# From territorial governance of commons toward a reconfiguration of management models. The case of the “Chaîne des puys –Limagne Fault” Unesco World Heritage application

Etienne E. Polge, Jean-Bernard Marsat, Yves Michelin

## ► To cite this version:

Etienne E. Polge, Jean-Bernard Marsat, Yves Michelin. From territorial governance of commons toward a reconfiguration of management models. The case of the “Chaîne des puys –Limagne Fault” Unesco World Heritage application. 59th ERSA Congress. Cities, regions and digital transformations: opportunities, risks and challenges, ERSA, Aug 2019, Lyon, France. hal-02945568

HAL Id: hal-02945568

https://hal.science/hal-02945568v1

Submitted on 12 Sep 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of scientific research documents, whether they are published or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Special Session 20: Collective action, commons and commoning : towards the emergence of new forms of territorial development processes?

# Title : From territorial governance of commons toward a reconfiguration of management models. The case of the “Chaîne des puys –Limagne Fault” Unesco World Heritage application.

Authors : Etienne Polge, Jean-Bernard Marsat, Yves Michelin

Université Clermont Auvergne, AgroParisTech, INRA, Irstea, VetAgro Sup, UMR Territoires, F-63000 Clermont-Ferrand, France

## Introduction

We are face to new form of governance of commons in tension between socio-economic development and protection of heritage, emerging from the coexistence of management models. Nowadays a scale of management models of commons alongside the protected area management category of International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) can be identified from the most development-oriented model to the most protection-oriented model and from the most inclusive to the most exclusive model.

Some authorities and other stakeholders coordinate themselves with as main objective economic valorization of commons in the limit of national legislation. They eventually implement protected area with sustainable use of natural resources (category VI of UICN). Regional natural park (RNP) model aims to promote protection of Landscape/Seascape (category V of UICN) and to involve municipalities and civil society in a horizontal manner. Nature protection depends on the concertation and remains sometimes uncertain. National park (NP) model involves mainly one pubic administration of the park directly linked with national government in a vertical manner and aims to preserve natural site from human activities. In France, legal status of the NP and RNP became closer: in 2006, the reform of NP gives more power to local stakeholders while the evolution of RNP strengthens its charter.

In the local situations, these models may not sum up the representations and the logics of all actors. This leads to innovate and invent specific territorial governance arrangements emerging from the coexistence of management models to make possible a synergy between development and protection.

We will illustrate our communication through the analysis of the territorial governance arrangement of the “Chaîne des Puys –Limagne fault (CDPLF)” natural site – with different types of propriety and use. The CDPLF is located within the Auvergne volcanos RNP and was recently inscribed in the UNESCO world heritage list. Following other works on territorial governance and proximity dynamics (Polge et al., 2017, 2018), as well as on the governance within the CPFL (Marsat and Montoloy 2018; Michelin and Montoloy, 2018), we will put forward the tension between the trend to verticalize the management and the trend to strengthen the implication of local stakeholders and citizens in the management of natural site considered as commons. We will point out how this last trend leads to the implementation of innovative territorial policies and to the emergence of new management models. In the first part of the communication, we will present the analytic framework of our work retracing the different orientations concerning the protection of natural sites, the role of the commons for this protection and the current works on the territorial governance of the commons. In the second part, we will illustrate our purpose by the case study of the CDPFL, its trajectory and the modalities of its territorial governance arrangements.
## Analytic framework

In this part, we will present the different conceptions of the protection of natural site sometimes in opposition, and then we will query the opportunity to consider the commons as a way to foster the universal characteristic of natural sites. Finally, we will discuss the implementation of new forms of territorial governance of commons.

## Conception of protection of natural sites

As said in introduction, a scale of management models of commons alongside can be identified from the most development-oriented model to the most protection-oriented model and from the most inclusive to the most exclusive model.

Some authorities and stakeholders coordinate themselves with as main objective economic valorization of commons in the limit of national legislation and eventually implementing protected area with sustainable use of natural resources (category VI of UICN). Regional natural park (RNP) model aims to conciliate protection of Landscape/Seascape (category V of UICN) with local development and green tourism, and to involve municipalities and civil society in a horizontal manner even if nature protection depends on the concertation and remains sometimes uncertain.

A Regional Natural Park is a French legal form of governance for areas, which have natural and cultural heritage of exceptional interest. Created in 1966 throughout the Lurs Congress gathering human scientist and politics, regional Natural Parks were conceived more as life territories based on the harmony between human and nature than a reserve (Collectif, 67; Chiva, 2008). The purpose of Regional Natural Parks is to protect and promote natural resources, human resources and cultural heritage by implementing an innovative and environmentally friendly policy of land-use planning and economic, social and cultural development. The local RNP policy is initiated, negotiated and implemented by local representative and with stakeholders. It is formalized in a charter that fixes the objectives of protection and development of the territory. This Charter is validated by regional national administration. A management organism with professional team supports the concrete implementation of the charter. The capability of the park to protect nature depends on the capacity to uphold these objectives through concertation.

However, the inscription on the world heritage list, based on natural criteria, is traditionally dedicated to pristine nature with a minimum of human activity, and conceived as a universal good which has to be preserved from the local activities. For example, the specific landscape criteria require sublime natural landscape and do not include the cultural landscape built by humans. In France and in other Latin countries, landscape is perceived as cultural and the natural aspects are coming from “soft” human practices (Luginbuhl, 2012). Expropriation of native people often lead to degradation of landscape and non-sustainability as shown for example by Ween (2012) with the interdiction for the sami people to make their animal graze the Norwegian tundra. In opposition, some traditional production systems as the ones using slash and burn practices in densely populated region (Palm et al. 2005) are no more viable and need to change. Furthermore, some RNP could not be powerful and/or protective enough to resolve problems of management

## Commons goods approach to foster the universal characteristic of natural sites

The approach of the nature conservation as spur wild nature without humans was justified by what was named the “tragedy of the commons” (Hardin, 1968). This process would be due to a tendency of some people (free rider) to pursue only their own (more or less selfish) interests leading to overexploitation of resources that induces the and loss of the commons and an asymmetric power (e.g. land-owners versus land users, property rights versus user-rights users). However, through centuries, many social groups were successful in avoiding resource degradation by maintaining self-governing, sustainable institutions, precisely the type of common management that Hardin claimed was ineffective (Ostrom, 1990). Only when such systems become disrupted by external private or state
ownership does ‘tragedy’ ensue. This leads to the search for modern-day commons goods (see Rodgers et al 2010; Rodgers 2010).

Common goods questions because it gives free use to landless people including poor people. They are considered as the richness of the poor. Thus, historically, privatization of commons appears as a dispossession of the means of subsistence and leads to strong disputes (see the enclosure process in England). In the same way, the inscription in the Unesco world heritage list makes the commoners fear the dispossession serving to norms conceived by private association (IUCN) coming from Anglo-Saxon culture.

## Territorial governance of Commons

Another approach of the commons focuses more on the arrangement itself linking a resource, a community and rules (Coriat, 2015) and even on the common project behind observed as an attempt to act in common against individualization and privatization dynamics (Dardot and Laval, 2015). This approach leads to analyze commons as a re-appropriation dynamic of the territory by the users (Kebir et al., 2018). This larger acceptation is resumed by Keibir et al. (op. cit) as “the whole objects whose use is shared and whose management of all or a part is led by collective or user community considered or self-reported as legitimate”

Even if this acceptation of common differs from that of Ostom that is directly attached to a localized natural resource, its combination can afford a rich framework, which can be linked with the research on territorial development (Iceri and Lardon, 2018)

Within the context of research on commons, substantial theoretical and conceptual innovations are to be expected from the inter- and transdisciplinary reflection on the applicability to governance modes for societal transformation in national/regional parks. The huge complexity of large commons with a high diversity of use leads to think forward new territorial arrangements. The multiplicity of new territorial uses combined with the growing attractiveness due to the labeling or recognition of the universal value of a natural site (as the inscription to the UNESCO world heritage list) leads to rethink the territorial governance of commons. It leads to think about the resource itself and to think about the territorial arrangement that gives the possibility to articulate the local issues linked to the territorial commons and the regional, national and global issues depending on other level of public policies.

Following other works on territorial governance and proximity dynamics (Polge et al., 2017, 2018) and works on the governance within the CDPLF (Marsat and Montoloy 2018; Michelin and Montoloy, 2018), we will put forward the tension between the trend to verticalize the management and the trend to strengthen the implication of stakeholders and citizens in the management of natural sites considered as commons. We will illustrate our communication through the analysis of the territorial governance arrangement of the CDPLF – with different types of propriety and use - located within the Auvergne volcanos RNP and recently inscribed in UNESCO world heritage list.

## Case study

We first present the CPFL, then we analysis the trajectory with a focus on the management of commons

### Situation

Located in the French Massif Central, the CDPLF is a volcanic area close to Clermont-Ferrand (Figure 1). This natural site, famous for its original and perfect paradigmatic landforms, is attracting tourists from many countries (between 300 and 600000). In comparison with the major sites representing the same geological process of continental rifting, the CDPLF is one of the best place in the world to understand the braking of a continent in two parts. Actually, the site includes all the geological
landforms that result to this 3 steps process (braking illustrated by the Limagne fault, volcanism with more than 80 volcanoes of different types, uplift of the plateau, and inverted reliefs that result of this long term process. At least, as the volcanoes are young (from 100 000 to 6 000 years old) they are well preserved and due to common grazing, the majors landforms have an open and easy to access landscape. For these reasons, the site has been inscribed in July 2018 on the UNESCO World Heritage list (criterion viii: a major phenomenon of Earth history).

Schematic map modeling the issues in the CDPFL (figure 2), sets out territorial dynamics. Another aspect of the attraction of this area is related to its closeness to Clermont-Ferrand, with 250,000 inhabitants that is less than half-an-hour drive from the town center. This urban population regards the CDPLF as a public natural area for recreation and outdoor activities. However, even if these landscapes look like natural, the site is not wild. Due to the closeness to the city, the main problems are the peri-urbanization and the urban sprawling). Due to this high pressure for development, many institutional actors could meet difficulties to handle the issues of the inscription and the recent Collectivity reorganization (2017) leads to weak the legitimacy and the action of inter-communalities while the national state administration gives just little support.

In this double context of increasing of the value and of increasing of the pressure for economic development, the CDPLF is faced with different issues: On the social dimension, traditional villages are becoming periurban zones; On the economic dimension, some economic activities (productive forest, mineral water, stones extraction, tourism, residential attractively) are more or less generic/specific and some threats appears due to the agriculture dynamics (more than 60% of producer have more than 55); On the Environmental dimension, equilibrium between use and spontaneous vegetation dynamics are fragile and must be insured by pastoral planning to maintain open landscape.

However, to meet these challenges, actors must go beyond technical issues as inadequate skills to monitor and adopt adaptive management in a multi-use site, Organizational issues to favor articulation between actors and managers and application of environmental code linked to classified site framing land uses (stones quarry, wood production, planning) while preserving the characteristics of commons

CDPLF includes several modalities of land property and the major part of the site can be considered as commons as shown in the figure 2 : collectivity goods, collective public goods, collective private goods. By collectivity goods, we refer to goods belonging to municipalities, department or region. By collective public goods we refer to “sectionnaux” because the property is given to a “section de commune”, considered as the community of inhabitants of a village inside the larger area of the administrative entity that is called “commune” (= township”). By collective private goods, we refer to non-delimited goods, which are land with common private property of several owners without any mark inside the plot. These owners gathered in a trust to manage the land and to interact with administration. So large part of these goods can be considered as Commons.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1: localization of the CPFL</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 2:** territorial dynamics in the CPFL. Source : management plan of the CPFL

**Figure 3:** land properties in the CPFL. Source : management plan of the CPFL</figcaption></figure>

## Trajectory of the CPFL

Michelin and Monteloy (2018) described the history of the policies implemented in the CDPLF (figure 4). For thousands of years, the place has been occupied by local communities who organized grazing and forestry.

The departure point of the identification of commons goods within the CDPLF is the gift of large piece of land by the counts of Montferrand to the inhabitant at the end of the twelfth century. Then these land became the source of many conflicts between local communities and landlords who wanted to re-appropriate this land for their exclusive use; a good example of confrontation between mini and latifundios. The growing taxation of farmers, which reach the peak during the king Louis XVI reign leads to a degradation of the quality of these commons with complete clearing of forest, cultivation of inappropriate land traditionally dedicated to rangeland and conflicts for this resource between local communities. The generalized overgrazing led to the formation of heather (inappropriate for grazing and cultivation) and in this context to a situation of tragedy of commons.

During the In French revolution, the status of large part of this land was classified as “sectionnaux” and the other part was sold by the state. The traditional land use system, developed in the Middle Age, remained active, even if there are fewer farmers and animals. Reconversion of these lands through tree plantation was realized thanks to the afforestation law and to the work of Montlosier in 1825. The work of re-parceling beginning in the 60’ modified the landscape structure in some places and a trend to communalization of ‘sectionnaux’ is in progress since 2016.

This history with violent period plays a crucial role in the present governance and management of the site due to the embeddedness of the inhabitant in this history. After observing this landscape, Guettard (1752) first put forward the idea that they were ‘extinct volcanoes’ which lead to the valorization of the site.
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>Figure 4: trajectory of the CPFL (source: Michelin and Monteloy, 2018)</figcaption></figure>

## Trajectory of the management and valorization policies

The management and valorization policies are not new in this site. The first policy was the protection of the top of the Puy de Dome, the highest volcano of the CPFL, in 1931 thanks to the classification as classified natural site ¹to prevent the construction of a touristic resort. Then other volcanos were classified in the sixties to finally reach the protection of the major part of the site in 2000. This classification recognizes the remarkable characteristics of this natural site and enables the state to insure the preservation of the site for the general interest.

Several initiatives and infrastructure construction contribute to the management and to the economic valuation of the site. In 2000-2002, the construction of Vulcania, an attraction park on the volcanism shed light on the exceptional characteristics of the CDPFL and attracts many tourists (15000 to 300 000/year). Then succeeded other initiatives

* Elaboration of a management and urban plan and construction of a train to access the top of the Puy de Dome and the closure of the corresponding road to obtain the label « Grand site de France » (obtained in 2008).

* Elaboration of a management plan including protection, land owner organization, landscape management, access and circulation management, territorial governance arrangements, and communication strategy to obtain the inscription in the world heritage list of the UNESCO (first application in 2014 (referred), second application in 2016 (referred a second time) and third application successful in 2018)

* Elaboration of strategy of territorial development valorizing the inscription including reinforcement of territorial development arrangement and public debates.

<footnote n="1">¹ This classification was laid down in 1906, enlarged in the French lei of the 2 may 1930 and inscribed in 2000 in the L. 341 articles of the French environmental code.</footnote>
## Territorial governance arrangement of the CPFL

In the perspective of the inscription, a territorial governance arrangement has been implemented (figure 5).

The local commission or UNESCO commission is conceived as the enlarged instance of concertation and gather all the representatives of the actors concerned by the CDPFL. For instance, its role is consultative but it could be in the future the main instance of the territorial governance arrangement.

The executive committee is the political instance who takes the decisions. This committee gathers the Puy-de-dôme department council, the regional natural park (Auvergne Volcanos) who are the project leaders, the Auvergne-Rhone-Alpes region council, and the state as superior administrative level. The role of this committee is to define and update the action program for the implementation of the management plan, to validate the annual report and department council and to resent it to the local commission, and to report this assessment to national and international institutions.

The technical committee monitors the implementation of the management plan. The world heritage mission is the administrative instance, which centralize information and coordinate the actions. The monitoring unit verify the implementation of the management plan on the field. The scientific council and thematic work group study specific problematics of the management plan and make proposition for concrete solutions.

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>Figure 5: territorial governance arrangement of the CPFL (source: plan de gestion du dossier d'inscription à la liste du patrimoine mondial de l'UNESCO - https://whc.unesco.org/fr/list/1434/)</figcaption></figure>

The different visions of the conservation presented in the first part exist inside the arrangement (Marsat and Montoloy, 2018). PNR-VA place the conservation issue like biodiversity or forest preservation as first objectives and tend to limit the economic activities and others try to articulate development activities and improvement of landscape characteristics. For example opening new grazing areas on the top of several volcanos, in order both to make them better legible in the geological landscape, and to open them to leisure activities. Another example of articulation between development and protection is the set of actions targeted towards professional actors of tourism and leisure in order both to enhance the added value they can draw from the natural protected features of the territory, and also to make them more conscious of- or even more active in the protection. This
last option of good articulation goes through the reinforcement of the governance of the commons
and needs specific skills in the daily management of this governance. Until now, the executive
committee gave priority in the design of the management plan and in the writing and defense of the
Unesco application but management and valorization policies are not always well received by local
actors (land owner, inhabitants etc.).

The CDPLFL reveals the strength and the difficulties to approach the management of a UNESCO natural site by the commons while the traditional management of a UNESCO natural site leading to avoid human activities seems to be outdated. There are some agreements to find between anchorage and global issues.

Discussion

Land status remains an issue. The “sectionnaux” are perceived as archaic and contrary to a republican
Jacobinism ideal, centralizer and redistributive. Trends are to communalize to ease the hierarchical
and institutional management of the site. However, this type of land status typical of the commons is
a richness of the territory. The appropriation dynamics of the sectionnaux by the inhabitants or
through gathering landowners are to be valorize to build efficient and democratic management. Thus,
landowners of some Volcanos (Sarcoui and Montgoulède) deforest plot with their own resources and
provide the use of pastures to local sheep farmers in order to open the landscape and to bring out the
form of the Volcanos rather than implement new tree plantations. The sectionnaux have the potential
do federate people around the management of land through proximity, daily issues, and neighboring
interactions. Inhabitants linked to a “section” on a Volcano (Combegrasse) reopen the landscape
thanks to resources coming from the exploitation of the forest and provide the use of pastures to local
sheep farmers. However, these initiatives could be not sufficient to manage the diversity of uses of the
land. In another Volcano of CDPFL (Pariou), stakeholders of the management and valorization didn’t
reached agreement of inhabitants of “section” and land owners of non-delimited authorized visits but
banned the guided visits of groups leading to conflictual situation and limited valorization of the site.
Moreover, inequality within this type of land ownership can lead to inequality between commoners
depending on their resources, mode of organisation and intern policies.

Territorial governance arrangement have to involve the diversity of stakeholders, landowners and inhabitants (local community, technical organisation, administrative organisation) and have to take into account the users (tourists, enterprises linked to the natural site, around enterprises, etc.). In addition, each administrative and organizational level has its interest for the governance. Local community is the level of the daily management. Municipality is a level of concertation and management for issues such as education, water and planning can be too small and too large for many issues. Inter-municipality manage local economy and could be an interesting level to build common project but there perimeter are not stabilized and often do not correspond to a territory of identity. PNR have the missions to conciliate conservation and development but due to its context and its history, PNR VA focus more on the conservation through the field action of the park warden. Department council (CD63) has pro-active approach and gains legitimacy to coordinate stakeholders around transversal actions thanks to the support of scientific community, to its leadership in the UNESCO process and its presence on the site. This legitimacy stems so from a successful strategic initiative. National state has a necessary but not sufficient top down and coercive approach. Its position was reinforced with the classification of the site in 2000 thus weakened by its lack of presence on the field to finally regain control thanks to its position of responsible for the permanent evaluation process commissioned by UNESCO.

Integrating these levels is a way to mitigate tension between local and universal heritage avoiding
standardization of management models within the UNESCO site which would be counterproductive.
This UNESCO process reveals the capacity of local communities to mobilize themselves in an
empowerment dynamic. The conciliation of uses (as presented above) depends on the Integration of
this dynamic within adapted territorial governance arrangement. International process of the
inscription rekindle tensions between stakeholder but open the possibility to new territorial
arrangement which go beyond the local interest and compel the local stakeholders to excel. The focus
on territorial governance of commons aims to question the role of the inhabitant, owner, users and
the way the different administrative level (and particularly the national state) deals with their
empowerment in a situation of world heritage inscription.

Références

Chiva, I. 2008. Sciences de l'homme et patrimoines naturels, *Techniques & Culture*, n° 50, p. 16-39.

Coriat, B. 2015. *Le retour des communs: & la crise de l'idéologie propriétaire*. Éditions Les Liens qui libèrent.

Collectif, 1967, *Les Journées nationales d'études sur les parcs naturels régionaux. Lurs-en-Provence, septembre 1966*. Paris, La Documentation française.

Dardot, P., Laval, C. 2015. *Commun: essai sur la révolution au XXIe siècle*. Paris : La Découverte.

Dietz, T., Ostrom E. and Stern P.C. 2003. The Struggle to Govern the Commons. Science 302 (5652):1907–1912. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1091015

Hardin, G 1968. The tragedy of the commons, Science 162: 1243–1248.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.162.3859.1243

Iceri, V., & Lardon, S. 2018. L'organisation socio-spatiale, un commun pour le développement territorial. Le cas d'une communauté faxinal au Brésil. *Espaces et societes*, (4), 87-104.

Luginbühl Y. 2012. *La Mise en scène du monde. Construction du paysage européen*. Paris : Éditions du CNRS, 432 p.

https://doi.org/10.3917/esp.175.0087

Kebir, L., Nahrath, S., Wallet, F., 2018. Éditorial. Espaces et sociétés n° 175, 7-17.
https://doi.org/10.3917/esp.175.0007

Marsat, J. B., Montoloy, C. (2018). Carrying out both management of visitors and socio-economic development in a labelled protected area: the role of a Regional Nature Park (RNP). *9th International Conference on Monitoring and Management of Visitors in recreational and protected Areas (MMV)*, Aug 2018, Bordeaux, France. 12 p. https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02155291/

Michelin, Y., Montoloy, C. 2018. Why public policies face difficulties in protecting mountain pastoral landscapes: some lessons from the history of the volcanic landscape of the Chaîne des Puys/Limagne fault, France. *Landscape research*, 43(8), https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2018.1503238

Palm, C., Vosti, S. A., Sanchez, P. A., & Ericksen, P. J. (Eds.). 2005. *Slash-and-burn agriculture: the search for alternatives*. New York : Columbia University Press.

Polge E., Torre A. 2018. Territorial governance and multiple proximity. The case of public policy arrangements in Amazonia. *Papers in regional science* 97(4), 909-929. URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/pirs.12308

Polge E., Piraux M. 2017. Analyse des dynamiques d'interaction dans les dispositifs de gouvernance territoriale en Amazonie Brésilienne. Position et rôle des représentants clés. *Revue Canadienne de Science Régionale* 40(2), 175-184. URL: http://www.cjrs-rCSR.org/V40/cjrsrcsr40-2-09bPolgePiraux.pdf

Rodgers C.P. 2010. Reversing the 'Tragedy' of the Commons ? Sustainable management and the Commons Act 2006. The Modern Law Review 2010, 73(3), pp. 461–486.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.2010.00802.x

Rodgers C.P., Straughton E., Winchester A.J.L. and Pieraccini M. 2010. Contested Common Land: Environmental Governance Past and Present. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1093/jel/eqr026
Ween, G. B. 2012. World heritage and indigenous rights: Norwegian examples. *International Journal of Heritage Studies*, 18(3), 257-270. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2012.663779