect impact on individual/collective wealth.

Previously, an important social strategy for Nature Parks in Luxembourg was guided by certain rural activities such as regional trade fares and pastoral shows, organised to increase knowledge about the attractiveness and competitive advantage of park areas. However, due mainly to financial reasons, these activities have now disappeared in both Nature Parks. This was an important way forward to attract a critical mass needed to boost investment in local economic activities and which, in multiple ways, directly or indirectly, could affect local wellbeing through employment.

Also, empirical findings have explained that Nature Parks are linked to certain new job creation though not significantly perceptible. Even though it was practically very difficult to have data explaining the faith of parks in terms of job creation, the researcher tried in coming up with a table that would at least tell a bit on how certain local cooperatives in park areas are attempting to create employment.

148

Table 8: Number of employees in some local cooperatives

Source: Own work (Note that there is no confirmation if all these workers are from the parks or not).

Judging from the above table, it is certain that unlike in the Styrian Nature Park region in Austria where there is a well-structured approach to boosting local employment and achieve social sustainability (employing twenty-one persons from within the park area every year for one year), there is no such strategy in parks in Luxembourg. The numbers exhibited in the table above are marginal representation of the views of (Rasmussen, 2011) who explained that green economic projects are specific because they stimulate job creation in rural areas especially through the production of artisanal goods. It does not also reconcile Steurer‟s (2011) view that a local green economy is achieved by investing in eco-friendly activities that combine long-term social, economic and ecologically prerequisites related to sustainable development. Consequently, at present, some local citizens are questioning the approach of parks in generating employment activities, especially for the youths. That is;

“Nature Parks have done relatively little in the domain of local employment. Although the park administration could boost of some newly created posts, very little have been done in the overall social landscape. In this sense, it can be concluded that social development is not as important as economic and environmental development...Similarly, Nature Park

Cooperative Number of Workers

Blei Vum Sei 8

Vie Vum Sei 16

Gebäck Vum Sei 85

Beo Head Office 3

149

authorities most often forget about the local population who have otherwise given more to the image of Nature Parks than what they get socially from parks, even though this is hard to prove” (complained local inhabitant)

Still going by the ideas of Rasmussen, (2011) and Boons (2011), one important objectives of the approach of green economy is to generally help policy makers design social strategies and improve green job opportunities in areas with huge natural potentials. Nature Parks can be very effective in this aspect by involving aspiring young people in regional projects. This is very important in that young people of the countryside are one of the most hopeful groups for the adoption of innovations and the promotion of formulations that will help diversify economic activities in protected areas such as Nature Parks (Nastis and Michailidis, 2010). This aspect on greening local economies is very important for the reason that, if local youths are not instilled with the morals that parks are features of regional breadwinner, the future of Nature Park areas in Luxembourg might be a subject of neglect (Lopoukhine, 2008). In this case, the example of the Styrian Nature Park region in Austria is worth emulating. This will only be possible provided there is enough finance; given that one problem facing parks in Luxembourg is that of insufficient financial resources.

If Nature Parks in Luxembourg have to meet up current challenges and expectations regarding social prosperity, development projects have to at least reveal the maximum of benefits to be accrued by members of the public (Field, 2008). There are great uncertainties if Luxembourg‟s parks are actually „doing harm‟ and/or delivering benefits to those living in these areas, even though ideally, their creation should be bringing benefits especially in terms of job creation to the local population (UNEP, 2007). In such a context, the approach of Social Impact Assessment (SIA) is important before, within and after project cycles, to

150

instigate trust towards the social accountability of ongoing ventures. Social impacts are broadly defined in the objectives of the two official Nature Parks in Luxembourg. That is;

“In the legislation effecting the creation of Nature Parks in Luxembourg, specifications as to how parks would increase wellbeing or add value to the lives of those living in these areas are lacking” (explained a government administrator).

Consequently, there are little or no explanations, as well as follow-ups within project cycles to see if social objectives are attained. For the reason that spatial policies in the framework of natural resource development can bring positive or negative impact on local communities, SIA on how to identify, avoid, mitigate and enhance outcomes for communities can have enormous influence on the success of development projects in park areas (Franks, 2012). It can be assumed that stakeholders of the Styrian Nature Park region in Austria had better assessed the social conditions of the region before agreeing to employ 21 persons every year. This is a good example that supports the views of Schreckenberg et al. (2010), that SIA is important to determine whether observed impacts are related to the protected area as an institution, the ecosystem being managed or some other factors unrelated to the protected areas. As such, social assessment tools can be in a form of local indicators, which is one of the most desirable instruments for measuring the effects of natural resource areas and to fix long-term goals, as well as creating a concrete governance mechanism. Talking about governance, the succeeding section explains the participatory processes involved in developing park areas in Luxembourg.

151